When “Don’t F*** with Cats” came out on Netflix on Dec. 18, it took the Internet by storm. It caught people off-guard. It freaked people out. The violent and graphic story of Luka Magnotta, a convicted, animal-torturing, fame-loving murderer was hailed by The Guardian as “2019’s darkest documentary.”
Graphic content aside, the release of “Don’t F*** with Cats” upset many viewers by merely existing. To many, to put the spotlight on Magnotta, who had committed his crime for notoriety, is to give him exactly what he wants and to dismiss his victim, Jun Lin. Just like “The Ted Bundy Tapes” and other true-crime documentaries before it, “Don’t F*** with Cats” is accused of making the murderer happy.
Which is a nonsensical point. First, it implies that “Don’t F*** with Cats” and other true crime documentaries were made to, amongst other functions, celebrate the killer, which, in the case of “Don’t F** with Cats,” it doesn’t. Even with the other-side-perspective from Magnotta’s mother, who vouched for his innocence, the documentary makes plenty clear how it viewed Magnotta: a deranged, manipulative, pathetic, delusional lunatic. Regarding documentaries in general, while tones of empathy and heroism depend on each individual process, their main point has always been to contextualize the evil on the news, explaining why and how it had happened. They are the medium through which we try to understand evil, because we have to understand evil to understand the world, and we have to understand the world in order survive in it.
Second, faulting a true crime documentary for supposedly bringing coveted fame to the murderer is irrelevant. Documentaries exist to tell a true tale to the public. They make sure that crimes won’t be forgotten. Imagine a society where even the most heinous acts are forgotten, and consequently, in the public consciousness, forgiven, after a mere two or three years. In the constant slipstreams of breaking news and shocking events, to not talk about something is to allow it to be forgotten; to steer the public awareness away from crime is to push the public into ignorance of it.
True crime is entertaining, sure, but it is also educational. Why should it be a problem that the murderers want their names to be brought to light? Their names should be brought to light. Their names should strike fear into the people. Their names should bring about awareness. It is what the public needs. The fact that it’s also what the murderer wants is irrelevant. Their wants and needs and frustrations, in light of their acts, should not matter to us any more. Their crimes, committed so violently upon society, should be used by society as cautionary tales. What matters is not that “Don’t F*** with Cats” makes Magnotta smile behind bars, it’s that Magnotta is behind bars, and that we, conscious and educated on the psychology of people like him, are better equipped to protect ourselves from those people.
That said, just like movies about seedy characters or historical villains, true crime documentaries do have a responsibility to the culture they’re participating in to portray their subjects accurately. A good rule of thumb (whose advisability directly correlates with the vileness of the crimes) would be to not romanticize. Don’t. Romanticize.
