Monsters: Ryan Murphy Discusses the Controversy Surrounding the Series

Co-created by Murphy and Ian Brennan, the series stars Javier Bardem as José Menendez, Chloë Sevigny as Mary Louise “Kitty” Menendez, Cooper Koch as Erik Menendez, and Nicholas Alexander Chavez as Lyle Menendez. Nine episodes chronicle the case of the real-life brothers who were convicted in 1996 for the murders of their parents, José and Kitty Menendez. While the prosecution argued they were seeking to inherit their family fortune, the brothers claimed — and remain adamant to this day, as they serve life sentences without the possibility of parole — that their actions stemmed out of fear from a lifetime of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse at the hands of their parents.

Following the release of the show, the Menendez family released a statement speaking out against the series. Headlines swirling around the show have highlighted heated debates about culpability versus victimization of the brothers, as the story reaches new generations, as well as those who were alive for the trial and remember how it played out. 

“It’s tackling very difficult subjects and I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with that,” Murphy tells Tudum. “They look at anything that dares to talk about something, and they get confused as to whether [the series] is condoning and it’s not. It’s merely asking the question. This season really holds a mirror up to people and to society, and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable — I think it’s good that they’re uncomfortable.”

Murphy believes that there’s a misconception that Monsters is taking one concrete position. In fact, there are as many perspectives within the series as there are characters. “The show has a Rashomon approach where it talks about countless perspectives, and a perspective is not a lie. A perspective is an opinion, and the show has an obligation to all of those opinions, including the parents, including the lawyers … on and on and on,” he says. “So I feel excited that the world is talking about these brothers and what they went through.”

Read on for Murphy’s take on the controversy around Monsters, overblown headlines, and an appearance by Kim Kardashian.

Tudum: It’s been a week since launch. Tell us where your head’s at, and your reflections since the show debuted.

Ryan Murphy: I always love doing the show. I loved [Season 1, DAHMER — Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story.] I love this season. I think it’s fascinating to write about this topic, which is essentially asking the question, “Are monsters made, or are they born?”

This season is particularly interesting because the subjects are still alive. They’re incarcerated. They have big points of view, and I think this show is launching a lot of conversation about sexual abuse. It’s asking a lot of cultural questions — which I like. Like every season of Monster, it’s brought its share of controversy, but that’s to be expected.

What are your thoughts on the statement released by the Menendez family?

I think it’s a lot of faux outrage. I think that this show is the best thing that has happened to the Menendez brothers in 30 years in prison. They have said as much. They’ve told lawyers as much. I think it’s very difficult to have your lives splashed all over the world, but I think that [the show is] doing a really wonderful job of having people talk about their case, talk about their innocence or their guilt, talk about [whether they] should have another trial, should they be freed?

It’s informed an entire generation about that case and launched millions of conversations about sexual abuse. The show doesn’t shy away from any of these topics. It brings with it a fair share of controversy, but also, I don’t think [the brothers] have seen it, from what I understand. And I think that the actors, Nicholas [Alexander Chavez] and Cooper [Koch], do such a wonderful job with a very difficult subject, really layering in points of view and presentation. I don’t think [the Menendez brothers’] relatives understand what the show is about.

More than that, I think that male sexual abuse is something that’s really not been talked about a lot in our culture, certainly not then when these trials happened, and certainly not even now, but I think people are talking about that and I find that to be gratifying and good.

What do you think about the general flavor of the headlines that the show has been getting?

As an artist, I’m somebody who’s always, even when I’m not trying to, I guess, drawn to provocative things. In the case of Monsters, it is, by its nature, controversial. It’s tackling very difficult subjects, and I think a lot of people are uncomfortable with that. And [when] they look at anything that dares to talk about something, they get confused as if it’s condoning [it] and it’s not. It’s merely asking the question. And I think this show last season and this season really holds a mirror up to people and to society, and it makes a lot of people uncomfortable. I think it’s good that they’re uncomfortable.

And I say, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one. So I’m just used to it. I’ve been writing and directing and creating provocative things for 22 years now. It’s always been this case with my career. I guess I’m just drawn to trying to understand darkness, which I think both attracts and upsets people.

It’s still early days in the series’ life, but is there an aspect that isn’t really being talked about that you wish were spotlighted more?

Yes. I’m sort of shocked that when people watch that last episode, more people are not writing about how much prejudice was involved in that trial. The thing that I was amazed at when we wrote it and filmed it, is how homophobic those jurors were in both trials, particularly the second trial — how they could not, at that point in time in the mid-’90s, wrap their heads around the idea that men or male figures could also be sexually abused, or if they were, that they were somehow complicit. I don’t think nearly enough people have talked about that. And we presented it as just the cold, hard facts. That second trial in particular, I thought, was so biased, so [the defense] wasn’t allowed to submit many of their theories about sexual abuse and what happened to [the brothers].

I thought more people would understand that we were advocating for this to be a topic that should be discussed, but I guess people are not. But that’s something that I was surprised about.

I also think that there’s been some misunderstanding. For example, there’s an incestuous part of the show, but it’s so tiny. It maybe is less than 1% of the show, but people have glommed onto that as if we’re presenting it as fact. No, we’re not. We’re presenting it as a theory, one of many theories that exist about this case. So we’re not advocating for anything. We’re merely presenting things that were discussed then, and now. I wish people could understand that a little bit better.

And that’s a perspective, specifically coming from one character, Dominick Dunne [played by Nathan Lane] that the series is presenting.

Yes. A very dated perspective based on the fact that he was an older man in the ’90s and was a closeted bisexual. So his bias was, I believe, dealt with in a very transparent way [in the show], as well as why he would also be considered a victim of his time.

Aside from the controversy, you take risks in the season from a filmmaking perspective, including Episode 5, which is one long shot with no cuts.

It was really interesting because Ian and I were working on that episode, and he did such a brilliant job writing it. The goal of that episode was to basically give Erik Menendez his day in court, to talk about what had happened to him uninterrupted, with no bias.

And so when I hear them, in The Menendez Brothers, say it’s not fair, it’s biased, I’m like, “Really? I don’t think you have had any better day in court than that episode that has been seen by hundreds of millions of people all over the world at this point.” So I’m proud of it. That episode has obviously launched a lot of conversations, and I’ve had people who have watched it call me the next morning crying and saying, “I was sexually abused, and I had not dealt with it until I watched that episode.”

Every generation, including people who were not born during the trial, has strong opinions about the case and the show. Why do you think it is striking such a nerve with every group, every age?

Well, it’s interesting for my generation — we remember it. We lived through it. I moved to LA as a very young person in 1989, so three months after I got here, the murders occurred. So it was very much present everywhere.

I think people are looking for outlets, ways to talk about [sexual abuse]. And this show kind of provides that and is cathartic, in a way, from what I’ve heard. I’ve talked to a lot of people who watched it, and it made them look at their own sexual abuse that they hadn’t thought about or wanted to discuss.

Also, it was just a fascinating case. There were four people involved. Two of them are dead, so only God and those four people know what really went on. And I think the unknowable aspect of it is interesting and provocative, trying to get to the bottom of it. We found, even in the writing, you never can get to the bottom of it — because there’s always a perspective you’re missing, because two people are gone.

Are these conversations that you had on set during production with the actors? Particularly Koch and Chavez, in terms of encouraging them to think deeply and bring their own perspectives on the issues that are raised in the series?

Yeah. Honestly, when we first started talking about promoting the show and what we were going to talk about, I think our company line was, “Well, let’s let the work speak for itself. Let’s not rush into it with too many of our own opinions.” But I think now that the brothers and the family have spoken out, we get to speak out, too. And as I’ve told everybody in the cast — and everybody has an interesting opinion about whether [they think] they’re guilty, whether they’re innocent, whether they should be freed, whether they should get a new trial — and I’ve encouraged them to speak their minds and say what they think, because that’s a part of the conversation, and they’re entitled to do that. I think the more conversation had about these topics, the better. I don’t actually even think that it’s possible to have a nuanced conversation about this topic — it’s very emotional for people, and people go into it with a very strong set of opinions, so my philosophy is, let them.

Even an actor you’ve worked with — someone who’s not in this show, Kim Kardashian — has been weighing in on the conversation. She recently joined Koch in visiting the brothers in prison. Thoughts?

Well, I love Kim, and I’m close to Kim. I’m getting ready to direct Kim in a show, so I’m going to be with her every day for months. I think Kim has really done God’s work, I really do. Kim is an amazing person, and she is a great activist for prison reform and prisoners’ rights. Kim Kardashian, as I do, believes that everybody deserves a second chance. I don’t believe that anybody should spend their entire life in prison. I just don’t believe that, and the Menendez case is a perfect example of that. I think, if there is more evidence, and if there is a different perspective that the lawyers of the [brothers] have, I believe that that should be heard. I believe that a lot has changed since the mid-’90s when this case was tried, and I think people understand this topic a lot more and have the bandwidth and the education.

Kim went to prison to talk to a group of prisoners, as she does almost every week, and the Menendez brothers were there, and she got to meet them, along with many, many other people. Having Kim in your corner, no matter who you are in any walk of life, is a very good thing, because she’s intelligent, she’s passionate, she cares, she does the work. She reads about [abolition and the rights of incarcerated people] more than anybody I’ve ever met, and I applaud her. I applaud the work that she does. I’ve talked to her about this case. She has very interesting opinions, and I support her.

Knowing the subject matter and the guaranteed controversy, can you talk about your decision to go ahead with this story?

I only write things or direct things that I’m interested in exploring, sometimes to figure things out for myself. So it’s personal to me, what I make. It took me a long time to land on this second season, just like it took me a long time to land on Ed Gein [for the third installment of Monster]. What am I trying to say? What do I have to contribute? These shows are much deeper than they look on the surface. I don’t think they’re exploitation — I think they’re talking about profound things in our culture that people are very, very uncomfortable [talking] about. And based on how big of a hit the Menendez show is and how big of a hit DAHMER was, people want an outlet for that. The proof is in the pudding. The amount — the millions of people who watch — is proof that people want to talk about this stuff, and they want to examine it, and they want to have conversations about it. So that’s all I can do as an artist is be personal with my intent.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Stream Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story now.