The cover of this movie says "Dahmer: The Cannibal". I knew nothing about Jeffrey Dahmer before watching this movie, and I didn't find anything in it weird. Now I have been reading things about his life, and I really think every *beep* thing is missing in this movie. Of course, the guys whom he killed and some facts about the asian guy almost being able to get away, yeah that's true. But for what I have been reading, his house smelled really bad, because he stored the corpses of his victims in there for several days. In the movie, the black guy spent a night in there and not once he complained about the smell. That's really strange to me, since he actually had at least one body lying in his bed in the bedroom at the time. Anyway, as I said in the beggining, in the cover there's this one thing: "Cannibal". So I assume he would eat his victims, right? There's not even one evidence of that in the movie. There's his first murder when he dismembers his victim but there's no evidence that he ate him?? (And actually, I've read that they both had sex before Dahmer killed him). And throughout the whole movie, no evidence of him being a cannibal. So is the movie protraying his life well or not really?
I think the film works better if you know who Dahmer was. The movie leaves a lot out of Dahmer's life because it doesn't try to tell his life story. It's a character study, not a documentation. Some details have understandably been changed, because they would've been too shocking for a main stream audience.
The title "Dahmer: The Cannibal" is technically correct, as Dahmer did experiment in that area, but it was not something he practiced often. I still think "Dahmer: The Serial Killer" or "Dahmer: The Necrophiliac" would have been more suitable titles.
Yes, Dahmer did store corpses at his house, and it is kinda strange that Rodney doesn't mention the smell. But neither did the police officers when they sent Konerak Sinthasomphone, the Asian, guy, back to Dahmer's place when it actually happened. As for Sinthasomphone, the movie does portray what happened pretty well, even though in real life, he was only 14, and when he escaped, he was naked, bleeding from the rectum and unable to communicate verbally.
The first victim, Steven Hicks, did not engage in sexual actions with Dahmer before his death, but after he was strangled, Dahmer masturbated on his corpse.
As for portraying Dahmer's life, the movie leaves out a lot. We don't get much background. But as a character study the movie works, provided that you're familiar with the person.
I've seen this movie some time ago now and since I didn't really enjoy it I don't recall it so good anymore. The one thing I know is that in the same week I watched this movie I watched Ted Bundy (2002) and Gacy (2003), which I think are the same kind of movies. And I remember those being a lot better and a lot more explicit and a lot more accurate, actually. I didn't need to read anything about Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy after watching those movies (but I did anyway). After watching Dahmer, I felt like I needed to read more about his life because a lot of stuff was missing.
Dahmer is a lot better than Ted Bundy and Gacy. What makes those films more accurate? They are more like cheap, sleazy exploitation films to me. This film tries to get inside the mind of Dahmer at least. It's a character study and a different type of film entirely. With that said, I would recommend checking out the movie "The Jeffrey Dahmer Files." That one is the most accurate to the real life story because it is more like a documentary. Although I think Dahmer 2002 is a better film overall, that one captures the whole feel of Milwaukee and the time period (early '90s) better.
I remember clearly testimony on Court TV about what he did. One bit of testimony concerned him cooking some arm muscle with a little salt and pepper and A-1 Sauce. That's always stuck so loudly in my mind.
Your mind, OK. David Jacobson wasn't trying to compete with Court TV.
He was far sicker than this film portrayed. His psychopathy was pervasive and deeply ingrained. He wasn't really fit for regular company.
Lots of people are loners. It's a waste of time to speculate why some cause harm and others don't unless you personally know a harmful person. All that matters about those who cause harm is they cause harm.
David Jacobson is a creative artist not a psychiatrist. We need more people like him instead of the reality footage that Court TV helped make popular. As Aaron Spelling said, a world with too much reality and not enough fantasy is a harsh world, indeed. The people who got obsessed with the Dahmer and Simpson trials, unless they had known the victims personally or testified under oath, steered pop culture in the wrong direction.
As you suggest, anyone can say anything, including making demeaning statements in a way that tends to denigrate what someone knows.
You are remiss. Your posting history indicates you never have reacted to another IMDb poster with the screen name Eric-62-2. If this person's posts over a period of years don't show symptoms of psychosis, then nothing does. If IMDb doesn't let you find his/her posts when you search the screen name, then you can find them via a bizarre rant that appeared within the last three days on the message board for The Americanization of Emily. I have reported it to the administration. It might still be there as you read this. It contains several veiled threats to harm me.
Part of the psychosis of Eric-62-2 is Christian evangelism. If you are an evangelical yourself, this would explain your longtime silence regarding Eric-62-2. Many people who have committed murder are evangelicals. I never have suspected that you are, but Eric-62-2 fits patterns that researchers have found in serial killers.
What I don't believe is that you have any sort of posting history at all in the six short days since you signed up.
If you can remember when you became an IMDb member way back when, then you might recall your first week as follows: a marathon. I am careful to back away from Eric-62-2 after just one hour. I have noticed the serial killer pattern during that short time, but the hundreds of saner posters have made me feel like a lifetime has passed since last week. I'm just sayin'.
trivialitys is wrong about hearing officers not making a distinction between certifying those who hurt themselves and those who hurt others. They damm sure do make it.
According to statistics, right now, or during the next 24 hours, someone is preparing to jump from the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. As sad as you might feel about that, would you prefer the person walk along the bridge to return to land, get hold of a gun and shoot you? No, you would rather the person jump without hitting anyone in the water. It is unlikely anyone is treading water in the Golden Gate strait in the direct path of a jumper. It can happen, but it's unlikely.
This simple analogy explains how hearing officers prioritize. Most children understand. They are frequent targets of those who hurt others. They are not targets of ex-child actors such as Mackenzie Phillips, Johnny Whitaker, etc.
Recently I emailed Whitaker using an email address he displays on his website. He sent back a friendly reply regarding acting classes he sometimes teaches. I believe I have nothing to worry about. Whitaker isn't going to harm a stranger. Were he inclined to do that, he would have done it many years ago during a period of his life when he used hard drugs including crack.
Anyone who disputes the fact that hearing officers prioritize cannot have any experience working with the criminally insane. If the person says he or she has that experience, it's a lie or exaggeration. Anyone can become a pen pal of someone who has been declared criminally insane. That might seem like something to add to a resume.
Trivialitys, you seem to be ignorant of the phrase "against medical advice." Later, I'll move on to your lack of empathy for parents of small children.
Institutions, such as California's Atascadero State Hospital, don't have to and often don't separate those who hurt others from those who hurt themselves. The more important issue is, which of the inmates have to be there and which can sign themselves out against medical advice? That is quite a difference. A lawyer can tell some of the inmates: "Don't like it here? If you don't, you can get out very soon."
Those who hurt only themselves can leave against medical advice, therefore they don't have to share bunk beds and toilets with mean inmates for very long.
If you are over the age of 18 and are placed under 24 or 48-hour observation at a hospital emergency room because you have hurt yourself, and only yourself, then you have a lot of control over how much longer you stay in the hospital. Maybe you have to stay for the entire 24 or 48 hours, but if the staff insists you be admitted to their psychiatric ward, or to another hospital, then you have a lot of control over that -- as I said, as long as you are over 18. You can go along with the longer confinement at first then change your mind a few days later.
Compare that to the dilemma of a first-time criminal offender who has been arrested for a misdemeanor such as public urination, which poses a small yet significant risk of hurting another person. You can free yourself from police custody by paying whatever your bail is, or a friend or loved one can free you, but if you eventually get a 30-day jail sentence, you have to go along with it. After the jail sentence starts, your lawyer isn't going to appeal such a short sentence, and you can't sign yourself out of the jail against medical advice.
That has to do with the fact that public urination can hurt someone other than yourself, such as a child who could see your genitalia. It's unlikely that a child could witness a stranger urinating publicly after sunset, but as long as it can happen, public urination causes worse consequences for offenders than does a "hurt yourself only" crime such as freaking out inside your home closet while under the influence of PCP.
If you have done something very destructive to yourself, as long as it was only to yourself, such as a closeted PCP user whose parents force him or her into an emergency room, you can sign yourself out of any hospital against medical advice. A 48-hour hold in an emergency room isn't very long. After it ends, then the optional confinement begins.
Yes, there is such thing as certification, a procedure that is administered by someone called a "hearing officer." But during the last 20 years, these hearing officers have lost a lot of their power as lawyers learn to poke holes in everything they say. Any competent lawyer can remind a hearing officer that his or her client never was arrested or sentenced by a judge, thereby making the hearing officer lose the "case."
So the staff at Atascadero can mix together inmates all they want, but the ability to leave the place against medical advice depends on what you did before you showed up there. Who got hurt or could have gotten hurt -- within reason? Only the offender?
Distinguishing between who has hurt only himself / herself and who has hurt another person has a lot to do with empathy for a victim or potential victim. If you are the parent of a small child, and you drive the child to a drugstore at night to buy something that stops the child's coughing or sneezing, would you rather that someone who lives next door to the drugstore pee in front of the drugstore or that he or she stay home using PCP? Any parent would prefer that that person choose the PCP option. It doesn't hurt the child. Urination near the door of the store does. So if you get caught urinating in public, you soon find yourself in a frightening situation where you can't leave against medical advice.
Jeffrey Dahmer hurt other people, and he hurt many of them before the Milwaukee police officer questioned him about the naked man who was hysterically running around outdoors at night very close to Dahmer's apartment. So why didn't the officer figure out that Dahmer was hurting the naked man, thereby giving the officer probable cause? Because Dahmer was an excellent liar. Those who hurt others tend to be better and more frequent liars than those who hurt only themselves.
When loved ones forcibly remove a PCP user from a home closet, the PCP user cannot sit calmly inside an emergency room, look a nurse or doctor in the eye and say simply, "No, I don't use narcotics." PCP makes that calmness impossible.
But if you pee in public, nothing in your brain can stop you from calmly lying about it later. Police can and will use surveaillance video against you. If no such video exists, and the police must choose between the word of a parent helping a sick child at a drugstore, and the word of someone who is loitering alone, then the parent's word can be almost as powerful as video. The possibility of that offender hurting a child is small but significant. During the 30-day jail sentence that said offender very possibly could serve, he or she could be forced to listen to mean inmates screaming like maniacs and making threats at 3:00 in the morning, every morning, and the calm offender, guilty of public urination, cannot leave against medical advice.
Oh, smell me. Your fantasy world includes some cockamamie bull about "the man who murdered my goddaughter who is serving life in prison."
That sounds like a combination of a lame Unsolved Mysteries segment and the movie Love and Death on Long Island, in which John Hurt's Giles character talks about his "godchild Abigail."
The people about whom I speak are dually-diagnosed MR/DD persons. They were committed to the facility through the court or by their legally determined guardians. They do not have the luxury to sign themselves out at all.
If you don't have time to explain what damage, if any, these people have done to others, as opposed to themselves, then your dropping of hints doesn't belong in a message board about Dahmer. That title reveals a lot within seconds.
In Love and Death on Long Island, the character of Audrey suspects that Giles, played by John Hurt, does not actally have a "godchild named Abigail" as he says he does. Audrey suspects he is fantasizing in order to enhance ... hmmm, what was it? ... a murder mystery screenplay that can help the career of her actor - boyfriend.
I owe a lot to Wikipedia. The article on the short story by Indiana resident Betty Patrick, also known as Wildhartlivie, led to my fascination with her story itself. The plot has her aunt slowly getting sick over the years because of exposure to chicken poop on an Indiana farm. Tee hee! Reminds me of the backstory of the American Gothic painting by Grant Wood.
Nobody needs to Google the names in the Goddaughter Murder Mystery by trivialitys. I can "IMDb it." I don't need to Google it. Right?
BTW I just love Twitter. Several times, strangers have retweeted my tweets. IMDb can't give me that.
My version of history? The role that the few people as deranged as Dahmer have played in "history" is debatable, so let's focus on the much more common causes of trouble: unhealthy lifestyles, heart attacks, veering from topic to topic to find the big picture, etc. Getting the big picture can be fun. Tee hee!
You never seem to pick on Eric-62-2, an IMDb regular who switches topics frequently within the same post. You can find him in recent threads on the boards for the movies Airport (1970) and Gojira (1954), also known as Godzilla. He is an evangelical Christian who rambles on about the bible. He also delineates forgotten show business gossip from decades ago, such as various phases of the mental deterioration of Dave Garroway, original host of NBC Today Show.
Eric-62-2 has been known to post some of his IMDb comments in the middle of the night. You, trivialitys, posted a reply here between 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning. But the medical profession and nursing profession say people shouldn't do such a thing at that hour. Most of those professionals also advise everyone against taking narcotics and FDA-approved medicine that make you stay awake all night. Even too much caffeine on an ongoing basis has been identified as dangerous by healthcare workers.
The connection between this message board and Jeffrey Dahmer allows folks to put these posts in perspective. Switching topics to get the big picture isn't in the same category as mass murder or cannibalism.
Prison psychiatrists spent a lot of time exploring Dahmer's past with him. Evidence indicates that while he was incarcerated, he reminisced with a fine-tooth comb as police detectives and then medical doctors listened closely. They wanted to know where some of the missing dead bodies were buried, and they wanted to find out the "why" behind the crimes, but the fact remains that the murderer got a lot of attention, and not just media attention.
Therefore, I have the right to visit IMDb message boards to seek out a virtual 1970s-style Esalen Institute group hug. It's OK to do that as long as I get enough sleep and avoid too many doses of narcotics and FDA-approved medicines. Habitual doses over a period of decades, in combination with chronic alcohol consumption, can cause heart disease and all that jazz. If you die from a heart attack, you haven't been murdered.