The 12th Victim

I consider this so-called "documentary" to be nothing more than a "mockumentary" in that it is so biased towards the ridiculously named "12th Victim", namely Caril Ann Fugate, that it presents a wholly unbalanced view in attempting to persuade viewers that she was completely innocent of complicity in all the crimes of which she was convicted by a jury of her peers. Indeed, I would go so far as to suggest that the biased views put forward in this series are extremely dangerous in that they suggest that trials with convictions that took place so long ago where most, if not all, of the participants have passed away should be regarded as "unsafe" when "modern standards" are applied.

As "The 12th Victim" (2023 release; 4 episodes ranging from 47 to 57 min. Each) opens, we are introduced to teenagers Charles Starkweather (18) and Caril Ann Fugate (14), restless and outcasts in Lincoln , Nebraska. We then go to "December 1, 1957", when a gas attendant is shot at close range by Charles. It marks the beginning of a murder spree that shook Nebraska, and indeed the country. At this point we are 10 minutes into Episode 1.

Couple of comments: this is the latest from director Nicola Marsh ("Stay On Board: The Leo Baker Story"). Here she reassesses the events taking place in late 57/early 58, when two teenage kids when on a murder spree. Episode 1 of this mini-series is by far the best, as it paints a good picture of what US society was like at that time, and the enormous shock these events caused. The central question of course is: why did these kids do it? And what role exactly did Carile Ann play in this? In and of itself this could've been a very intriguing true crime documentary. Alas, the series is far too long for its own good and spends an inordinate amount of time on details that are just not all that interesting. Cut the running time in half, if not more, and we'd almost certainly be talking about a far better end product. This is a missed opportunity in my book.

"The 12th Victim" recently started streaming on Showtime. If you are a fan of true crime documentaries, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

Again I believe its noteworthy to point out that I can not remark upon the actual subject matter (other than it definitely being worthwhile of being told, in terms of human interest), but merely the mechanics and technical aspects of the film ITSELF - {which is wierd because this is only true in cases of documentary films}

Here is my biggest issue, and it's a big one - shortly into episode one, we hear 'the words' of Starkweather read to us as if its the man's voice and inflection and cadance and emphasis, HOWEVER it's not the voice of Starkweather at all, nay, it's a voice actor and that's not fair - that's not kosher - that's BAD BUSINESS - especially considering they never do tell the viewer that it's an audible recreation

Similarly, much of it is filmed in what I like to call 'Confuse-a-Vison', where they smash cut quickly between and thru still photos and images that are circa 1950s but have zero connection to the actual case - mere filler shown under the guise that the viewer might see this and feel that the film maker has all of this never before seen footage - however once again this is NOT the case

Now I'm not saying this is unacceptable, however at no time are we told about these recreations but rather left to either be cowed into believing that we're watching and listening to authentic relics of the case when simply we are not

That all being said, for me, it's a massive detractor.

If you think that a 14-year-old girl should have attempted to prevent a murdering madman from killing people, you should excuse yourself from the planet. Clearly she is not a murderer and was not in a position to prevent murders at the age of 14 with no one intervening on her behalf at any point with this monster.

The documentary was interesting and well made. I appreciated the clips that they included that put you in that time and place. I also appreciated that they narrated some interviews that they did not have original recordings for. Well I normally think a four-part documentary is too long, in this case I found it interesting to the end.

ABOUT MY REVIEWS:

I do not include a synopsis of the film/show -- you can get that anywhere and that does not constitute a meaningful review -- but rather my thoughts and feelings on the film that hopefully will be informative to you in deciding whether to invest 90-180 minutes of your life on it.

My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre" 6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings 10 - A classic. (Less than 2% receive this rating). For Lifetime Movies for Chicks (LMFC), drop the above scale by 3 notches. A 6 is excellent and 7 almost unattainable.

The fable of young outlaw lovers lives on - at least in Lincoln, Nebraska.

As the story is passed on, each new generation has to put its imprint on the chronicle.

From pulp fiction to celluloid and VHS, the folktale develops from murks of desperate, illicit underage sex filled rampage to the essence of digital #metoo era.

The law is as it is interpreted. Charles was lucky enough not to be made a political exhibit of and fried fairly promptly, while luckless Caril was discerned too young and innocent to get the chair and too wicked to let go free, interpretations varying from a fire breathing termagant to a scared little orphan Annie.

Somehow, I can't make connection between Charles and James Dean, he has more like the air of James Cagney in 1937 "Angels with Dirty Faces".

Oh yeah, the Establishment has got its pound of flesh, alright.