Whatever the appeal of true crime stories may be, Hollywood has certainly made it clear that they see this as a viable form of business, considering how many works based on various criminals have been produced in the past. Audiences tend to respond very favourably to these stories, since there is a sense that many enjoy the process of exploring the sordid psychological aspects of these stories, some even referring to them as cathartic and relieving of stress. As questionable as this approach may be, it is something onto which the industry has latched, and not even recently – we’ve been seeing these stories for decades, and they’ve always been popular to quite an alarming extent. However, there is one film that may not cross the boundaries of decency like some of the more grotesque entries into the genre (which are normally violent and exploitative to the point of crossing the threshold of being insightful glimpses into the mind of a killer, and instead become despicable and excessive), but which still offers us one of the bleaker depictions of criminal psychology. The film is Killer: A Journal of Murder, which is based on the memoirs written by Carl Panzram, a notorious criminal whose reign of terror occurred throughout the first quarter of the 20th century, where he claimed to have taken part in several murders (both individual and spree killings), as well as sexual violence and theft, which made him one of the most violent criminals in American history. Undeniably, his story is not an easy one to tell, especially when we’re looking at a film that is based on someone whose entire existence was centred on committing heinous acts of murder, just for the sake of doing it. Killer: A Journal of Murder is a dark, harrowing character study with strong performances and a clear idea of what it wanted to say, and while it may pale in comparison to more notable crime stories, it is a solid effort that offers us the insightful thrills we crave, albeit in a very conventional form.

Don’t let the unimpressive and conventional title fool you: Killer: A Journal of Murder is extraordinarily disturbing in many ways, which is primarily due to the fact that it was never written to be published in the first place. Instead, it was a stream-of-consciousness text in which Panzram simply relayed his memories from over twenty years of criminal activity, describing in vivid detail his exploits, outlining his motivations and admitting to crimes for which he wasn’t even convicted, revealing that he was far more dangerous than anyone expected. It also contained elements of his suicidal feelings, his sense of self-destructive urges that caused him to reject all attempts appealing his sentence or being offered clemency while he was on death row – this is a man who wanted to die, and as the character says in the film “you made me, so now you have to kill me”, which is a sentiment that is made even more chilling when you realize many of these thoughts are coming directly from the killer himself, rather than being the subject of editorializing (especially since the original book was quickly cobbled together and released during a way of sensationalistic true crime stories, seemingly driven by the adage of “anything goes”), which somehow gives it a more jagged edge. The film version of this story does soften the details considerably, and has the burden of finding a specific avenue in which it can explore the character without condoning his actions or humanising him in any way that plays on our sympathy. The result is a film that may have its flaws (and it certainly isn’t all that good if we consider it from a distance), but it does have its moments of poignancy, which are inarguably few and far between, but still exist, with director NAME doing as much as he could to tell this story in a way that felt both authentic and accessible, which is a much bigger challenge than many may be willing to acknowledge.

However, this does ultimately point us to the biggest flaw of this film, which is that it lacks perspective. Understandably, the approach was to look at Panzram’s life through the perspective of the moral, principled prison guard who made the effort to befriend the notorious killer (the first of many moments in which this film shoehorns a message about tolerance and kindness into a film that didn’t need it, but which was reasonable, since it was probably the only way it could’ve been made without any major controversy), and being the only person who seemingly showed him any compassion, something that was apparently missing from his life, and the driving force behind his descent into madness and psychopathic behaviour. The problem this film has is that it ultimately tries too hard to employ elements of psychological analysis, which was wildly appropriate and perhaps even slightly misguided, since this is not a film that warranted such a perspective – it’s the story of a notorious serial killer, and while it was made at a time when biographical films needed to contain some degree of compassion, there was very little reason to try and understand what drives someone to the point where they actively seek out the opportunity to take the lives of other people. It also doesn’t help that the film doesn’t actually offer any insights into his psychological state (despite making it seem like it did), so in essence, what we have are a few lengthy sequences where we see someone develop into a state of complete delusion, without any solid reason – and yet it still dares to attempt to make us pity this poor man, viewing his decision to not appeal his death sentence and instead embrace the consequences of his actions as some valiant act, when in reality it is the bare minimum someone who has devoted their life to causing harm should be expected to do. There is something profoundly odd about Killer: A Journal of Murder that doesn’t sit well, and it ultimately does detract from some of the more promising aspects.

To its credit, Killer: A Journal of Murder does cast the role of Panzram very well, in the form of James Woods. This is not a derision of his personal life (since he has appropriately been labelled as persona non grata in recent years due to his antics), but rather the fact that the flourished when it came to playing villains, always infusing them with a sense of complexity that wasn’t necessarily drawn from a place of compassion, but rather active interest in finding out the root of what made these characters engage in such sordid, depraved behaviour. There’s an unsettling honesty to his performance that doesn’t feel all that comforting, almost as if he was putting too much work into developing this character and portraying his deep psychosis. This is just a testament to Woods’ abilities, since he is genuinely very good in the role, and perhaps deserved a better film, since he clearly had something valuable to show with this performance, but it was unfortunately impeded by a film that doesn’t quite know what to do with the character. He is paired with Robert Sean Leonard, whose most significant cultural cachet was being one of the premier leading men of the 1990s, but who has inexplicably faded into near-obscurity, failing to attain even an iota of the promise of some of his contemporaries, despite being just as talented. His performance in Killer: A Journal of Murder may not be the best case for him as a versatile actor, but he does play it very well, almost to the point where we are actively rooting for the character more than we are interested in seeing where the story moves. He is a construction made for the film, and mainly serves as an audience surrogate – this isn’t a bad approach at all, but it is one that needed an actor capable of handling the material without distracting from it; Leonard’s tenderness and fondness for drawing attention to his own inherent quirks were perhaps not the right approach. A more concise relationship between the two leads may have allowed this film to be received slightly better and achieve its goals with a lot more consistency.

As far as true crime stories go, Killer: A Journal of Murder is not anything particularly special. It adheres so closely to the general tenets of the genre that it never feels like it is challenging or being particularly engaging at all, which is perhaps not the kind of experience that any of us wants to have with a film that is already navigating such tricky narrative territory. There are some promising ideas, but the constraints inflicted on the film keep it from turning them into meaningful details. The performances are good, but they can only be as strong as the film that surrounds them, and it honestly feels like this isn’t doing any of its characters justice, both because it struggles to figure out how to portray the main character, struggling to find nuance in a psychopathic killer (especially since it could have just dedicated that effort to showing his psychological state, more than it did trying to humanize him), as well as filtering the entire story through the perspective of a milquetoast protagonist who exists solely to be the audience surrogate. There are many parts of Killer: A Journal of Murder in which we feel like we are being offered something interesting, only to have it taken away. However, despite its limitations, it does effectively explore the true story on which the film is based, focusing on a specific moment in American history, and showing the development of the main character as more than just a product of its time. It has its moments of promise, and if we look hard enough, we may discover that Killer: A Journal of Murder is a marginally successful film, and one that does warrant our attention, just with a few reservations.