My question about true crime series adaptations remains the same, what for? The performers were incredible, each one of them, with Jason Clarke at the head. It all seem quite honorable and as respectful as it can be, to depict real persons some of which are still alive with veils of animosity around them. As someone that decided to look up this case as I watched these series, everything seemed so uncanny—definitely embellished. Unfortunately, I'm neither the biggest consumer of true crime nor do I understand the end goal in making entertainment out of a murder. I keep trying to think of these adaptations as nonfiction novels of the events, but, I don't believe a novel has as much of a reach or an entertainment purpose. What struck me as bold for this particular case is –and this is acknowledging it's based on the podcasts– dedicating an entire episode to alledge something that can't possibly be confirmed, and vaguely retracting it, after dedicating so much time to the possibility of it. Makes me wonder what the point of that was, knowing the influence media has on public thought; maybe just a fleck of paint on the bigger picture that is the complex web of tensions that make this family. I think continuing to shed light on Stephen Smith's case is a good thing, I hope this inspires any sort of justice for him and his family.
