Speaker 1: Have you guys seen that new movie on Netflix which
Speaker 1: is called Woman of the Hour with Anna Kendrick in it.
Speaker 2: I have. I've also listened to the Real podcast on it.
Speaker 1: Oh, if you guys haven't seen it, it's a it's
Speaker 1: a movie, but it's based on a true story and
Speaker 1: it's about a serial killer.
Speaker 3: In the States.
Speaker 1: Now, I mean, it's one of those movies that when
Speaker 1: you watch it, it just stays with you and then
Speaker 1: you're laying in bed at night thinking, oh God. But
Speaker 1: we were having a bit of a conversation around the
Speaker 1: ethics of true crime and how it's become such a
Speaker 1: hugely popular entertainment medium. And the reason for that is
Speaker 1: because when you think about it, there's so much money
Speaker 1: that's being made off the back of these real stories,
Speaker 1: like people's real trauma, people who have experienced horrific things,
Speaker 1: and then it's being repurposed and turned into entertainment. So now,
Speaker 1: Anna Kendrick, who's one of the lead stars in this movie,
Speaker 1: but she's also one of the directors of the movie
Speaker 1: as well, she came out recently just on Monday, and
Speaker 1: she was talking about how she has made absolutely no
Speaker 1: money off the back of it because it felt really
Speaker 1: lucky to her to keep any of the profits, and
Speaker 1: she's donated all of it to the National Center for
Speaker 1: Victims of Crime, And I guess it kind of like
Speaker 1: really raises this question of, like, should people be profiting
Speaker 1: from other people's very real, lived trauma. It's hard because
Speaker 1: people want to see these films and people want these
Speaker 1: stories to be told.
Speaker 3: And I understand why.
Speaker 2: If you go and look at any like podcast lists
Speaker 2: around the world, true crime is always number one. If
Speaker 2: you look at the number one Netflix hits and streaming hits,
Speaker 2: it's always like true crime based. People want to consume it,
Speaker 2: and ethics aren't black and white. But I think we
Speaker 2: need to find the happy medium of not purely profiting
Speaker 2: off somebody else's horrific story. But we also can't be
Speaker 2: doing what Anna has done this time, which is donate
Speaker 2: one hundred percent of the profits, because it takes a
Speaker 2: lot of people to make a film, like you're still
Speaker 2: employing people. But we need to find out what that
Speaker 2: happy medium is. I think there needs to be some
Speaker 2: consultation for the people involved and the victims involved or
Speaker 2: the victims families, and then there needs to be some
Speaker 2: remuneration for these people. Or these organizations, but I don't
Speaker 2: know what that's going to look like.
Speaker 4: She did, so I read into this, so she actually
Speaker 4: got consent. Obviously. In this movie, The Woman of the Hour,
Speaker 4: it's based around one woman in particular who's living in
Speaker 4: la wants to be an actress, and she's a real
Speaker 4: woman who escaped the hands of a serial killer. She exists.
Speaker 4: She asked if she could use her story in her name.
Speaker 4: She said yes, but she changed the spelling of her name.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. But the thing is it's so fascinating about this
Speaker 1: is it's not just her story, Like the woman who
Speaker 1: actually brought him to justice was a different person.
Speaker 3: Like there was so many people who were affected.
Speaker 1: And I guess like that's the big question, right is
Speaker 1: who owns the story? Who owns the story, and who
Speaker 1: should be profiting from that story? And we saw it
Speaker 1: with I mean, you guys might know Jeffrey Dahmer came
Speaker 1: out a couple of years ago.
Speaker 3: The Menendez Brothers is really big at the moment.
Speaker 1: Monsters, and you know, you have these people who some
Speaker 1: of them have done horrific things, but the victims who
Speaker 1: have experienced it are making no money from these stories.
Speaker 1: And I guess like, as our appetite is growing for
Speaker 1: true crime, so is the amount of money that can
Speaker 1: be made. And I kind of think it's almost like
Speaker 1: a bit of Chicken before the egg situation, where the
Speaker 1: legislation hasn't changed and there has to be some more
Speaker 1: rules that are brought in around who monit ties, what stories.
Speaker 4: It's ethics, isn't it. I mean, that's about it. If
Speaker 4: you had something that was horrific that happened in your life,
Speaker 4: the loss of a loved one, right, let's just say
Speaker 4: it's murder, and then you had to relive that on
Speaker 4: a podcast, or you knew that people millions of people
Speaker 4: were watching or viewing it, would it would really drive
Speaker 4: you insane and stop crushing.
Speaker 1: Also knowing that sometimes these movies and these podcasts come
Speaker 1: out without the person being consulted.
Speaker 4: And they sensationalized too, because they need to get views, right,
Speaker 4: They sometimes ham it up. They add a bit of
Speaker 4: extra drama. They get Kim Kardashi in playing a role,
Speaker 4: you know, so that would be sold on the wound.
Speaker 3: Yea Hollywood eyed it.
Speaker 2: That's the term I think people using like it's overly glamorized,
Speaker 2: but it's working, so no one is ever going to
Speaker 2: stop doing this.
Speaker 4: I think what Anna's doing is the right thing because
Speaker 4: then the argument is, well, it's also bringing exposure, it's
Speaker 4: helping people realize what happens if they're in this situation.
Speaker 4: I know it's ridiculous the serial killer, but you know,
Speaker 4: if you don't know, you don't know.
Speaker 1: Well. I think it sets a precedent for directors. I
Speaker 1: don't think it should be up to the actors to
Speaker 1: have to give up their entire salaries. But I do
Speaker 1: think that as a director, as the person who's putting
Speaker 1: together that production, that if you're making money off the
Speaker 1: back of somebody else's trauma, that there should be some
Speaker 1: sort of incentive or some sort of expectation that you're
Speaker 1: also giving back to the facilities and the programs that
Speaker 1: are helping to protect victims.
Speaker 2: But then you can't stop there and just say the
Speaker 2: actor is not up to the actors to do it,
Speaker 2: it's up to the director. The actor is also making
Speaker 2: money off telling that story. Well, maybe it's like a
Speaker 2: tax like if you're going to be in a.
Speaker 1: If you're going to be in a true crime story,
Speaker 1: then you get taxed on it and it goes back
Speaker 1: to the people.
Speaker 4: I think, Laurie, you're onto something. There should be legislation.
Speaker 4: That is, if you are using the true story of
Speaker 4: someone's life, they get a cut of profits, or get
Speaker 4: they get a certain amount up front.
Speaker 2: A relative percentage of profits that's standardized across the board
Speaker 2: for anything true crime that goes back to the family,
Speaker 2: the victims, or an organization.
Speaker 4: I agree that after one hundred years it goes into
Speaker 4: the public domain like Mickey Mouse, and we can all
Speaker 4: talk about it.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 1: I think it's fascinating anyway, Guys, got forever.
Speaker 4: Thanks for listening. Will and Wood are up next to
Speaker 4: drive you home. They're on Shark Tank tonight with their
Speaker 4: Survey Eat Girls, their invention.
Speaker 3: It's what's a pretty brilliant idea. Yeah, does it just
Speaker 3: taste like whatever it is that you've wiped off your face?
Speaker 4: No, I think it's a neutral flavor. Serveyett that you
Speaker 4: just eat after you die.
Speaker 3: That's great.
Speaker 2: Think of how little waste.
Speaker 4: We've got then, Yeah, but think of the bockage and
Speaker 4: the bowels. Well not if it's edible, Well, they'll have
Speaker 4: to tell us all about it.
Speaker 3: I can't waste.
Speaker 4: Plus for all your live election updates, obviously Carmel v. Trump.
Speaker 4: All that's still a couple. See tomorrow.