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