The Dirty John Betty Broderick Story is a gaslighting experience

Minutes after "The Dirty John Betty Broderick Story" begins, the main character, played by Amanda Peet, utters seven words that will define the arc of the eight-episode show.

These words not only summarize the "he said, she said" nature of the show's plot, but also more deeply describe Betty and Dan Broderick as a couple. The couple, whose wealthy, picturesque Southern California life and eventual divorce turned nasty and ended in a double murder (opens in new tab), made headlines in the late 80s and even Oprah took notice. At the time, Betty was portrayed as a scorned housewife. But more than 30 years after the real-life incident that inspired the second season of USA Network's Dirty John, show creator Alexandra Cunningham seeks to reexamine Betty's story through contemporary perceptions of mental health and emotional abuse She is doing so. It is no longer "he said, she said," but "he said this, she said that."

"I have seen and read many takes on Betty at this point, and for the most part, they all present her in the same way: she was hysterical, crazy, evil, unreasonably jealous, hateful, and an emotional extremist," Cunningham told Marie Claire. And I focused on the "what" happened, not the psychology of "why." But I don't believe hatred and jealousy are created in a vacuum. To call someone "evil" is to assume that their behavior is "inexplicable." I don't think that is ever true. It is difficult to find that explanation, and [it] can be painful and frightening. I am not saying that Betty should not have been convicted, but to not talk about why this happened is to guarantee that no one is going to learn anything from it."

The program offers one clear explanation for Betty's behavior: she was gassed. Cunningham is strongly committed to that narrative, and the entire episode is framed by a psychologist's thorough definition of this type of psychological manipulation. Now that the term has permeated everyday conversation (thanks in part to Donald Trump), it will seem pedantic to a 2020 audience. But as Cunningham explains, at the time Betty was put on trial, the term was a foreign concept.

"There was no discussion or discourse [at the time] that one side of a relationship could influence the other's behavioral psychological autonomy by isolating them, calling them 'crazy,' limiting their access to money, or making them feel they were losing their status or identity in society. was not [at the time]," Cunningham says. There was no recognition [at the time] of how often women with legitimate grievances were undermined or excluded by being called 'angry. It is still a weapon today. But we are calling it out now."

At times, Cunningham's reference becomes forceful. If you can't get the psychologist's definition of a trial out of your head, just wait for the mid-season scene where Betty literally sets fire to her husband's belongings as the psychologist narrates what can happen to a gaslighting victim. But the show also uses subtle camerawork and intimate moments to demonstrate psychological trauma, making viewers feel as exhausted and alienated by Dan's behavior as Betty does.

Overt or not, the effect is the same. Viewers will be confused as to who the real villain of the show is, who is or is not crazy, who is right or wrong. After all, Cunningham's own filmmaking may be the strongest example of gaslighting she presents.

Cunningham admits that she felt great sympathy for Betty "right up to the moment she walked into the bedroom while Dan and Linda Broderick were sleeping. She says, "I lose my sympathy when she actively chooses to kill, whether due to mental illness or any other factor. 0]

Perhaps Cunningham can sympathize with Betty because she has been fascinated by the Broderick family for decades. As a teenager, she explains, she first learned of their tragic story and found it "obscene" and "delightful." But as she reread the story over the years, she realized that she had become a stand-in for Betty.

"It was something I understood on a deep psychological level. It's the shock of being betrayed and losing faith in someone who knows you better than anyone else," she explains.

"And everyone will tell you to move on. But could you do that if you were consumed by so much anger? I don't know. Sometimes I get incredibly angry, and I'm worried about what I'm going to do with all this anger. Obviously Betty asked herself the same question and we all know what the answer was. I have lost the same thing that Betty lost."

Cunningham was familiar with Betty Broderick's tabloid story, but Amanda Peet, the star of the show, only learned of the saga after being read the script for the show. Actress Amanda Peet told Marie Claire magazine that she was drawn to the character because Cunningham was able to represent "complex" situations and show "all sides of Betty, even before the murders occurred."

Cunningham's character was also a "very good actress" and "a very good actor.

"Cunningham was very interested in seeing how Betty grew up in the social mores of the 50s," Pete says. 'I think she was very isolated in a strange way, even if she did have a community. She didn't know how to ask for help. She was mentally ill and didn't have any resources.

The actress reveals that she has seen several interviews with Betty from prison. However, because she and Cunningham were focused on creating a complete "psychological portrait" of Betty "not an imitation of an actual woman," Pete did not think to contact Broderick (who was twice denied parole and is still in prison (open in new tab)). Instead, they relied on more than 6,000 pages of court records to paint that portrait.

"I wanted to tell the story she had constructed herself about what happened to her marriage . And about what fairness means. Because that story is why she became a murderer," says Cunningham.

"And I don't think Betty thirty years later is any better equipped to understand that than Betty was then, and I don't think she wants to understand it.

They have achieved a multifaceted Betty. On the show, Pete is funny, wild, unhinged, smart, surprised, hurt, and uncomfortable. He anchors the slow episodes of the first few episodes, giving emotion to the boring legal jargon. Pete also doesn't shy away from the sadistic and cruel scenes that require him to act sadistic and cruel, giving viewers moments that make them strongly question being on Team Betty.

"The audience is likely to experience multiple moments of both anger and sympathy for Betty. [It was important to me that Alexandra not vilify Dan Broderick and not be interested in glorifying Betty."

Despite their good intentions, Dan feels slandered. Perhaps that is because Christian Slater, who plays Daniel Broderick, brilliantly embodies the villain's sudden transformation from doting husband to vindictive adulterer. (The same goes for Chris Mason, who plays young Dan. On the other hand, Tierra Scobbye, who plays the young Betty, is unimpressive, not unlike Pete.) And Rachel Keller as Linda Korkena (opens in new tab), Dan's receptionist-turned-assistant-turned-later-wife, is clichéd, boring, and often unlikable. (Colorful, tacky '80s fashions and a suburban country club enliven a few episodes, but not enough to carry the entire season. )

In other words, this series is really Betty Broderick's story. She keeps saying it's her story, and the audience should have known it from the beginning.

For more stories like this, including celebrity news, beauty and fashion advice, savvy political commentary, and fascinating features, sign up for the Marie Claire newsletter.

Click here to register (opens in new tab)

.