As the first episodes unfolded, I found myself enjoying, but somewhat ambivalently, the Menendez Brothers story. From the very start, there were a number of superb performances. Javier Bardem in particular was superb as the vile and monstrous father (at least in the earlier part of the telling; later different and somewhat more sympathetic aspects and a more nuanced view was given. Leslie Abramson is remarkably vivid although she at times comes across like a fictional character in some odd way. Is this the writing? Similarly with Nathan Land as an entertainingly camp Dominick Dunne...a sort of cut-price Truman Capote. His scenes with his ‘swans’ however, became increasingly mannered and therefore irritating as the series progressed
Episode 5 was exceptional both in terms of technique and content. The latter as it was a virtual monologue from Erik where he spoke of and (perhaps) began to come to terms with the abuse he suffered from his father that he then visited upon his brother and how he has always seen himself as 'the hurt man' who does not know who or what he is. It had almost tragic resonances and put him in a remarkably sympathetic light – assuming what he said was true. Technically the camera remained in one position for the duration of the 50-minute episode, being behind Abramson (who occasionally interjected encouraging questions) and moving in closer and closer until at the end of the episode we were in almost extreme close-up of Erik's face. Remarkable.
But as I reached the end of the series, the dramatic and emotional focus of the episodes was constantly changing and it was, (deliberately?)unclear who we believe or follow as we saw events, situations and relationships from different personal perspectives When initially watching this irritated me but on reflection I think it was an effective device, particularly with such a polarising trial and situation as this one. I can understand how meant to reflect differing opinions in the case but seemed clumsily done.