I'll Be Gone in the Dark

Disappointing. The last person I want to see in a serial killer crime documentary is Patton Oswald. Lol.

Sorry for the passing of McNamara but should've focused more on the crimes, the victims and the perpetrator. Stopped in the first episode.

As others have noted, this series is as much about Michelle McNamara as it is about the California rapes and murders. McNamara's story --- a sad but unremarkable descent into obsession and addiction --- is simply not interesting enough to justify the extended treatment it gets. The series is on surer footing when its focus shifts to the crimes and, in particular, to the victims of those crimes.

This is simply excellent documentary filmmaking. I'm very familiar with the EAR/ONS (Golden Stare Killer) case having studied it on my own for many years. Of course, I'm ecstatic with the arrest of a suspect (leaving name out since he's not convicted) as I'm sure Michelle would be too. The first episode really hit home because I know what it's like to spend hour after hour day after day obsessed with amateur detective work. You sometimes wonder if you're having any impact at all and are often mocked for trying to shed light into places where it's never landed before. Michelle's work proved that amateur slueuthing can make a difference in subtle and important ways. Would the case have been solved without her contributions? Maybe, even probably, but that's not really the point. Her work demonstrates that the victims in these terrible crimes do matter, no matter how long the cases remain unsolved. The victims matter to her and to all of those who strive to solve these mysteries, and it's that fact that keeps amateur detectives motivated to the point of obsession and NOT some morbid fascination with human tragedy. I said all of the above because I feel the filmmakers have done an excellent job capturing the real motivations for people like Michelle McNamara and all other armchair detectives. Since the subject matter is both the Golden State Killer case and Michelle McNamara's obsession with it, it's much more nuanced than a more traditional true-crime documentary where the subjects are generally comprised of police officers, the subject of their investigation, and, on occasion, surviving victims and family members. 'I'll Be Gone in the Dark' functions on all of those levels too but also goes deeper by using a non-traditional protagonist. The filmmakers deserve kudos for utilizing this unique angle, and in the first episode they've done an excellent job of setting up the the characters and the conflict of the documentary. If the remaining episodes are on par with the first, this documentary series will easily score an 8/10. (Note: I am not affiliated with the filmmakers, Michelle McNamara, or her estate in any way. The above review reflects my unbiased opinion of this documentary. Rest in peace Michelle.)

While I don't share the frustration of those who expected a documentary focused primarily on the Golden State Killer, I do think "I'll Be Gone in the Dark" has problems, despite the many strengths of the series. Liz Garbus is an exceptionally talented filmmaker who has directed several superior documentaries. This is not her best work.

Michelle McNamara is the lead story. As the episodes accumulate it becomes increasingly clear that while smart, passionate and dedicated, she is not especially interesting. We learn about her family, upbringing, blogging, fact gathering, obsession, and drug abuse. Great care is taken not to judge her or question the decisions that led to her death.

Her husband comes across as a well-intentioned enabler, woefully out of touch with changes in McNamara's health. Viewers are left to wonder how much child rearing was left to a nanny we never meet. When McNamara's sister shares that she ordered a full toxicology, which revealed fentanyl from black market drugs, the implications are left hanging.

We never learn what shape the incomplete draft of the book was in, or the extent of the revisions and additions. Much more interesting are the interviews with survivors of the GSK. The honest reflections and painful revelations say more about the vast harm done by the murderer/rapist than anything we learn about McNamara. They were brave to share. Their stories are chilling. They live with pain that never really goes away.

McNamara did not solve the case. In some ways, she became another victim of the GSK. The film casts her in as favorable a light as is possible, yet the real heroes are the dedicated law enforcement officers (some retired), and the courageous survivors. The advancement of DNA testing, along with a growing database, was essential to bringing long delayed justice to become a reality. There were many victims of the GSK. The brave survivors are the true heart of the series. Tragically, McNamara was a victim of her own making.

The first episode just aired yesterday, so obviously my review isn't my final, overall opinion. I just wanted to address the reviews that gave the first episode low marks. It seems as though the reviewers don't realize that this is a documentary series in 6 parts. There's more to it than just the first episode, therefore, the entire story is not going to be told in the first 60 minutes.

I don't think it was disjointed, as others have said; I think it does a good job of laying the groundwork for the rest of the series to build on. And yes, there is a focus on Michelle McNamara, the author of the book. The full title of the book is "I'll Be Gone in the Dark: One Woman's Obsessive Search for the Golden State Killer," that indicates that some of the documentary is going to be about her search, along with the EAR/ONS's crimes.

I read the book recently and I'm excited to see how this series unfolds, partly because there will be interviews with people who were involved with the original investigation, along with interviews of victims as well. Ms. McNamara interviewed people for the book, but to be able to hear it directly from them should be interesting. I just hate that I can't binge-watch it all at once!