MINDHUNTER REVIEW: EPISODE ONE SEASON ONE
The opening scene of Mindhunter, episode one, is an important one. It draws attention to mental health and criminality, as well as highlights the running theme of male violence. We are introduced to Holden Ford, the character representing John Douglas, who is the FBI agent in charge of negotiating with the male offender holding a group of people hostage. Not only do we find out that this perpetrator had been dealing with mental health problems, but we also witness him commit suicide. Perhaps this scene was meant to demonstrate the nuance of these crimes. Yes, he was dealing with mental health, but he also waited until his wife was present to kill himself. This could speak to some male control issues that a riddled throughout the season.
In the scene that follows, Holden finishes lecturing a class at Quantico, and as the bell releases his class, he overhears a lecture about motive and how it's become elusive, and that people do awful things to strangers for no discernible reason. The lecturer brings up the Son of Sam, a man who shot women and their male counterparts in their cars in New York City. The lecturer declares that "the Son of Sam epitomizes now," to demonstrate that there is a new era of crime, where the facts are weird because motive is weird. “Just the facts ma'am” is a thing of the past. Holden takes this man to a bar where they discuss how politics and society have changed since WWII, and that there is value in asking questions about this topic in particular. We are presented with a research question: how does one study this?
Perhaps the answer is in sociology. There are people in academia who are asking the right questions. This is presented in Holden’s first meeting and conversation with Debbie about assumptions, and the audience could question whether assumptions are what holds the FBI back from understanding crime. This is posed when both Holden and Debbie say that the other does not seem like someone from the locations they both say they are from. Then, assumptions about other people are farther solidified through Holden’s comment about infiltrating the Black Panthers, and makes a gesture towards some Black people who Debbie explains are engineering students.
This discussion eventually leads these two to Durkheim: maybe society causes crime? This conversation is held while yelling over loud music. Debbie explains Labelling theory to Holden, and this demonstrates to the viewer just how much law enforcement lacks any understanding of crime from a sociological perspective. Holden, and by extension the FBI, views crime as an issue with society. This disconnect between law enforcement and academia is further highlighted when the FBI director Shepherd refers to psychology as being for a “backroom boy,” and frowned upon when Holden tries an exercise with his class. This is why Holden is permitted audit classes at the university: recruitment has done down and perhaps he could recruit academic thinkers to the FBI. This is not necessarily welcome by Shepherd, but he approves it nonetheless.
We see Holden audit one class, and the professor shows the theme of society or criminality with an interesting question: Are criminals born or made? This professor poses for the second time in this episode, whether criminality is a response to society or if a criminal is born evil. We see rather quickly the tension between law enforcement and academia, as Holden approaches the professor. We quickly see that contempt between law enforcement and academia is mutual, and this is solidified when Holden and Debbie have lunch.
Another interesting theme introduced in this scene, which runs throughout the first season, is the societal image that women lead men astray. Holden innocently says "I was told to watch out for women like you," to which Debbie responds rather bluntly, "you mean normal ones." Male attitudes towards woman are explored quite in depth in the season through the interviews with the serial killers, but that is ahead.
The movie Debbie and Holden watch is significant for setting up the themes of the show. They watch Dog Day Afternoon, an Oscar-winning movie from 1975 starring Al Pacino. This film deals with homosexuality and criminality, and people are seen leaving this film as our protagonist watches the scene where homosexuality and wanting a sex change are discussed. This leads Holden to question why sexual words and sex are an assumed basis for criminality.
Holden attempts to use the film to demonstrate how motive during a hostage situation can be complex, with his Hostage negotiation class. He attempts in this exercise to get his pupils to start a dialogue with the hostage taker, however, this quickly winds up demonstrating further law enforcement’s contempt and bias towards criminals, shown through the dialogue itself. Director Shepherd watches this closely, and although the exercise does not have the intended effect, we are introduced to Bill Tench of the Behavioral Science Unit.
Bill Tench, as we are introduced to him is a well-kept man. He was also present at the lecture about motive at the beginning of the episode. Most telling of Bill’s relevance to the show is his old school, country club comment. Although Bill himself has made a career in the FBI, this comment brings to light the disconnect between law enforcement and psychology. Tench extends an invitation to road school, offering to give Holden the chance to learn about psychology through a law enforcement perspective, rather than just going back to school. This is a significant career move for Holden, as this will allow him to explore the questions he has been asking, and to do so in a more relevant way.
Following this scene, we are shown a moment of male insecurity, where Holden questions Debbie about his performance in bed, and is upset when Debbie mocks him. This is significant as it is a theme that is riddled throughout MindHunter. The idea that men commit horrendous murders in the name of personal insecurity is especially centred around sex. This is expanded in later episodes.
Holden’s first day of road school illustrates to the audience the standard way the FBI instructs police departments. If you find the motive, it will lead to means, which in turn leads to opportunity. In other words, what, why, who. Tench, who was present in the Son of Sam lecture at the beginning of the episode, reiterates that motive is elusive in crimes today, which means that the model above is no longer always helpful. Instead, it could be more useful to figure out what happened and why it happened in the way it did, which will then lead to who. This approach emphasizes an understanding of what lead to the current circumstance, and this framework can account for changing motives, such as taking women’s underwear during a robbery. Human nature is changeable.
This scene shows the stiffness of law enforcement thinking, the stubbornness of the attitude of good and evil, and resistance towards understanding criminal psychology, as it requires the user to empathize. Psychology as a law enforcement tool goes against the grain, and this is highlighted for the audience when Holden describes the social experiment of one person facing the other direction on an elevator. People are comfortable with familiarity and sameness and are not always receptive to change.
The final society versus criminality example is given with Charles Manson as the descriptor. Holden posits the question to the group about institutions. Is it possible that institutions like the family, law enforcement, or prisons could create monsters? This harkens back to the discussion of Durkheim when we are first introduced to Debbie. The idea is that childhood trauma and institutions impact future crimes and perhaps both impacts the other in a vicious cycle. While Holden suggests that locking Manson up during his young life impacted his future, law enforcement, represented by one detective, holds fast to the idea that criminals are just criminals; they are like that and therefore they get placed in prison.
The episode ends with a current case that the FBI agents are given to consider. The detective who gives Holden a difficult time presents Bill and Holden with the Aida Jeffreys case and requests assistance. They go over her victimology, her religious family, her pregnancy, and how she was alone and not likely to be missed. Aida and her son were killed and not found for four days. They theorize a lust murderer who received a sexual release through killing Ms. Jeffreys, and that the crime was meticulously planned. The killer brought the tools to do so with him and left with them. There was limited DNA and limited forensic evidence. The crime itself left detectives wondering who the target was. The woman or boy? Did the location hold any symbolism as the bodies were found at a church? This is a practical example of what the entire episode questioned: the idea how motive is confusing and trying to understand how someone can do to Aida Jeffreys what was done to her, just out of sport.
The final scene solidifies the problem that ran throughout the episode. How can you solve crimes happening right now if you do not understand aberrant behaviour? You can study past cases all you want as an academic or law enforcement official, but what good is anything when you do not understand it? How do you study something when the person at the other end does not understand their own motive?
