The Greatest Evil

In fiction, determining guilt is like trying to understand Mr. Arcand’s fashion sense: it just doesn’t work. “The question [of Making a Murderer] is not one of guilt or innocence--it’s one of prosecutorial conduct and horrible mistreatment of the abused,” agrees Todd VanDerWerff in the article “Netflix’s Making a Murderer: why everybody missed the point." Though VanDerWerff claims that Making a Murderer’s meaning is erased through moral labels, his sentiments also apply to Macbeth.

As VanDerWerff states, Making a Murderer suffers from black-and-white views of guilt. This simplification happens in the view of its central character, Steven Avery, who was imprisoned for murdering Teresa Halbach in 2007. Despite the show’s emphasis on problems in the United States’ justice system, discussion about Making a Murderer is rarely about justice: it’s about culpability. “Making a Murderer,” states VanDerWerff, “wanted to be one thing, but ended up… mostly being about whether Avery deserves to be in prison." Though guilt is a major part of shows like Making a Murderer, it also means that subtleties--the way justice can be skewed by class, prejudice, or past convictions--fall to the background. It’s a view that clarifies and obscures: viewers see a show concerned on guilt and innocence while ignoring larger problems within the justice system.

This obscurity through oversimplification is also seen in Macbeth. Because the play is about rising to power through murder, it’s generally taken as a story of good and evil. Like Making a Murderer, though, interpreting Macbeth as tale of culpability detracts from the point: we can’t assign labels of morality. The haziness of morality is seen repeatedly throughout the play: Lady Macbeth, initially portrayed as the cruel puppet-master of King Duncan’s death, is so haunted by her actions that she later kills herself. Though she’s usually seen as the crazy wife of the play--supported by statements like “Look like the innocent flower / but be the serpent under’t” (I.v.62-63) and her insanity after Duncan’s death--her guilt shows the opposite. Instead of being good or bad, Lady Macbeth’s actions represent a shifting moral compass: first someone willing to kill for power, and then a person horrified by those crimes. Labelling that mindset as good or evil isn’t possible.

In addition to forcing Avery and Lady Macbeth into simple--and inaccurate--labels of guilt, Macbeth suffers from a moral simplification of its title character. Just as Lady Macbeth is the crazy wife, Macbeth is often seen as the berserker of the play. At first glance, the title makes sense: even before committing his first murder, Macbeth describes the death of King Duncan as “fantastical, / Shak[ing] so my single state of man” (I.iii.139-140). However, labelling Macbeth as guilty or innocent ignores the subtleties in his mental state. Macbeth obviously commits a variety of crimes throughout the play, but treating them as good or evil disregards the motive behind each crime. While his murders start out of greed, they soon become actions of desperation: “I [Macbeth] am sick at heart… My way of life / Is fall’n into the sere” (V.iii.21-25). This helplessness drives Macbeth for the rest of his life, making his actions desperate attempts to hold onto his throne. It’s a role for which labels of guilty or innocent aren’t enough.

Though black-and-white interpretations of Macbeth and Making a Murderer were meant to simplify each work, they have the opposite effect. Instead of simplifying moral stances, they stratify. Characters are forced into roles that don’t entirely fit: Steven Avery as the innocent, Lady Macbeth as the bitch, Macbeth as the berserker. Examining fiction on the basis of good and evil creates a moral hierarchy on which each character is ranked--a system that reduces viewing quality instead of enhancing it.