Dexter's Return: Why 'Resurrection' Exposes Our Twisted Serial Killer Obsession

Dexter Morgan. The title evokes a colorful world of sanguine slides and sharp wit. It gives us something we’ve never had before, a strangely likable serial killer who kills other killers. Dexter: Resurrection is here, and the hype is deafening. Beneath the surface of this highly anticipated return lies a question that needs to be asked, a question that gnaws at the very fabric of our entertainment choices: Are we truly examining our fascination with serial killers, or are we simply reveling in it?

Are We Glamorizing The Darkness?

The revival, led by new showrunner Clyde Phillips, aims to do that by reflecting our culture’s twisted obsession with serial killers back on ourselves. To that looking back, how do we find a fierce critique? Or do we just get a prettier, shinier version of all that nostalgia-filled imagery?

Dexter has always walked a fine line. We as the audience are all complicit, cheering on a killer, even one with a “code.” The show’s brilliant manipulation of our natural longing for poetic justice, contorting it to justify the actions of a vigilante murderer. Resurrection appears to be doubling down on this, tossing our old friends and some new, fascinating narrative arcs into the blender.

Let's be brutally honest. Are we actually prepared to face the scary reality of why we’re so drawn to these personalities — and why we shouldn’t be? Or are we just looking for another excuse to vicariously experience the thrill of the kill, safely distanced by the screen?

Take the casting of high-profile guest stars such as Peter Dinklage, Uma Thurman, Eric Stonestreet and Neil Patrick Harris. Together, each bringing a unique and captivating perspective, it’s a star-studded event that does not disappoint and is a purely fun time. If so, does it jeopardize what might have been a truly admirable effort at social commentary? Does mixing in that celebrity power run the danger of watering down what could have potentially been a much darker plunge into the dark psyche?

The Fine Line Between Fiction & Reality

Dexter: Resurrection reportedly features nods to real-life monsters like John Wayne Gacy and Charles Manson, placing them in the same universe as fictional killers. This is where things get truly dicey. We’re speaking about fatal fantasy too. We’re pulling the nightmares of real life right into our fun and games.

Think about it. John Wayne Gacy wasn’t exactly a figment of our imagination. To his victims, he was a monster – a savage predator that drilled into the very hearts of innocent lives. Whatever misguided principles inspired Charles Manson’s deranged followers to gruesome murders, victimization, and assault should be collectively condemned. In doing so, by invoking these people, are we making light of their crimes? Are we giving their victims the depth they deserve, or just turning them into plot devices?

This isn't just about Dexter. It's about the broader true crime phenomenon. Podcasts, documentaries, and TV shows are all vying extremely hard for our attention. They don’t just provide us with an odd and disturbing perspective into the minds of murderers. At what cost? Are we becoming desensitized to violence? In doing so, are we losing sight of the on-the-ground real-world implications of these moves?

Is Dexter: Resurrection, at its core, an exploitative endeavor? Or is it just taking advantage of all that morbid curiosity that powers the true crime economy?

Exploitation Or Necessary Evil?

Showrunner Clyde Phillips, who oversaw the first four seasons of the original series, is back at the wheel. While his presence may quell fans’ fears, it does leave many questions. To me, it feels less like a genuine effort to clarify or heal over the perceived missteps of the original series finale. Or is it just a cunning plan to make a mint off our favorite franchise?

The show’s themes – nature vs. nurture, generational trauma, the psychology of serial killers – are pretty rich stuff. The question is whether they're being pursued with the depth and sensitivity that's required. Or are they just the usual PR varnish over another season of stalized violence, casual misogyny and dark humor.

The series explores that journey to belong. Further, it directly subverts the way we’ve been conditioned to romanticize and mythologize serial killers as anti-heroes. It tries to depict Dexter not as a monster, but as one wrestling with moral decisions. Good intentions are one thing, execution is another. The show’s dark, comical tone, though charming in its own right, would risk undercutting even the most earnest attempt at introspection.

Ultimately, Dexter: Resurrection is a gamble. That’s a bet on our IQ, our EQ and our capacity to think critically about the content we absorb. This risk might be worthwhile if it encouraged some serious discussion about our deranged attraction to serial killers. Or, on the other hand, maybe it only deepens that curiosity.

So, as you settle in to watch Dexter's return, I urge you to ask yourself: What am I really getting out of this? In what ways are you being entertained, and in what ways are you being complicity. My guess is that the answer is much more nuanced than a blood slide would indicate.

Let's not just binge-watch. Let's reflect. Let's discuss. Let’s hold our entertainment to a higher standard and expect more than thrill-a-minute, minds closed, bullshit.

Let's not just binge-watch. Let's reflect. Let's discuss. Let's demand more from our entertainment than just empty thrills.