What happens when a broken woman becomes a billion-dollar brand? Most people look at the Aileen Wuornos case and see a monster. Or a victim. But if you watch the 1992 documentary Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer, you see something much more cynical. It’s not just about the murders. Honestly, it’s about the paycheck.
Nick Broomfield, the filmmaker behind the project, didn't just stumble into a standard true crime story. He walked right into a circus. He found a world where everyone—from the cops to the lawyers to the "adoptive" mother—was trying to cash in on a woman who was clearly losing her mind.
The Bizarre Economy of Death
You’ve got to understand how weird this got. Usually, when someone is accused of killing seven men, the legal team focuses on, you know, the law. Not here. In Aileen Wuornos: The Selling of a Serial Killer, we meet Steve Glazer. He was her attorney. But he wasn't just an attorney; he was a guy who played guitar in a band called "The Peace and Love Band."
He spent more time negotiating movie deals than investigating lead evidence.
Then there’s Arlene Pralle. She’s the born-again Christian who claimed God told her to adopt Aileen. Sounds noble? Maybe. But the documentary shows her acting more like a talent agent than a mother. She was the gatekeeper. If you wanted to talk to Aileen, you had to go through Arlene. And usually, that meant opening your wallet.
💡 You might also like: Why Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Actors Still Define the Modern Spy Thriller
Why the Movie Label "Serial Killer" Was Profitable
Labels matter. "Serial killer" is a sexy term for Hollywood. It sells books. It fills seats in theaters. The documentary basically argues that the system rushed to slap that label on Wuornos because it made her story more valuable.
Was she a serial killer? By definition, yes. She killed multiple people over a period of time. But she always maintained it was self-defense against men who tried to rape her while she was working as a prostitute.
The film highlights some pretty disturbing stuff regarding the Marion County Sheriff’s Department. There were allegations that officers were more interested in selling their stories to movie producers than in conducting a fair trial. When the people supposed to protect the law are busy signing "life story" rights, the truth gets buried under the fine print.
The Charlize Theron Connection
If you’ve seen the movie Monster, you’ve seen a version of this documentary. Charlize Theron famously used Broomfield’s footage to study Aileen. She watched the way Aileen’s eyes darted around. She mimicked that defensive, aggressive posture.
📖 Related: The Entire History of You: What Most People Get Wrong About the Grain
Theron won an Oscar. Aileen got the needle.
It’s a strange irony. The very exploitation the 1992 documentary criticized ended up providing the blueprint for one of the most successful "selling" jobs of Aileen’s image in history.
A Legal Disaster Hidden in Plain Sight
We shouldn't ignore the fact that the legal defense was, frankly, a mess. The 2001 defense team actually used Broomfield’s film to prove that Aileen's original counsel was incompetent. Think about that. A documentary was used as evidence of legal malpractice because the lawyer was so focused on the "selling" aspect.
Glazer reportedly encouraged her to plead "no contest" to several murders. This basically fast-tracked her to death row.
👉 See also: Shamea Morton and the Real Housewives of Atlanta: What Really Happened to Her Peach
What This Tells Us About True Crime Today
The selling of a serial killer Aileen Wuornos wasn't just a 90s fluke. It was the prototype for the "true crime" industrial complex we live in now. We consume these stories for breakfast. We listen to the podcasts. We watch the Netflix specials.
But Broomfield’s film forces us to look at the collateral damage. By the time Aileen was executed in 2002, she was a shell of a person. She was claiming that radio waves were being sent into her head by the police. She was paranoid. She was done.
And the people around her? They had already moved on to the next deal.
Essential Insights for True Crime Fans
If you're looking to understand the ethics of the genre, start with these points:
- Check the Sources: Always ask who is profiting from the documentary or podcast you're consuming.
- The Lawyer Factor: If a legal team is more active on talk shows than in a courtroom, the defense is usually compromised.
- The Victim Narrative: In the Wuornos case, the first victim, Richard Mallory, was actually a convicted rapist. This fact was largely suppressed during the initial "selling" of the story.
- Mental Health vs. Media: Media thrives on "evil." It struggles with "mentally ill and traumatized." One sells; the other is just sad.
To really grasp the weight of this case, you should watch both of Broomfield's films: The Selling of a Serial Killer (1992) and the follow-up, Life and Death of a Serial Killer (2003). They offer a rare look at the beginning and the bitter end of a media-driven execution.