True crime reality television continues to escalate its attacks on our attention. There are two cable networks entirely devoted to it, Oxygen and ID, and streaming services—Netflix especially—are pumping out new series and specials all the time.
It’s cheap, easy, and compelling, keeping us subscribed and watching. So many of these true crime series and specials, though, are made with indifference toward both craft and consequences.
A show doesn’t have to explicitly point fingers at alleged suspects to give fuel for their theories, their Internet searches, their accusations. A red herring here or there is a real person, a real life that can be ruined by a product. Most shows, however, don’t invite their viewers to become judge, jury, or doxxer.
ABC and Hulu’s new show (Tuesdays at 10) does. Who Do You Believe? asks the title, making the subtext text, and its marketing is even more explicit: “You be the judge,” the poster says. The narrator tells us, “It’s up to you to decide.”
Why is that a good idea? What makes me qualified to make that determination after watching 43 minutes of television? I was prepared to be apoplectic about the show’s irresponsibility.
Yet I was surprised, at least by the first episode, the only one ABC made available for review. It’s basically Judge Judy without Judge Judy, a case stretched out over 43 minutes instead of three.
Who Do You Believe?’s strength is in its simplicity: two people telling one story.
Instead of a director or editors making accusations with their questions or editing, two people essentially just accuse the other. Each has volunteered to participate, which makes this whole exercise far less ethically problematic than typical true crime.
At times their narratives overlap, and at other times, they diverge in small and large ways, inviting us to answer the title’s question, and accuse one or both of them of lying.
The first story, “Overwhelming Charity,” is about a couple who met online. He pays her rent because she doesn’t have a job; she says it was his idea for her not to work. She says he gave her $10,000 cash to hold, he says that never happened. He pays $26,000 for her to get breast reduction surgery; she says he insisted she then get breast implants. He says “I still to this day don’t know what happened”; she says “I think he tried to kill me.”
Each person has a chance to tell their story and defend themselves against accusations from the other. (“If that’s what was said, that’s a lie.”)
Of course, it’s possible that the editing has left things out, and the subjects may or may not think the show is fair to their story. But what’s on screen feels balanced, even for accusations of attempted murder.
(The second episode, “Protector vs. Predator,” focuses on Star Trek’s Nichelle Nichols, whose “son and her new manager” have a “vicious and public battle for conservatorship,” ABC says, asking, “who is the real protector and who is the predator?” That’s a very different kind of case!)
Showrunner Alex Weresow has worked on Leah Remini: Scientology and the Aftermath and Wife Swap, and the sensibility here is somewhere in-between. This isn’t an in-depth, emotional portrait of a survivor, but it’s also not a made-for-TV charade.
Most of the story is told this through these dueling perspectives, and it’s here where Who Do You Believe? introduces its most-creative element.
The two subjects’ stories are occasionally illustrated with actual photographs or documentary evidence, but mostly with rather generic-looking reenactments.
The most visually spectacular trick is the set design and framing of the interviews: Each of the two subjects are in what appear to be living rooms, but seated far off to one side. In the first episode, Mark is in a chair to the far left of the room, and Charity is on a couch that’s on the right.
They’re on literal opposite sides of their respective rooms, just like in their stories. But it gets better: When we see the wide shot of each room, there’s a fireplace in the center, and it took me a moment to realize the fireplaces were exactly the same shape.
That matters because, when the image dissolves, shifting from one interview to the other, it feels like the room is changing its details—styles and colors, textures and furnishings—but keeping the same underlying structure, just like the stories we’re hearing.
Because these interview sets are also used for the reenactments, sometimes those recreated scenes overlap with the interview footage, as if memories are coming to life. It’s subtle but very effective.
The writing is less artful, as the narration can be jarringly simplistic in its summaries: “Mark learns his wife is a convicted felon. And Charity believes Mark is a poisoning murderer,” the narrator says.
The narrator can also exaggerate Bachelor-style. “Who will be exposed as the criminal? What the police uncover is perhaps the most shocking part yet.” (It wasn’t.)
At the end, the narrator says, “now you’ve heard both sides, and both claims. But who is guilty?” I expected a clear resolution here, to learn some key fact that made the whole thing obvious. ABC says these are all “adjudicated cases”; they’ve been tried and resolved in court. Of course, so was Steven Avery’s case before Making A Murderer; so was Adnan Syed’s before Serial.
In Who Do You Believe?’s first story, at least, there is not a definitive answer, which is perhaps why the narrator adds later, “Who is the predator, and who is the con? It all depends on who you believe.” Can both stories be true, or both stories be embellished? Must we choose one or the other?
This format, no doubt, will still encourage people to question, to decide which person is lying and which is telling the truth in moments where their stories contradict. It may inspired them to label or judge or worse.
Does the show help in any way? Is this the best way for wronged parties to get justice or relief? Should we be making accusations about strangers from a single episode of reality TV? I guess that depends on what you believe.
Who Do You Believe?
A visually interesting approach to true-crime storytelling and accusations. B
What works for me:
- The visuals: set design, cinematography, and editing
- Letting the two subjects tell their stories
- A relatively low-stakes case
What could be better:
- The reenactments are generic
- The music is also both generic and overly aggressive
- Back off of the false dichotomy
Wednesday 22nd of June 2022
The title of the show uses incorrect grammar. It should be Whom Do You Believe? not Who (sic) Do You Believe? Remember when we made a fuss over Johnny Carson's show Who (sic) Do You Trust? The producers said they couldn't change the title to correct the error in grammar because it had already been established. When Carson left the show and there was a new host, the title was changed to Whom Do You Trust? for the sake of grammatical accuracy.
Monday 23rd of May 2022
I guarantee if she got “poisoned” it was by her own hand!!! She is a basic “ trophy wife”… maybe not so much now😂 That poor man got taken to the bank by a women already married two one other man! I don’t believe not one thing she said! If it looks like a Duck smells like a duck it must be a duck!!!
Thursday 19th of May 2022
Both of them are ridiculous humans. Just absolutely ridiculous full grown adults without an ounce of common sense. The fact these two work in a healthcare field is alarming. They contradicted themselves from the very beginning. Mark claiming he wanted a mother for his special needs grown son, and a wife for him. Basically making her a stay at home mom, then complained she didn’t work. Was spending all his money blah blah. Then, she has the audacity to sit there smuggling watermelons under her shirt trying to front like she doesn’t like jewelry or “flashy” items. As shes decked out in hoops, bracelets, necklaces blah blah. They’re both manipulative and dumb. If you’re both on your 3rd or 4th marriage, it might be a sign that you’re both equally garbage humans with flaws a normal person wouldn’t put up with. What is the point of this show? At the end, they didn’t even confirm which one was guilty. We’re lead to believe it’s probably charity, but instead they just say “you decide.” ABC is guilty for wasting my time. Hulu is guilty for second hand time wasting Mark is guilty for being stupid Charity is guilty for several things.
Saturday 7th of May 2022
Enjoyed the show. Do we get to know who was guilty?
Monday 23rd of May 2022
@Carol, I was googling looking to see if they made a poll for voting? That would make things more interesting to see everyone’s Point of View!🤷🏼♀️
Tuesday 10th of May 2022
@Carol, that's what I would like to know also
Thursday 5th of May 2022
This man needs to work on himself and stay off the dating sites. Obviously there is something wrong with him. He should have done a background check before he invited this woman into his home with his autistic son. Looks like he uses his son to get woman to feel sorry for him. He use his money to get woman and when they move in he cuts the money off. (It’s all a trap) I can see him being controlling. He looks mean. The woman he married used him and you can tell she had no love for this man. She con him right out of his money that he flashed around for her.