Cooper Koch (front) and Nicholas Alexander Chavez as Erik and Lyle Menendez. Miles Crist/Netflix Share on Facebook Share on X Share to Flipboard Send an Email Show additional share options Share on LinkedIn Share on Pinterest Share on Reddit Share on Tumblr Share on Whats App Print the Article Post a Comment Following the success of 2022's Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, creators Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan returned for an even more provocative second season of the anthology series with Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story. This time, the series portrayed the 1989 double murder of Kitty (Chloë Sevigny) and José Menendez (Javier Bardem) by their sons, Lyle (Nicholas Alexander Chavez) and Erik (Cooper Koch), who alleged that their dad had sexually abused them for years. The brothers were convicted of murder in 1996 and sentenced to life in prison without parole but were resentenced to 50 years to life in May as a result of public outcry following the series, making them eligible for parole consideration. (A hearing is set for Aug. 21 and 22.) Below, Brennan tells THR why he still has questions about the case and hints at what viewers can expect in future seasons that focus on Ed Gein and Lizzie Borden. Related Stories TV 'The Last of Us' Showrunner Craig Mazin on Writing and Directing Season 3: "The Pages Are Happening" TV 'The White Lotus' EP David Bernad on Season Four: "I Know What It Is and Where It's Going" What was it about Erik and Lyle Menendez that made you want to tell their story? I didn't at first; it was Ryan's idea. I didn't remember the Menendez brothers case enough. I was just really digging into the why behind what they had alleged. The true story, in this case, is not known and not knowable. It really can't be discerned to a certain level of resolution. There are four people who know the truth of the story, two of them are dead, and two have remained consistent with their story, which does have a lot of holes in it and at certain points does beggar belief. So we knew we had a different challenge. There's a lot of richness to the story, and it isn't just about cruelty or exploitation. It isn't murder porn, which this show could easily veer into at any moment if we picked the wrong subject. Were there any particular details about the case that surprised you? What surprised me was how violent what they did was. As you're writing it, you're picturing it. In the trial, the defense spent months trying to determine who fired first, where and who was shot first. Then to see it rehearsed on the day when Chloë, Javier and the boys were there, using guns that have no sound and you see how close they were to their parents, who were probably asleep, if not dozing, while watching TV ... it's a very cold murder. They're set for a parole hearing on Aug. 21 and 22. What do you hope for the brothers? Now, people are much more prone to believe victims. Whereas, it wasn't even in the vocabulary a generation ago. So that is good. It does run the risk of forgetting that there were two people killed. A lot of people experience sexual abuse, and they don't do this. The law still has an obligation to set rules. What I believe about the truth of the case really changes from hour to hour. The further we went into researching this, the more confused I got, because their testimony and story throughout did involve a lot of lies. The fact that Erik was writing a screenplay that involved murdering your parents is just weird stuff. So I don't know what I believe and don't believe about their story. I think their story is a lot of lies, but there's a lot of truth to it. If they were somehow not granted parole, I would be very sad. They've paid that debt. The brothers criticized the show's accuracy but later shared positive messages about what it did for them. Have you spoken to them? I haven't. I don't expect I will. There's something that feels weird about it. You're trying to tell as close to the truth of a story as you can, but you're also having to fill in some holes. It wouldn't surprise me if they were annoyed by certain things we posit or allege. Sometimes, I think, you have to do that to tell a story that's coherent and watchable, as well. We do at certain points caricature them because we were in a different point of view. We're seeing the version of maybe how they seemed to their parents. Maybe this is what people were describing, like, "No, these kids were nightmares, they were affluent, rich assholes." So that's going to be annoying. In the Halloween episode, we made Lyle mean to trick-or-treaters. He was really annoyed by that, which is actually really endearing. And for that, I was like, "Oh, I'm sorry we did that then," because he's right. He actually loved Halloween. But telling it that way, you get a picture of something, while not technically true, that speaks volumes. That's just the way this anthology is and how we have to tell the story. Do you think the controversy surrounding the show helped it