Gaskins: The Hitchhiker Killer is a based-on-real-events thriller. The interesting thing about it is that, though it claims to be based on reality, it also emphasizes that it is a fictional movie merely based on reality. Names have been changed and so on, to protect the people involved, the victims and whatnot. I really like this approach, because though most of us realize that “based on” doesn’t mean that the story is absolutely true, others really can’t comprehend that the story before them is not absolutely true.
Gaskins is made as a pseudo-documentary. Since there’s supposedly a real story behind it I don’t think the term mockumentary is suitable. I’m not familiar with this particular serial killer though. But from what research I’ve done the main premise of the movie seems to be pretty accurate. Funny thing though, even if the subtitle of Gaskins hints that this is a serial killer primarily targeting hitchhikers, the movie shows very little of this. Most of the violence and kills are something completely different altogether.
Most of the victims are of people he knew, had associations with, and even friends and family. At some point the film says that he did business near his home in South Carolina and he had his fun near the coast, hinting of course at killing hitchhikers for thrills. There’s also hints that the murders should have been really gruesome and sadistic.
In the movie, most of the killing is done off screen. That usually means that we, the audience, get to fabricate our own visuals of the sadistic nature of them. In my mind this is often a stronger approach since the human imagination seldom has those limits that the silver screen does. You can’t show everything on screen if you expect your film to be distributed in the major channels.
But this is only true if the suggestions are strong enough. I think Gaskins fails a bit in this aspect. There are definitely scenes where the sadism shines through but more often than not what I see is more like cold-blooded and calculated murder to benefit his own agenda, not mostly made for thrills or arousal. Although sometimes it is associated with sexual predatory behavior and always with a total absence of emotions. The word misanthropy comes to mind.
As I said, the form of Gaskins is a pseudo-documentary, a concept I think the movie uses with success. We start off by seeing footage of Gaskins on a TV screen making his confessions. As he is on death row and eager to become famous in the history books, we can imagine that he depicts himself a little more bestial than the truth and exaggerates his number of victims. But in either case, it’s a believable way to start the story. Then we get to see events from the perspective that he’s telling them in kind of an authentic way.
All of it is filmed in a very depressing way too, which emphasizes the depression of it all. Nothing is ever happy in this story. Everything is grey and boring. This is, in essence, a good move as it strengthens the illusion, but on the other hand, everything becomes so boring to watch. The pace is really slow and at times it is a struggle to keep attention. It’s not an interesting serial killer movie where the focus is on the bestial murder but rather on the psyche of the killer behind them. At times I think the director glances at Henry: A Serial Killer for inspiration. But it does not reach those high set standards.
All in all, I find it quite boring and it’s nothing that would make me interested in researching the particular serial killer. The premise was more appalling than what the result became in the end.
About the Author
