“The Opioid Crisis on Screen: Matthew Broderick Portrays Richard Sackler in Netflix’s Controversial New Series”

Television Netflix’s Painkiller Is a Garish Caricature

An Analysis of the New Netflix Series and Its Representation of the Opioid Crisis

By | August 10, 2023

The recently released Netflix series “Painkiller,” which delves into the controversial topic of the Sackler family’s involvement in the opioid crisis, has attracted significant attention and criticism. Written by Laura Miller, it contends that the series fails to offer a compelling perspective on the subject matter and falls short in comparison to its precursor, Hulu’s “Dopesick.” Filled with garish aesthetics, one-dimensional characters, and a jumbled narrative, “Painkiller” misses the mark when it comes to delivering an impactful portrayal of the opioid crisis.

A Tale of Lost Potential

One of the main issues with “Painkiller” lies in its treatment of the complex storyline surrounding the Sackler family and Purdue Pharma. While “Dopesick” effectively utilizes various timelines to guide viewers through the 40-year span of the crisis, “Painkiller” resorts to heavy voice-over narration by its fictional character, Edie Flowers (played by Uzo Aduba), to deliver exposition. This storytelling choice detracts from the depth of the narrative, leaving the audience disconnected and deprived of the opportunity to empathize with the characters.

Furthermore, both series share similar themes, including corporate intrigue, the impact of addiction on working-class families, and the disillusionment of sales representatives. However, while “Dopesick” thoughtfully explores these storylines, giving the characters a sense of authenticity and humanity, “Painkiller” reduces them to cartoonish caricatures. The use of shaky camera shots, fast cuts, and an overpowering soundtrack only serves to create a chaotic and disjointed viewing experience.

The Problem with Painkiller’s Portrayal

Miller astutely points out that the characters in “Painkiller” lack depth and realism, in stark contrast to the characters in “Dopesick.” While the latter portrays individuals with complex lives, struggles, and relationships, the former resorts to exaggerated performances and clichéd dialogue. Matthew Broderick’s portrayal of Richard Sackler, for example, is largely one-note and fails to capture the complexity of the real-life figure. Scenes intended to depict realism often morph inexplicably into fantastical sequences, resulting in a jarring viewing experience.

Moreover, the show’s creators seem to have taken liberties in an attempt to make the Sackler family appear as antiheroes akin to drug dealers or con artists. However, this approach lacks credibility as it misrepresents the true nature of the Sackler family’s involvement in the crisis. The Sacklers’ power lay in their gentility and respectability, not in overt displays of villainy. By attempting to draw such parallels, “Painkiller” undermines its own credibility and fails to offer a nuanced portrayal of the crisis.

Many of the shortcomings of “Painkiller” are amplified by the series’ decision to open each episode with real-life individuals affected by the opioid crisis sharing their personal stories. While the intention may have been to provide a humanizing element, it instead serves to highlight the stark contrast between the genuine tragedy of the crisis and the farcical nature of the series. The impact of these real stories is diminished by the overly flamboyant and grotesque elements of the show itself.

An Unfortunate Departure from Promise

It is surprising to see “Painkiller” fall short, considering the track record of its creators, Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, who previously collaborated on the well-received Fred Rogers biopic, “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood.” The significant lapse in judgment exhibited by “Painkiller” raises questions about the motivations and decision-making process behind the series.

Overall, “Painkiller” is a missed opportunity to deliver a thought-provoking and nuanced portrayal of the opioid crisis and the role played by the Sackler family. Its garish aesthetics, one-dimensional characters, and disjointed storytelling detract from the serious nature of the subject matter. For those seeking a more comprehensive and empathetic depiction of the crisis, “Dopesick” remains the superior choice.

is a current affairs commentator and editor-in-chief of TIME magazine. His views do not necessarily reflect those of The New York Times.