One of the first mistakes Stone makes is his focus on Mickey and Mallory over focus on the media, which is the supposed villain of his film. The film comes across more than anything as the story of their romance, from Mickey rescuing Mallory from an abusive home, to their murder spree across the southwest, to their capture and trial, their separation once they are incarcerated, and their reunion during a prison riot which ultimately allows them to escape. For a movie that is supposed to be about the media, it certainly devotes a lot of time to portraying the lovers' conflicts and make-ups, their longing for one another after being separated for nearly a year in prison, and the joy they feel at their reunion. Such focus makes it easy for the film to be seen as a romance movie featuring characters who happen to be murderers rather than an indictment of American media culture. The media's portrayal is neutral, perhaps matter-of-fact, for most of the film, but there is one moment where the coldbloodedness of reporter Wayne Gale shows through: as Jack Scagnetti lays dying loudly in the background when Mickey and Mallory are reunited during the prison riot, Wayne, attempting to film this incredibly romantic event, tells the gurgling and gasping Scagnetti to shut up, and then films as Mickey and Mallory finish Scagnetti off. There is also the final murder of reporter Wayne Gale to help make Stone's point. However, because these events take about two minutes out of one hundred and ten, this message comes across more as an afterthought than the overriding argument that the film's poster tagline suggests it is.

What is perhaps more problematic is that Mickey and Mallory are portrayed very clearly as the film's heroes. It is reiterated ad nauseum that these characters came from abusive homes and that this past is responsible for the "demons" that drive them to kill. I understand that it was necessary for there to be something about Mickey and Mallory to make them sympathetic enough that they could carry the film, but the abusive backgrounds become an excuse for their actions. There is likewise with the twisted cop Jack Scagnetti a traumatic experience in his childhood, which is suggested to be responsible for his murder of a prostitute in the film. It is a very dangerous thing to suggest that bad experiences in one's childhood are legitimate grounds for becoming a murderer in adulthood.

This message might have been aleviated through Stone having more moments in which the murderers' actions seem blatantly wrong, but there are precious few of these. Of the victims we actually see Mickey and Mallory kill, only one inspires any reaction from the audience other than indifference; it is difficult to feel sympathy for a nameless and undeveloped character, or, in the cases of Mallory's parents, Jack Scagnetti, and the creepy rednecks in the opening scene in the diner, people who are shown to deserve to die. The presence of at least a few characters whose murders inspire sympathy from the audience would have helped a lot in Stone making his argument clearer and his film more responsible. The one character who Mickey and Mallory regret killing is the Indian they encounter in the desert, but even this murder fails to inspire much emotional response from the audience, as the Indian claims to have expected this based on a dream twenty years earlier, indicating that he met his death willingly.

There is much talk in this film of fate. Mickey and Mallory constantly refer to their good fortune as resulting from fate, from their meeting at Mallory's house, to Mickey's initial escape from prison to come rescue Mallory, to their good fortune of having a prison riot spring up right when they needed it. The idea of fate aiding Mickey and Mallory in what they do only furthers the idea that they are justified in their actions.

I believe that Stone's greatest shortcoming with making his argument in this film clear is the lack of distinction he creates between the media's portrayal of Mickey and Mallory and their portrayal by the film at large. The best way he could have made his point would have been to have his media portrayal of them be the romantic one, but his own of them as coldblooded murderers. This would have taken away any argument that could have been made against his film. In response to a claim that he portrays Mickey and Mallory as a great romantic couple, as heroes, he could point out that this was Wayne Gale's portrayal of them within the movie, a reflection of what the media in this country does every day, and that his own portryal of them was much less favorable. While this could still have been misunderstood by people like Ben Darras and Sarah Edmondson, this would have been a misunderstanding of a clear argument, not Stones fault, rather than the misunderstanding of a convoluted argument. The entire film, not just the "American Maniacs" segments within it, portrays Mickey and Mallory in a rather favorable light, making Oliver Stone just like the media he is condemning.