Below are the question some of you wanted me to ask her.
Q.) Did you consult with or speak to any of THE "original Manson girls" for the film? Or any family members/friends of the victims?
A.) I started to on-line, then decided against it. First off, I'm not making a documentary or writing a non-fiction book, I'm making a narrative film with my personal vision. Secondly, there were so many different versions to any one single event, it became difficult to tell which was the "correct" version. Of course, all versions have their own validity to the person it comes from, much like the Kursawa movies, Rashomon. Ultimately, I made a choice as a writer/director, then set about on a mission to prove my choice wrong. It was tough to dis-prove my choice, then I stuck with it as my best assessment of the events from almost 42 years ago. Keep in mind, not only was this a long time ago, but there were a lot of drugs circulating at the time; and the people the people that were involved in these events were very very young back in the Summer of Love. I'm sure there were some "rose colored glasses" involved to the memories.
Q.) Who specifically is funding the film?
A.) We are funded through a combination of international
pre sale and private funders, but we're still looking for more
to have our full $5 million budget.
pre sale and private funders, but we're still looking for more
to have our full $5 million budget.
Q.) Have you ever met producer/director Don Murphy?
A.) No, I have not met Don Murphy. Loved Bully and Natural Born Killers. Happy to be introduced to him by anyone!
Hope that answers all your questions.
Aloha! Susanna
If anyone else has any questions for Susanna,e-mail them to me here.
mansonfamily1967@gmail.com
26 comments:
How in the world can you begin filming without 100% budget commitment? I wish her luck.
so, we're going to get the Manson story, or at least the Manson Girls story, as told through "my personal vision" of Susanna. I suppose it will be like the JFK assassination story as told through the personal vision of Oliver Stone - you know, heavy on conspiracy.
So I guess the question is what exactly is Susanna's 'personal vision'. What qualifies her to tell this story.
I have always wanted a feminist interpretation of the Manson story - an analysis of the female bonding and empowerment.
But, and no disrespect intended, in reading the review over at Col's site it seems like Susanna's script is more of a sexual interpretation, and a fairly anti-male one at that.
I'm sorry, I really don't want to ask this because I fear it will come across as anti-gay (which I am not) , but does Susanna's "personal vision" mean this will be a lesbian interpretation of the Manson Girl's story? How would that work? Again, no disrespect, but I would understand telling, say, the Eleanor Roosevelt story from a lesbian perspective because there is strong evidence that it played a role in her life. But despite the group sex, there doesn't seem to be any indication that lesbianism played a factor in the Manson family.
Ah hell, I am probably just being overly analytical. Tell the story, Susanna. Maybe we'll be surprised
Here's why "personal vision" is dangerous from a story telling perspective. Susanna was raised Catholic. According to the Col's review of the script, there is a strong anti-Catholic streak in the script in telling the backstory of both Mary Brunner and Pat. But really, who of us that were raised Catholic didn't reject and rebel against the church in the those days. Maybe anti-Catholicism was/is a factor in Susanna's life, but was it really any kind of factor in the Manson story? Sounds like allot of projection and transference to me. And that makes for bad storytelling.
If Susanna hates sports do we get a scene where the girls are cooking and cleaning and the guys are all drinking beer and watching football? Charlie portrayed as a hippie Archie Bunker?
It sounds like a major flop.
sorry, just one more I promise.
I have always found the bonding and empowerment of the Manson women in the face of Charlie's chauvinsism and borderline misogyny fascinating.
I mean HOW DID Ella Jo and Squeeky and the other girls feel when Charlie was punching Snake in the mouth and kicking Gypsy across the floor? Did anyone speak up and say it was wrong to smack a 14-year old girl over the head with a chair leg? I know they were all submissive to Manson, but his violence and chauvinism (didn't the girls eat not just after the guys but after the dogs as well?) had to be an eye-opener for at least some of the ladies. That is why I have always wanted to hear from Ella Jo and some of the others that split. And I wonder if that isn't a reason why Mary and Diane and others don't want to talk about those days - they are embarrassed to have been so submissive.
Leary7- don't get mad at me, well you can if you want.
i think you (and others, from past discussions ive had with people) are putting to much of what The Colonel says into it all.
dont get me wrong i love me some Colonel, most of the time. i THINK he is refrencing what he has read in the script and other "articles" from the internet.
thats is why i go to "the source". i started just putting things i read here and there together on what i thought the movie might be.
in true "eviliz" fashion i went right to "the source"-susanna.
everyone knows what you read on the web is not always true. yeah yeah also what eviliz posts might not be true as well, thats why i go to the source.
i dont know where i personally read stuff before i talked to susanna, but what Col mentions are things i did read else where.
like i posted if anyone has any other questions for Susanna let me know and i will gather them all up and send them to her. i am known for my boldness shall i say. but i am not asking her anything lesbian related. i doubt she is making a whole movie around her sexuality, but you never know.
and i dont recall ever reading she was a lesbian, maybe i missed it?
iknow for fact as Col does, some of the girls in the movie are lesbians in "real life". i doubt when there was a casting call it aksed for "lesbians only".
i dont like to "copy and paste" but like i said the things Col is wondering about are thing i also read on the web somewhere. and im not gonna bother trying to find them all again and post them here.
as far as sexuality is comcerned, i myself am strickly dickly.
some of the best friends i ever had are gay men. call me a fag-hag if you want.
i also have a small amount of lesbian and bi-friends also.
i know from speaking personally to some members here we have a few "gay/bi members" people are fucking people, gay straight whatever. who gives a hoot?
ok- i am getting to rambling.....which is better than deleting posts through right?
if anyone has other questions for susanna let me know. from what i gathered it is what she said it is-
not based on all the books and other movies. its not a true story, it is "susanna's story".
leary7 said...
so, we're going to get the Manson story, or at least the Manson Girls story, as told through "my personal vision" of Susanna. I suppose it will be like the JFK assassination story as told through the personal vision of Oliver Stone
pretty much what i was trying to say in my last comment.
and Leary or anyone else, don't feel guilty or like a "blog hog".
that is why we are all here. i value everyones theories/opionions
so blog away...... bitches!!!!
Honestly Liz, I can't ever see myself getting "mad" at you. I love strong minded folk who have something to say like yourself. And I especially love people who think differently than I do. Where's the fun otherwise.
And I do have a couple of family members (and an ex-wife) living the lesbian life. I love the Sappho world. An Ani DiFranco concert is my favorite event to attend.
I read that Susanna lived the sappho life over on the Col's site so maybe it is wrong but I doubt it.
I guess I just worry that in telling her "personal vision" story that an anti-male sentiment will be dominant. And even though the males in the Familly, especially Charlie, behaved like cavemen at times, my gut tells me that Susanna might tell the story so skewed it will bear little resemblence to reality. Sorta like that Kennedy miniseries that the History Channel recently decided to not show.
What happens if Susanna makes this film from a "personal vision" perspective and when it comes out there is a spat of articles quoting Cappy and Gypsy and others saying it wasn't anything like that. What purpose would that serve, who would go see it?
I honestly do love the Sappho world and the lesbian perspective EXCEPT when it is fueled by a feverent anti-male bias.
And of course I take things written by the Col with a grain of salt, but still, from what he reported of the script I am dubious that Susanna's "personal vision" will translate to anything either Mansonites or the general public will respond well to.
Hopefully I am wrong.
Matt said...
How in the world can you begin filming without 100% budget commitment? I wish her luck.
maybe she dosnt liketo dis close financial information. i felt "extra ballsy" asking the money question, but someone wanted to know, you know me. above and beyond the call. if i were susanna i would of said "thats to personal to answer."
Bottom line, I think I just agree with the Colonel that this film probably won't ever get made, or at least distributed. The storyline just doesn't have enough of a hook. Where is the arc or the conflict/resolution?
And if you are looking to just do an art piece or capture the mood of the time period, how do you do that without having Manson in the movie? For the most part these were girls who had little self-identity and even less self-esteem. They accepted Manson's control and his often brutish treatment because he did give them an identity, as revolting as it is to think of that.
From reading about Susanna on the internet it seems she is heavy into "girl power". The Manson story is probably the worse example of "girl power" in American history. It just doesn't seem like a good fit - kinda like a sportswriter telling the story of the OJ murders.
Now if you tell the story from the perspective of a Ella Jo or a Didi, two women who quite possibly joined up thinking they had found the ultimate free love fun group only to eventually realize its leader was a narcisisstic delusional woman-beater who hated the world, then you have some conflict/resolution and story arc.
Didi trying to convince her friend Gypsy, for instance, that Manson punching her and kicking her across the floor sorta invalidated his claim to be Jesus...that would be an interesting conversation.
Oh well, art is of course subjective so maybe Susanna's "vision" will be provocative. You gotta give her credit for having the balls, or the strap-on to try.
See Liz, I got the crude gene too.
yeah, just checked the Thelma and Louise site and they have a scathing piece on the movie. They think it should be presented as a comedy with Jim Carrey doing a cameo as Charlie.
It will be shocking if this thing ever gets out of the gate.
leary7 said...
You gotta give her credit for having the balls, or the strap-on to try.
Leary7- thanks for making me spew coffee on my monitor. strap-on.
lol
My day is complete, I made EviLiz spew.
I can retire to the coast now.
In my best Foghorn Leghorn voice...
'I say, I say, that was a joke Liz'.
Perhaps it is just too soon to do a movie the way we'd like to see it done. As much as the Col offends my delicate sensibilities, I think he would do a good job telling the story properly. Too soon I say because there have been so many other projects actually attempted or produced with little or no success in the past few years. The story is not going away.
Who could tell the story best?
there were the Oliver Stone rumors. He did a great job with Platoon, but way overboard with JFK.
I love the way Micheal Lewis writes. His articles on the collapse of the Greek, Iceland and Ireland economies in Vanity Fair are all brilliant.
Folk will probably suggest Tarintino or Micheal Mann but they would focus to much on the violence.
The problem is that it is a sensational story, full of sex and violence, so that is how it is written up. Nobody wants to hear about the tribal element, the anthropological bonding
and such.
Maybe that woman who wrote the book on Seabiscut, Laura Hillenbrand, could do a effective job. Her new book, Unbroken, is really good.
The moral of this story? Don't give a Schizophrenic LSD. It won't end well. Whoever turned Charlie Manson on to acid, well, my finger is pointing at you.
I'm pretty sure a morality lecture is welling up inside somebody in cyberland, so I'll duck out for the evening. Peace.
true stuff Tom. all the books on Manson talk about the drug use of the Family but I've never gotten any real insight into how it changed individuals or the group dynamic. hey, you put Richie and Potsie and the Fonz and their gang on acid for six months straight and you would have a Tarentino film too. Constant altering of the reality paramenters will push anyone over the edge, and often to the dark side.
Matt, it is interesting to contemplate the financial side of Susanna's effort. If the budget is five million, how do you convince investors you can "earn" that back and turn a profit. Susanna doesn't exactly have a Speilberg track record.
I guess you raise the money by citing the fact that Helter Skelter is the biggest selling true crime book of all time, and maybe you even cite the Manson internet sites traffic as proof of continued interest.
But again, if she makes this film from her "personal vision" and when it comes out a few of the real Manson girls go on record as saying it is all crapola, who will go see it. How may people are going to see a Manson film that has no Manson?
I hate to beat the sappho angle to death, but maybe that is all Susanna wants to do...make a sort of artsy cult film that will play at all the Lesbian Film Festivals. I still think this thing never gets out of the gate.
you have to remember, Tom, that when Charlie got out of prison in 1967 and headed to San Francisco, LSD was legal. It blows the mind to think of buying acid as easy as a candy bar.
Acid was banned in 1966. The Diggers had an event in Haight-Ashbury and everyone dosed up at the moment the law came into affect. There was certainly plenty of strong Owsley acid in the Haight in '67 though... :-)
my bad. thanks brownrice. I thought I might have the dates wrong. I was on the other coast then where you could still buy Orange Sunshine fairly openly for fifty cents. Different times for sure.
Ahhhhh... the good ol' daze!!! Where's the Brotherhood of Eternal Love now that the world really needs 'em?
I am certain the Brotherhood of Eternal Love are now all Amway distributors.
Leary7 why I think this amazing story doesn't make a good film is because it needs to be tragedy, therefore need tragic hero, therefore need to be able to relate.
But the killers, esp Susan have been demonised,cf Bug saying "Linda was different".
They are never seen as human but more like the embodiment of evil. Therefore it won't work. We can't make a great piece of film without a central character to relate to.
The Bundy film works, just, because we see him struggle against his 'inner hunchback' that drives him to kill. We can feel 'pity and terror'.
Macbeth kills a helpless old man in his bed, but we don't think he is evil. He is flawed and he knows it.
That's why Susan's story would be the best. She did have some awareness of her tragic flaw, the insecurity that hollowed her out. But she needs to be humanised. While she is 'Sadie', it won't happen.
Susanna's idea is interesting. But I think she should go back to basics and study classical tragedy and Shakespeare.
If ppl could watch a Manson film and see one of the killers, and NOT Linda as central, it could maybe work. Or show Linda as the flawed one, not the one with the strong moral compass.
Or here's one. Maybe Susan's tragic flaw would be her inability to keep her mouth shut. Perhaps the film should start after the murders, with Susan blabbing. We would develop a relationship with her, and only at the end would it be revealed that it was the Manson killings. By then you would have a relationship with her and so you couldn't demonise her.
Hey, that's brilliant, if I do say so myself.
Not bad, Fiona. Not bad...
Post a Comment