I asked members if they had any questions they would like me to ask her. I am no longer accepting questions. I sent out every question you all asked to Sussana this evening.
http://www.cafepress.com/MANSONGIRLS/7809375
No movie yet but you can buy clothes and accessories.
I want the fridge magnet myself.
15 comments:
Does she need an extra? :-)
where are they now - in Puerto Rico? Any funny stories from the set?
I have some old 60s clothese from when I worked in a vintage dress shop if anyone wants them
Will she be exploring Squeakie's life prior to meeting Manson? I think she had gone off the deep end prior to Manson. Paul Watkins said most of the people at Spahn Ranch had serious issues with compulsive behavior. It's pretty obvious that Squeaky, Sandra, Nancy, Gypysy, and other girls had obsessive personalies.
Amen MrPoirot. It drives me nuts when people refer to Family members as normal, all-american next-door types until they met Charlie. That's total nonsense. Most of the girls were seriously tilting if not already warped like Sadie.
I just know this Lo gal is going to portray the girls as innocent angels until the mad Manson twisted them. Charlie clearly accelerated their moonwalk to madness, but he preyed on the tilted ones for sure.
Sandy and Squeeky seem to remain twisted. Pat seems on solid ground. Leslie too though she still seems malleable. Gypsy seems allright in recent interviews. It sure would be nice to see how Cappy and Pitman and Mary and others are doing, though most seem to have rebuilt quality lives like Dianne Lake and Ruth Ann.
maybe, Liz, you could ask her the 'titled' question. Does she see all the girls in the same light in terms of mental health, or does she think some were more unbalanced than others.
tilted, not titled. the latter could be open to lesbian interpretation. sorry
Question, not queation. The typo fairy attacks.
My queation: Any plans to interview the women who were friends with Charles Manson in the late 60s and early 70s, who remain friends with him to this day? Any plans to report THEIR side of the story, which has been effectively ignored by the media, in the interest of fairness and balance?
Leary, Catherine Share is a sellout who lied about many things, including her participation in the Hawthorne Shootout and credit card fraud. Sandra Good is fine, not twisted, (or tilted or titted on anything else, LOL) working for a nationally known foundation that preserves wildlife, living in a nice home.
Why does Susanna think there is so much interest in Manson and movies about Manson right now? There is, obviously, but why is that according to her?
Is she going to re-write history based upon here own personal view point or has she actually done any extensive research to base the story on? Where is she getting her info from to write the movie?
AC, I defer to you on all things Manson, but I would argue that most people who study the story regard Sandra as seriously zealous and intense. She doesn't argue with any kind of logic or rationale.
And I grant you tht Gypsy appears a bit of an opportunist with selective retention. Maybe it is just that she seems less angry than Sandy and others that I consider her somewhat grounded.
And I agree that a telling of the Manson women who have stuck by Charlie these past decades would be fascinating to those of us devoted to the story, but I doubt it would hold much interest for the general public. Someone like Star just is not that interesting to the casual students of TLB.
Ken619 said...
Is she going to re-write history based upon here own personal view point or has she actually done any extensive research to base the story on? Where is she getting her info from to write the movie?
if you look in the side bar and click on susanna lo, you can read an article explaining the WAY she is writing it,as well as some other interesting stuff.
Leary, I'm not speaking of more recent friends of Charles's, who have only known him for a few years. I'm talking about friends who've known him since the time of the crimes.
Post a Comment