Earlier this week, movieweb.com placed Helter Skelter (1976) at #4 on a list of top made-for-tv movies. What they call a movie was a miniseries but whatever. Steve Railsback typically gets all the pub in this one but Nancy Wolfe as Sexy Sadie steals the show whenever she's onscreen. Wolfe is riffing on Lynette Fromme's lines from Hendrickson in the above screen capture. Squeaky did it better but Nancy is no slouch.
Anyone not super jaded and full of angry know everything is invited to join my watch party group if you are interested in studying the Manson milieu in pop culture. Manson scene politics are prohibited there. So is guru-ing.
FYI, my blog email is unreliable. Don't waste your time until I figure it out. Apologies if you emailed me and I never replied. Happy Friday. +ggw
-------------
1976 version of Helter Skelter Wikipedia page.
IMDB page with full cast (1976).
Sadie via the Almighty.
I actually taped this on VHS back in the ‘80s. It aired on Lifetime, believe it or not. It’s a decent flick. You have to take into account when it was made. Nancy Wolfe does steal the show.
ReplyDeleteI’d love to hear from others what they thought the best/worst Manson movies are.
If you care to review any, I've been wanting to start reviewing Manson films on the weekends but my work schedule has been bonkers since the start of the year. Might be fun to rank the actors/characters. Mark Ross is probably my favorite Charlie although that's technically a tv show.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, shoot Matt an email if you're interested.
Would this be open to anyone- offering to do a review? I’m new here so I don’t really know the ‘lay of the land’.
DeleteWould this be open to anyone- offering to do a review? I’m new here so I don’t really know the ‘lay of the land’.
DeleteSeveral years back, I watched every Manson murder related movie I found on NetFlix DVDs. The extras that came on the DVDs were particularly interesting.
ReplyDeleteThis one was really good, for its time at least. That music still sends chills, corny as it was. I don't think it was a miniseries tho, I believe it was a one night, singlular affair. Were you serious about a watch party? That would be fun.
ReplyDeleteSqueaky or one of the girls mocked this a bit at the time, stating that she'd never have followed THAT Manson. It could have been Blue tho, I can't remember.
Broadcast over 2 nights on original airing
DeleteFor the last couple of weeks I have been looking for the review Tex did of a Manson movie, where he rated the actors' believability. It was all completely arrogant and I believe he was called out on it during a parole hearing. I am pretty sure I saw it on this blog but I cannot find his review or the name of the movie. Does this ring anyone's bells? In any case, I think your idea about a weekly ranking is a good one GW!
ReplyDeleteMy fav movie is Manson Family Vacation. Even though no people from 69 are represented, I got a big kick out of the story.
ReplyDeleteIt aired over two nights on CBS in 1976. I was nine. I remember the part where the news crew finds the clothes vividly. Love that movie and whenever I watch it it reminds me of being a kid and watching TV with my folks eating popcorn and drinking orange juice.
ReplyDeleteI actually created a private Facebook group for the watch parties and then was like oh yeah that's right, they're removing everyone. LOL!
ReplyDeleteTotal letdown.
Monica, Write a post about it if you have time. I liked your posts here.
ReplyDeleteI think Saint wrote a post on it several years ago. He gave it 8/10.
DeleteOf the bastardized nicknames in "Helter Skelter", I get "Kitty Lassiter" for Kitty Lutesinger, "Freckles" for Squeaky: and "Boots" for Shorty....but where the hell did they come up with "Cisco Budge" for Bruce?
ReplyDeleteA fun fact that most certainly pissed Bugliosi off is that it was blacked out in California (or just LA?) when it premiered because Bugliosi was running for District Attorney.
ReplyDeleteOFF TOPIC:
ReplyDeleteI've informally followed this forum for about 3 years, and I've become very interested in the mechanics of the Tate murders. I would like to start a thread here, but damned if I can see how I can initiate it. I've not been an official follower, if that matters any. I've posted a number of comments over the years.
Can any regular here tell me if it's possible to start a thread? What I'd like to do now is to create a list of "loose ends", as defined by me, and solicit discussion that might make it possible to tie up as many of the ends as possible.
An example from my proposed list is:
1) In Winifred Chapman's grand jury testimony, she describes her entry onto the Cielo property in moderate detail, but in spite of this makes no mention of Parent's car, which she would have had to walk past to get to the back entrance. It was parked at an odd angle, and it also seems likely that Parent's body would have been fairly visible, in the driver's seat.
Can anyone recall any interview, formal or otherwise, that might explain this obvious omission in her observation?
Shoegazer, email me at:
ReplyDeleteMatt at mansonblog dot com
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteCan anyone recall any interview, formal or otherwise, that might explain this obvious omission in her observation?
Chapman testified on two separate days at the Manson-TLB trial, see volumes 16 and 63. By that time she would have been “prepared” by the prosecution.
Volume 16 probably contains her most important testimony - regarding the washing of the doors. It also depicts her as respecting the privacy of her employers - for she is reluctant to answer certain questions.
In Volume 63 she testifies seeing a body in the car as she leaves (she is lead or given a hint by the prosecution).
Upon entering the gate she was focused on the garage light being left on, and headed towards it to shut it off. I would guess that she also was glancing at the newspaper and wasn’t concerned about looking in Parent’s car, for she was accustomed to guest vehicles - and respected her employer’s privacy.
Check out Volume 63 at cielodrive.com.
http://www.cielodrive.com/people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel/04-trial/Vol63.pdf
Shoe gazer - no end of loose ends and anomalies in this case!
ReplyDeleteTabor - you’d have thought that she would’ve been even less inclined to look and/or see Parent on her way out given that she was getting out of there as fast as she could and screaming in hysterics. I’d definitely say that she was coached by Bugliosi on that part of her evidence.
TabOrFresca,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this link. May I ask how one accesses this area of cielodrive.com? The trial archive is not visible from any menu heading if I go in thru the browser.
I wonder what else I might be missing besides people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel.
Thanks again.
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteThe trial archive is not visible from any menu heading if I go in thru the browser.
I don’t know how to use a menu to get directly to the trial archive directories.
If you paste in the link provided you”ll bring up Volume 63.
If you remove Volume63.pdf from the link you’ll see all of the available PDFs for that trial.
If you use the following link a funky front-end menu allows you to chose some testimony based on witness name.
https://www.cielodrive.com/manson-family-trials.php
Speculator:
ReplyDelete"I’d definitely say that she was coached by Bugliosi on that part of her evidence."
Let's test this a bit. Let's assume that she was coached by the prosecution to say that she noted Parent's body on the way out, but not on the way in. We're then left with at least these alternatives:
1) She saw the body on the way in but was coached to not mention it. If so, in what ways could this benefit the prosecution?
2) She did not see the body on the way in, as testified.
Then these two:
1) She did not see the body on the way out, but was coached to say that she did.
2) She noticed it on the way out, as testified.
What would have been the benefit to the prosecution to have coached her on this point?
Is it feasible to think that she did not see it, at all, perhaps? Was it necessary to the case to have her fabricate this part, running the risk of coming apart under cross examination?
Perhaps the most economical explanation is that it happened very close to the way she testified to it.
TabOrFresca:
ReplyDelete"I don’t know how to use a menu to get directly to the trial archive directories.
If you paste in the link provided you”ll bring up Volume 63.
Yep, that's what I did. Good stuff!
If you remove Volume63.pdf from the link you’ll see all of the available PDFs for that trial.
Yes, this too.
If you use the following link a funky front-end menu allows you to chose some testimony based on witness name.
https://www.cielodrive.com/manson-family-trials.ph
Good stuff!
Do you ever wonder that if people-v-manson-atkins-vanhouten-krenwinkel and manson-family-trials.ph are both under https://cielodrive.com/, but not visible from the browser, there may be a whole lot of other stuff, too?
Jay said:
ReplyDeleteIt’s a decent flick
I absolutely hated the movie. I saw it a few years ago on one of these Sky channels that showed these obscure movies. It was actually purely by accident that I came across it. I rarely used to watch live telly and ∴ flick through the channels because at that time, my kids were small and most of what got watched was watched by them; I used to record anything I wanted to watch so I could watch at my leisure. But one night just before I went to bed, I was flicking through the channels and noticed Helter Skelter on so I watched it. Because I knew the book so well, I thought the film was so ropey. It was on in 2 parts and I was going to let the second part go but curiosity got the better of me and I taped it, thinking, well, the 2nd part must be an improvement on the first.
It wasn't.
The guy that played Bugliosi was so annoying, even more annoying than the real Vince {and that took some doing !}, and the guy that played Charlie was so over the top that he could have had his own airport or been a cloud. The depiction of the "Manson women" would have infuriated me, if I'd been a Manson woman !
But this isn't specific to this film. It is truly a rarity with me to enjoy a film if I've read the book previously, or to enjoy a book if I've already seen the film or TV episode. It has happened, but it's notable for its scarcity.
You have to take into account when it was made
It was made around the same time as "Star Wars" ~ it's not doing it any favours to take into account when it was made ! 😏
Speculator said:
I’d definitely say that she was coached by Bugliosi on that part of her evidence
I don't know if you've read her testimony, but Mrs Chapman wasn't someone that could be coached in anything. She was actually really awkward and cantankerous ! I have known many women like her, middle aged Black women that are difficult but because they are excellent at what they do, those with power over them give them a wide berth and tiptoe around them, doing almost everything they can not to upset them. For me, it's actually been quite amusing to watch for many decades.
In the trial, the Judge is about the only person that acts tough with her. I think he was kind of insensitive but she was a difficult customer. We talk about how William Garretson and Frank Struthers imploded, partly as a result of seeing the dead bodies, but often Winnie Chapman is left out of that equation. The entire episode pretty much unstitched her.
Grimtraveler:
ReplyDeleteIn the trial, the Judge is about the only person that acts tough with her. I think he was kind of insensitive but she was a difficult customer.
The observation about sensitivity probably highlights how much social sensibilities have migrated since 1969.
At that time sensitivity was not high on the list of priorities. I can say this with assurance because less than 6 months after the crimes the US Army tried to draft me and ship me off to Vietnam.
But they failed, and I'm still here! ;^)
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeleteSpeculator: "I’d definitely say that she was coached by Bugliosi on that part of her evidence."
What would have been the benefit to the prosecution to have coached her on this point?
Was it necessary to the case to have her fabricate this part, running the risk of coming apart under cross examination?
I remember some years ago, coming to the conclusion that the problem with presenting oneself as a cynic is that one has to be cynical about almost everything and that nets the result of making those that are not cynical become cynical about cynicism.
🧐 😭
Some of the views taken in this case really are {!} a case in point. When one has a view of Bugliosi as the Dark Lord of Due Process, as he is sometimes presented, basic reality is often dispensed with.
By consistently pushing this narrative of him as the coach of all witness testimony, we end up with this "don't believe anything that comes from his direction" rider, which simply does not accord with reality, common sense or human experience. Cynicism often constructs a bridge too far.🌉
Instead of stating that Mrs Chapman's testimony was "definitely coached," we really should be told precisely why it is felt that this part was coached and what the prosecution stood to gain from her saying what she said.
One might just find, by examining such a point, that they stood to gain absolutely nothing and that actually, with a scenario where it was not uncommon for different cars to be around the car park, even at oddly parked angles {and that's a point to consider ¬> oddly parked to whom ?} and for Mrs Chapman to be used to such, it more than makes sense that she would not pay particular attention to Steve's car and therefore look in it and see a body. But on the way out, galvanized by the shock of what she'd just seen and somewhat heightened in awareness, not knowing whether or not a killer might be lurking and therefore, looking about, noticing the car and its contents.
In Winifred Chapman's grand jury testimony, she describes her entry onto the Cielo property in moderate detail, but in spite of this makes no mention of Parent's car, which she would have had to walk past to get to the back entrance. It was parked at an odd angle, and it also seems likely that Parent's body would have been fairly visible, in the driver's seat.
Can anyone recall any interview, formal or otherwise, that might explain this obvious omission in her observation?
What I'd say to that is: it's common human experience to not notice something one moment, but to notice it just a short while later. Right now, I'm looking at a green plant. It's been in our front room for almost a year. I've just this moment noticed that one of the leaves, a really large leaf, one of the largest, is yellow ! Yet, at the angle I sit, it's in my full view. I look at it daily. I couldn't tell you when it turned yellow. I've literally only just noticed it.
Jay said:
ReplyDeleteWould this be open to anyone- offering to do a review? I’m new here so I don’t really know the ‘lay of the land’
I hope you get to do it.
shoegazer said:
The observation about sensitivity probably highlights how much social sensibilities have migrated since 1969...At that time sensitivity was not high on the list of priorities
Good point. My sister and I used to argue about this; being a legal person, she felt that courts should be an intimidating place because that way, you'd get to the truth and cut through all the bullshit that criminals can tend to cover proceedings with. But I was of the opinion that it could be counter~productive to witnesses who might end up saying stupid things in their nervousness, a la Pat Krenwinkel, and possibly putting an advantage in the path of someone that was actually guilty. Not that Pat wasn't guilty, but you know what I mean, her nervousness pushes her to make statements that get her into more soup.
I could see where Judge Older was coming from because Mrs Chapman grizzled and whinged, with things like "I can't take this !" and "Where does he get these questions ?!?!" She did no favours to prosecution or defence alike. And, she was in pain, having been in a car accident not long before. At one point, the Judge told her to shut up ! He actually put it as "Just be quiet ! The man has a right to ask questions." But that's just another way of saying "Shurrup !" 😄
Gorodish said:
ReplyDeletewhere the hell did they come up with "Cisco Budge" for Bruce?
It sounds like some sort of stomach complaint or an inability to have a good shit....
Jay - Yep. You'll see Matt's email along the right side of the blog.
ReplyDeletematt@mansonblog dot com.
General - the more I say Cisco Budge in my mind, the more I like it.
ReplyDeleteShoegazer/Grim - the Chapman thing is pretty much a minor issue really isn’t it. Albeit an anomalous one. I guess that it kept things tidy for Bugliosi in setting out his case, for Chapman, the person who discovered the bodies in the house to also confirm the presence of Parent’s body too. It’s a minor plank of the prosecution case but nonetheless a necessary one. But it could equally be her honest testimony as opposed to Buglioisi’s coaching. I accept that.
ReplyDeleteShoegazer/Grim - the Chapman thing is pretty much a minor issue really isn’t it. Albeit an anomalous one. I guess that it kept things tidy for Bugliosi in setting out his case, for Chapman, the person who discovered the bodies in the house to also confirm the presence of Parent’s body too. It’s a minor plank of the prosecution case but nonetheless a necessary one. But it could equally be her honest testimony as opposed to Buglioisi’s coaching. I accept that.
ReplyDeleteMakes sense to me, Speculator.
ReplyDeleteGrimTraveller:
ReplyDeleteSome of the views taken in this case really are {!} a case in point. When one has a view of Bugliosi as the Dark Lord of Due Process, as he is sometimes presented, basic reality is often dispensed with.
By consistently pushing this narrative of him as the coach of all witness testimony, we end up with this "don't believe anything that comes from his direction" rider, which simply does not accord with reality, common sense or human experience. Cynicism often constructs a bridge too far.
These are very useful observations, GT.
I used to post comments here a bit in the summer of 2019. I got interested in the *details* of the case--motivated simply by a Once Upon a Time in Hollywood trailer on TV. I visited several forums. I quickly learned that to a very many posters the entire case was a sort of "heroes and villains" melodrama to the point that based on the supposed personalities of the individuals involved in the crime, apprehension, and the judicial proceedings, the assessment of verifiable and likely facts were ignored in favor of a conspiracy du jour. This was very frustrating because people tended to see what they wanted to see, in support of a favored narrative, rather than what seemed to be a likely possibility.
In short, they'd work backward from a conclusion, constructing interpretations of facts to justify the preferred conclusion, rather than the other way around, where the conclusion is derived from the most likely scenario developed.
In the end it will *all* be speculative--we *won't* know in any epistemological sense what happened--but it's fun to try to come up with plausible explanations based on fairly objective analysis and testing.
2000 green points for using epistemological.
ReplyDeleteThe conversations around here have been fantastic lately. Thank you all for the continuing education.
G. G-W:
ReplyDelete2000 green points for using epistemological.
Hah!
I had just watched a couple of Jordan Peterson videos and had discussed them, and so I was way, way over my head so far as vocabulary.
Oh, well...
Ditto the high and improving quality of recent articles and exchanges. I hope to sorta fan the stuff, like the ember in Quest for Fire... ;^)
Bugliosi as some sort of dark lord of due process- I love that.
ReplyDeleteDid he coach some of the testimony? Sure, but I suspect all lawyers do that to a degree. Was there a vast conspiracy unleashed by him? Doubtful. Just take a look at some of the witnesses that would have had to be involved. I wouldn’t feel to confident getting some of them involved in a complex legal conspiracy. Bugliosi was able to work the jury and the media to get the verdict.
Sad fact is, we are probably never going to know 100% for sure everything that went down. Still interesting to engage in the speculation and conversation
shoegazer said:
ReplyDeletelike the ember in Quest for Fire...
I saw that film 40 years ago. I walked a mile to the cinema and a mile home. It was harder to watch than the TV "Helter Skelter !" And I didn't even have any weed ! It was a Thursday and I didn't get paid till the next day. It was difficult to watch a film where there was no dialogue, although I suppose it had a happy ending.
I was happy when it ended. 🥳
I used to post comments here a bit in the summer of 2019
I remember them well. You and someone called Diana arrived around the same time and between the two of you, left some great posts. I wondered what had happened to you.
Speculator said:
the Chapman thing is pretty much a minor issue really isn’t it
I think so.
GT:
ReplyDeleteYep it was a vastly over-rte film at the time, probably getting more attention because Tommy Chong's daughter was in it, as I recall.
But I recently saw McCabe & Mrs. Miller again on TV, and I still like that one.
Jay said:
ReplyDeleteI’d love to hear from others what they thought the best/worst Manson movies are.
The “colonel” gave a thumbs down to this (in the early days of his blog) but I like it with reservations and if the cost is low.
The link is a response I added to another blog. You need to be registered to see it. I have pasted it below the link.
https://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/694/manson-on-film
I recently watched the film “The Manson Family” by Jim Van Bebber. I was able to get the 2 Disc version using the local public library system.
About 3 minutes in to the film, I said “What the hell is this crap”? But I continued to watch and it wasn’t bad. Not essential but better than some of the other movies and documentaries.
The second disc contains a documentary about making the film. This independent movie was started in 1988 with very little money. It was filmed in Ohio using college students (and a handful of strippers for a couple of scenes). About half of the movie was filmed in 1988, much of it over a couple of long weekends. Then they ran out of money and the guy playing Manson bolted. It would take about 15 years to complete.
From watching the movie and documentary, you can see that Van Bebber was familiar with the writing of Ed Sanders and Tex Watson; and the Hendrickson-Merrick documentary, “Manson”. He also didn’t portray Manson as the boogieman.
The filming in 1988 focused on life at Spahn and the crimes (other than TLB) such as: recruiting Tex; a garbage dump run; the Simi Valley Sherry rape/forced group sex; swimming in a stream; scenes showing babies; dancing naked in a field; group sex at night that includes taking LSD, dancing, reenacting a crucifixion, sacrificing a dog and drinking blood; Manson hitting a recording engineer; Sunshine Pierce saying he was leaving; recruiting Kasabian; the Crowe shooting; the Hinman murder; the Shea murder.
Besides dramatization of Life at Spahn and the crimes, most of the rest of the film was later day flashback interviews with the Killers: Watson, Beausoleil, Atkins, Krenwinkle, and Van Houten.
Many years after starting filming, they finally filmed the TLB murders.
Overall the content, filming, and acting isn’t bad. However I didn’t like that the Watson, Atkins, Shea, and Beausoleil characters looked so different than the real life characters.
Some people may not like the amount of nudity and simulated sex but it didn’t bother me.
The part I didn’t care for the most was a couple of scenes that show a later day group/cult that worship Manson, listen to Jim Jones, and take heroin. They kill a news anchorman who speaks negatively about Manson. Van Bebber said this killing was inspired by Merrick being killed. They actually used a real anchorman, from Ohio, in the film.
There are a couple of funny things in the movie. Crowe is depicted having an afro and Rosina is tied to a radiator. When Kasabian is recruited, Tanya is in a playpen and a mouse is in there with her. When Shorty is killed, they show him being shot in the head.
The end credits list most of the Manson Family girls, but it’s nearly impossible to know who was who unless you’re familiar with what they are quoted as saying; and even that doesn’t hold true in some cases. I doubt Hendrickson was aware if this film for parts of the film dramatize RH’s “Manson”. The guy playing Paul Watkins even uses Watkins mannerisms- as was depicted in RH’s documentary.
While this is not an essential work, it does show that someone with a small guaranteed budget could make an interesting Manson film that doesn’t rehash HS. The documentary on making the film was pretty good with funny stories.
Jay said:
ReplyDeleteI’d love to hear from others what they thought the best/worst Manson movies are.
This is a second response I added to another blog. You need to be registered to see it. I have pasted it below the link.
https://murdersofaugust69.freeforums.net/thread/1700/manson-docuseries
For those that do not have access to EPIX, the six episode documentary is available on two DVDs. There are three episodes per DVD, with a total runtime of 348 minutes.
I’ve watched this documentary a couple of times and consider it to be the best one I’ve see concerning this subject.
The directing and editing is good in that it compiles (cut and paste style) a lot of: news footage, pictures, audio recordings, commentary’s from 2020, and some new footage.
While the documentary is compelling, it’s title “Helter Skelter an American Myth” is a bit misleading. Other alternative motives are not discussed in detail. With about 5 minutes left in the (6 hour) documentary, reporters/journalists Linda Deutsch and Sandi Gibbons briefly say that they are not satisfied with the Helter Skelter motive.
Those appearing as 2020 commentators: Authors - Jeff Guinn, Ivor Davis, Deborah Herman, Dr. David Williams, Domenic Priore, Steve Oney; Reporters/Journalists - Al Winman, Sandi Gibbons, Linda Deutsch; Rolling Stone writers - David Felton and David Dalton; ADA - Stephen Kay; Musician John Echols (Love); Acquaintances - Greg Jacobson, Phil Kaufman, Virginia Graham, Dr. David Smith; Family Members - Snake Lake, Gypsy Share, Stephanie Schram; Family Associate - Bobby Beausoleil (audio only). TLB juror #3 briefly appears as does Peter Coyote. A cousin of Gary Hinman and Brooks Poston comment briefly (audio only).
The six episodes are titled: Charles Manson is your brother; Seed; Nobody joins a cult; Out of Eden; Some bad mistakes; Legend of Helter Skelter.
Some interesting comments include:
Jacobson says Manson signed away his writer’s rights (for Wilson using Cease to Exist); Guinn says Dennis Wilson picked up Tex Watson hitchhiking; Share said she was (happily) arrested during the crawl and did not complete the crawl. There was a warrant issued for outstanding traffic tickets; Schram said she turned over her driver’s license when she arrived at Spahn; Beausoleil said that DeCarlo was in the car when Davis drove Beausoleil to Hinman’s; Share said that when you take mescaline, it first “cleans you out”, you get sick, and then you get high; Share said she removed the “X” from her forehead herself, by sanding it; Coyote said that the social unrest of the 60’s youth was a result of the PTSD that WWII vets had???
A couple of video clips show Sharon Tate. One is at her wedding and you can see Candice Bergen and Joan Collins. Joan is not mentioned by her name but by her husband’s (Anthony Newly).
Another shows Sharon in a bikini washing her dog. The background music is from an obscure 45 called “Somewhere” by the group “Yellow Hair”.
Another shows Roman directing Sharon on the set of “The Fearless Vampire Killers”.
Some of the audio: BUG, Kasabian and Hoyt from 2009; Watson and Atkins from 1978; Poston and Van Houten from 1969. The Poston and Van Houten clips are the most affectively used.
Some of the video footage include: a home movie of Leno LaBianca at a beach; Jay Sebring as a contestant (not the imposter) on “To Tell the Truth”; recent footage of the prison Manson’s Mother was in.
Thanks for the reply. I did see that documentary, and I thought it was really good. What about the documentary Manson: the Women? It aired on the Oprah network I believe. There is some interesting interviews with Sandy snd Squeaky in that one.
DeleteYour answer was much appreciated.
I’m really hoping that a civil, interesting discussion of the films and movies can get started. Some of the other threads on this blog have started out great, and seem to have devolved into personal attacks and just plain non-sense.
Thanks for the reply. I did see that documentary, and I thought it was really good. What about the documentary Manson: the Women? It aired on the Oprah network I believe. There is some interesting interviews with Sandy snd Squeaky in that one.
DeleteYour answer was much appreciated.
I’m really hoping that a civil, interesting discussion of the films and movies can get started. Some of the other threads on this blog have started out great, and seem to have devolved into personal attacks and just plain non-sense.
All SIX episodes of the EPIX Documentary are uploaded to this users YouTube channel
Deletehttps://youtube.com/channel/UCfaj2jdVw31abPaHtKvD_4w
TorF:
ReplyDeleteSchram said she turned over her driver’s license when she arrived at Spahn;...
Hah. This intersects a question I've had for quite a while about some of the related narratives about the Tate ad the LaBianca crimes.
I can recall reading at least a couple of times that one reason Kassabian was selected for the Cielo crime was because she had a valid driver's license and many of the Family did not.
This seems completely inane and nonsensical. Especially when Atkins and maybe Kassabian testified that Watson drive the car from Spahn.
There's also an almost comic consideration: it's OK, fine, to murder any number of people, but we must remain lawful when driving to and from the crime.
It can't be that, can it? Has anyone read any explanation, at all, why a valid DL was considered important, or even *if* it was?
Share said that when you take mescaline, it first “cleans you out”, you get sick, and then you get high...
My sole experience with mescaline, or what was sold as mescaline in Marin county in 1969, was that it was a round white pressed pill, fairly large diameter, and that it indeed did make me sick. I don't recall a high. It was enough to put me off off what purported to be hallucinogenics.
That was one of the things: you never knew what you were buying. As college folk, middle/upper middle class kids, started experimenting with drugs, we were pitifully naive: we actually thought that "Acapulco Gold" was from Acapulco, Panama Red was from Panama, and Maui Wowie was from Maui. Mostly it was just junk brought in at San Isidro or Tecate in the wheel well of a livestock truck, I suspect.
See why we are the way were are? You start out thinking that you can trust the "right" people ("the People"..."Power to the People!") and mistrust The Man. Then you eventually find out that you can't trust anyone you don't know, and that, by God!, you *are* The Man.
...and now we find that we're being catered to by retirement communities and funeral homes...
Very funny, from this perspective, and I see the Millennials and Zoomers going down the same path when they think that you can believe without question the "personal narrative" of certain *kinds* of people, but that certain other kinds never, ever tell the truth.
Some things never change, huh? :^)
Jay and ToF. I am 100% interested in discussing Manson-related films. Pick one on YT or streaming and I'm in.
ReplyDeleteJay said:
ReplyDeleteWhat about the documentary Manson: the Women?
I have not seen it. I am someone who has really cut the cord. I have no satellite, cable, internet, PC, or tablet. I have a very small IPhone and data minutes. If I stream video I have to hold the phone in one hand and a magnifying glass in the other. Its a somewhat unpleasant experience. I see that I could stream it but I need to download an “app” to do it. I’m a minimalist. If I do watch it I’ll let you know.
While I find some minimal value in most documentaries, movies, and books, this media is not made for people who study TLB - but for the general public.
… said:
This article kind of swerved. I think the subject was the “1976 made for TV two-part movie, for a USA audience, to be shown during prime time (8-11 PM, but more likely during the 9-11 PM range, with all of the sensor restrictions in place. This was not a mini-series or a theatrical film or a documentary. It was one of the best made-for-TV movies of the 1970s and did a couple of things. First, much of small town USA knew nothing about TLB and Manson. Second, it increased already large book sales to massive values.
The first successful mini-series was broadcast earlier that year. It was “Rich Man, Poor Man”. It’s popularity resulted in more mini-series being shown the following season.
Low budget made-for-TV movies were big in the early 1970s. The “ABC Movie of the Week” was a good choice (when you only had 3 channels). “Duel”, staring Dennis Weaver, was one of the best.
TabOrFresca said...
ReplyDeleteThe first successful mini-series was broadcast earlier that year. It was “Rich Man, Poor Man”
Gosh, that takes me back. I remember watching it because my older sister wanted to watch it, so we did. There was general heartbreak when Nick Nolte died. We so didn't want Falconetti, or whatever his name was, to win.
We used to take TV so seriously when we were kids !
Jay said...
I did see that documentary, and I thought it was really good
Agreed. It had its irritations, but it was well made, had an almost stellar cast and was definitely worth watching.