Just wondering if anyone knows how much accuracy towards the Manson murders this has? Although I know its not based on it but obviously it must have been inspired or the least the basis of this movie.
Looks interesting nonetheless, hope to see it soon.
~XTC
It is based on the manson murders, just not the Tate ones. Leslie Van Houten was a member of the manson family that participated in a second set of murders after the Tate ones. The manson family didn't just stop with the Roman Palanski / Sharon Tate house. There were more murders when Manson became angry that people didn't get the "message".
Noteably, her defense was that she stabbed the body of one of the victims after they were dead. Which it kinda shows in the trailer. Then she spent the trial giggling and making disruptions, etc..
Even if it is "loosely based". It is still horrible to make a comedy love story about it. From what I heard, most scenes are pretty straight on, but a lot of the court stuff with the juror, etc. was made up.
(I watch a lot of discovery channel.. sorry. :) )
[deleted]
Ah I see, thanks for the info much appreciated.
Although from the trailer I didn't really get the "comedy" thing about it even though it is labeled that way, seemed kinda strange to me.
~XTC
Can we assume then that his d*ng is not so "grande" after all?
Welcome to Costco, I love you...
I totally agree with elgrandedong. I wonder how Roman Polanski must feel about this movie.
shareRoman Polanski ... don't even get ppl started on him or this post will be completely derailed! lol
sharei don't think it's a comedy or was ever meant to be a comedy
it offers the viewer a powerful view at the 60ies, perry,a young man sitting in the jury, acts as a tool to make us understand the madness of vietnam war, we get to take a look at the world of repressed, uptight self righteous christians (crazy imho) and how they perceived (young) rebellious hippies fighting war and cultural restrictions
through leslies eyes we get to know a little about the background of the murders and life within the community at the ranch.
the film as whole gave me a much better understanding of how the "family members" would have believed in manson's misguided vision about an impending ultimate war. They were living in the midst of the news coverage of the war cruelties that were happening in vietnam. that combined with the amount of drugs they were using at their age made it very believable and easily comprehensible how they could do such atrocious things.
(lsd, amphetamines & thc are psychosis-inducing) they were so young, 19 - 22 i believe.
young people in that age can get very scared of life, are impressionable and prone to commit violent acts if they think it benefits their beliefs.
also the way they were treated, sadie had nothing to do with the labianca murders yet she was sitting in court with the other defendants. she was so crazy at that time, that she probably didn't mind. whereas tex had taken a huge part in the murders and wasn't mentioned at all. which seems to be partly be happening until today. the women still stand out in the news coverage. also even though leslie, pat and susan have renounced manson and his ideas about 40 yrs ago, they still are portrait as his followers in the news. well monsters sell better than people who have changed for the better. that would be just plain boring, right?
labianca's daughter forgave tex for killing her mother, why didn't she forgive the women too?
is that another aspect of the repressed US that women are more demonized than man for committing the same acts?
it happened more than 40 yrs. ago, maybe it's time to move on.
The Manson family carved x in their foreheads not crosses.
shareManson actually carved a swastika in his forehead. Although it is synonymous with the Nazi's, it has actually been around a lot longer than that. This is a quote from Wiki "It remains widely used in Eastern religions, specifically in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism". This is probably why the earlier poster mentioned crosses.
shareActually, Manson carved an 'X' into his forehead first, stating he was "Xing himself from society". He later changed it to the swastika, while in prison.
shareIt was an X, then he turned the X into a swastika by burning it. He then would color in the scar with pencil and sometimes appeared like a tattoo. In the early 1980's, maybe 83, he had it tattooed.
He told me that the swastika was respects to a Native American chief he knew in Terminal Island. He now calls it a sun god symbol, as it is amongst other things.
if memory serves, Al Adamson made The Female Bunch at the Spahn Ranch about 6-9 months before the murders. In the film, Russ Tamblyn gets an X carved on his forehead!
So... take your pick... Manson's own symbolic usage, or the fact that Manson and his "family" were so loaded on every possible drug that they confused film-making for reality. OR some combo of the two.
It was an X during the trial and later turned into a swastika, or more like covered up with a swastika since it doesn't really seem to follow the lines of the original X. Lets not try to give it more significance than it deserves, it doesn't represent anything more than Charlie's insanity and skill in putting on a show whenever he knew a camera would be pointed at him.
If you want accuracy, this is not the place to go... I'm not even sure if many would be entertained by this movie. I just finished watching it...
I was hoping that Manson the icon would be represented at least in a somewhat interesting way. Turns out that the box cover is more interesting to look at than his portrayal in the movie.
I doubt that Roman Polanski has time to even take notice of that trailer for this low brow minutia.
If you want accuracy, watch a documentary... there was a real good one on the History Channel last week. If you want to know what Manson is really like watch the various interviews with him... I recommend the one with Ron Reagan Jr.
The story is certainly interesting enough to merit a good movie, and maybe we will get one someday...
This is not very accurate at all. Yes it gets it right for the most part but it's way overblown. I see this as a comedy more than anything else. The juror is based somewhat on one of the jurors William Zamora (I think)in as much as William did have somewhat of a crush on Leslie, but in the end returned with a guilty verdict and death sentence.
The court part of the movie is so overblown. I do think this is supposed to be satire. Things like the wall being an American flag. Maybe that's to represent the feeling that Charlie had that America and it's youth were on trial. But of course there was only an American flag on a flag post just like any court in America. Each defendant had their own lawyer. There wasn't just one to represent all four as shown in the movie. And there were two prosecuting attorneys as well. Aaron and Vince and then Vince and Stephen.
As most people know the jury doesn't have an open dialog with anyone in the court. By most accounts most of the jury did not laugh during the trial as there wasn't much to laugh about.
Judge Older was far more strict and not as portrayed at all. There was, for the time, graphic sex talk during the trial and Older did have the witnesses rephrase things as to not offend the jury, but it wasn't like the movie showed.
Charlie didn't make any kind of speech when he held up the front page newspaper with the Nixon headline. He just held it up briefly, laughed and then it was taken away from him.
The jury was sequestered for most of the trial and lived in the Ambassador Hotel. There is no way that a juror would have nightly dinners at a restaurant with his family.
As far as I know none of the names of the jury were released to the press during the trial.
The LaBianca murder was off mainly in the fact that Tex didn't appear in the movie. Absent was also Clem. Charlie went in the house first, as it shows. Some reports show that he and Tex went in and some reports show that just Charlie went in. He then came out and sent in Tex, Pat and Leslie and then drove off with Linda, Sadie and Clem. Nobody wrapped an American flag around Rosemary LaBianca. There was an
American flag on the couch at the Tate house.
The writing of "DEATH TO PIGS" in the movie shows that it was on the garage door at the Tate house in huge letters. Only "PIG" was written on the front door the Tate house.
It's things like that which make it very inaccurate. Also as some of the other posters have said, Charlie carved an X on his forehead. He didn't make a speech about it in court rather he sent out a press release saying he has X'd himself from the world.
If you watch "I'm Not There" by Todd Haynes, he seems to think that Bob Dylan was a movie star, a little black kid, a French symbolist poet and a woman!
shareIt's just based on the Manson murders. The movie was purchased by an American distributor who obviously thought they could make a quick buck by renaming it "Manson, My Name is Evil." It wasn't that in Canada. Anyway, it's pretty faithful to the Manson story regardless.
sharewe get to take a look at the world of repressed, uptight self righteous christians
i agree, it is more than some cheap comedy. After all, after 40 years we can relax a bit considering the increase in horror in both cinema and real life makes Manson almost tame.
even 40 yrs ago the real life horror wasn't to underestimate
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre in 1968
Not very close to the original,but then again,most of America only "knows" the prosecution side that Bugliosi spoke of and detailed in his book "Helter Skelter". Anyone who has done their own unbiased research understands that much of the truth was totally left out of the news and what was reported was very incaccurate. No,I am not a Manson family fan or member,just understand that,like most media these days(especially FOX news),the news is no longer news but peoples opinion. Therefore we get only opinions and public relations instead of the truth. I just think its funny that Manson never murdered any of the people at the Tate or LaBianca murders,yet he was the guy portrayed as pure evil,while Tex Watson,who did 90 percent of the stabbing and shooting at both scenes,got nowhere near the attention of Charlie. Manson supposedly ordered the murders of these people and is considered the personification of evil,yet George Bush is responsible for the death of over a million yet he still eats with the silver spoon. We are a truly disturbed and ignorant society. This movie is good for a laugh as it shows the uptight and hypocritical nature of the religious right but as for being accurate..not even close.
"We must never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion"
i agree a lot with you,
and even though the film's not 100% accurate it sheds light from a different angle on the whole story. which i appreciated
why didn't she forgive the women too?
Cuz she didn't have the hots for Atkins, Krenwinkel or Van Houten
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked.
From the prosecution viewpoint or not, the book "Helter Skelter" is considered the definitive story of Manson and his Family. Leslie herself has stated that the story stated in it is accurate.
This movie, while entertaining, is not very accurate at all.
The story could only be accurate from the Manson family is it was told by one of its members but certainly not when it is related by Bugliosi who had his own career serving agenda.
share[deleted]