Do you have any idea how much that plunging knife to terrified Sharon would have felt like as she begged to have her baby and have them come back to kill her after -wards? Can you even fathom the terror of seeing all your friends brutally cut down in front of you from total strangers? However, Watson, married his social worker and had kids with her in communal visits. What ya think of that? Do you call that justice as Sharon, her baby and friends live six feet in the ground? Think about it.
Well at least this film is from that era. The 1960's were a very unique time in history. And they cannot recapture that in movies or re-enactments made today
not those of us who don't choose to kill pregnant women and anyone else we choose, taste their blood and laugh about it like it meant nothing. you obviously have never had an immediate family member brutally murdered. anyway she's died behind bars and she deservedly suffered, there is little else to say.
it's all the same. blind faith is just that...blind. don't ask questions, don't break rules, 'keep sweet', don't question the preacher or priest, or rabbi...just swallow it all and believe....bullshit. most people fall for all this crap because they think they need something to believe in...great! believe in yourself and the part of the creator that lives within you, be the best you can be, and that's it. why follow another humans' interpretation of something? stupid.
this film is to warn of the dangers of drug use...are you kidding me? what a joke this is...right up there with reefer madness!! this crime wasn't about drugs, it was about guillable people following a conman leader... the same type of folks that are everywhere, those who will join a religion, or a cult (no difference in my book), and get sucked in by a charismatic leader, who they follow blindly...jeffs and the lds...jones and the peoples temple, elijah mohammed, billy graham,
In fact drugs are also guilty of what happened. An important part of this sad chapter of the story was the madness and the guillable and unstable people but drugs were a key element of this "blood rampage". I understand perfectly the sense this movie want to give...However, it is the first aproximation of cinema to this story.Obviously the whole sense wasn´t absolutely clear yet.
Perhaps for its' time, the movie may have made some sort of an impact, but really, it was a tragic waste of film and time. Totally inaccurate and definitely horrible acting. The whole thing was pretty bad. No wonder it was rare...
in spite of all the limitations the film contains lots of nice details, for example Mr Spahn walking with one of the Manson girls in the ranch. And the soundtrack is simply awesome...
I think the hippie music festival sequence is a very strong piece of observational filmmaking; a suble indictment of the hippie subcultures' efforts to seperate individuals from themselves. Less than drug abuse, the real message of the movie seems to be directed toward the dangers of surrending your own mind to anything wholly outside of you.
The event had just happene and was still unfolding amidst the absurdly long trial, and so the filmmakers are too close to the event to see it clearly so what stands is a motion picture historical document; a deliberately dry and cold visual record that applies expressionistic details to make up for what could not be captured by their limitations and the limitations of the medium itself.
The static black and white, plus flashback and transition effects make it seem like something from the 50s, remve it from late 60s context.
The end title card seems like a last minute decision because the filmmakers couldn't really wrap it up with a statement of finality or purpose within anything they shot.
Very little dialogue is used, which lets the atmosphere breather and every one acts in a mechanical robotic manner because they are deliberately directed to do so. This is creative use of the non-professional actors limitations.
I'd like to know more about the circumstances of this being made because it's obviously produced as an exploitation quickey but so much thought and care was put into other aspects of its making.
This film is extremely well made given the budget limitations. Great photography, very rhythmic, fluid editing. A lot of the medium shots, focus on body gestures and reptition of gestures (Sharon Tate's photoshoot for example) reminds me a lot of Robert Bresson but with a little bit of Bob Fosse given the stylistic editing. (cont'd)
The negative comments about this movie seem to be from Manson-philes who are dissatisfied that the movie isn't exploitive enough, despite their claims otherwise. Much of the movie is restrained outside of the murder sequence. This restraint, the silences and waiting outside of the crime, similar to films like Elephant and United 93, serve to strip the horrific events away from the media swirl and cottage industries that abstracts a crime from what it is on a moral human level. (cont'd)
Tavlov- we are all impressed with your astute analysis. With all due respect, the film is just not good. The acting is horrible and there are too many inaccuracies for the film to be a reliable historical document. Nice try though.
who controls your eye ball controls your mind ...please if you are interested in knowing what really happened search the net for salvador astucia book ...FBI war on rockstars ...this will clear your mind ...the devil is not charlie is the USA goberment
Film lacks accuracy. Better to watch parole hearings of the killers. To this day, none take responsibility, blaming the murders on drugs / Manson. Unless we do soul searching into our own darkness and these murderers' minds, like Columbine kids, we remain as shut down to each other as them. Herein the solution (and problem) lies.
I imagine few people would believe this film as documentary. It was one of the first films made on this subject, and has several points of potential interest, not the least of which being the fact that it was filmed on location at Spahn. The drug excuse tacked on at the end is a common gimmick in exploitation films. Giving the story a moral is a way of justifying exploitation under the cloak of social commentary. Hope this adds clarity.
Well, according to Watson's (Tex) testimony, on the day of the Tate house murders he not only ingested LSD, but also methedrine and belladonna. In fact, he took the LSD and meth only hours before arriving at the Tate house (belladonna was taken much earlier), so he was indeed flying high as a kite during the crime. Just look at how he ascended the telephone pole, whose first rung was fifteen-feet off the ground, with a pair of thirty-pound bolt cutters.
The murderers did not kill because of drugs. It was said in the COURT by a specialist of psychic effects of drugs (here LSD). LSD makes more conscious. In the past, people did not commit murders after having took LSD. Only suicide happened, and really rarely.
The end of your video made me sick. It means to be a documentary. We do not get details! The book "Helter Skelter", by the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, or the best Charles Manson website (www.charliemanson.com) are valuable informations!
Watson has said the meth was the drug that brought out the rage. LSD maybe cluttered his mind, but the meth was the drug that brought out the delusions and violence. Abounding Love Ministries is Watson's website, go there if you want to know what really happened.
Hello. Meth may have another effect than LSD. Ok. But I wouldn't believe Watson only by having heard him... almost all the murderers try to protect and to defend themselves, to give (the best) excuses and to avoid jail (or stay as short as possible)... So I guess the question is whether Watson should be hold responsible. It implies law, ethics and psychology... (not simple)
I can agree with you on the reliability of Watson and I still think he would have killed w/o the meth. I do think the meth did push him to be more violent than he would have been otherwise. I was really just supporting your comments on LSD, I don't think LSD would turn someone into a killer either. That is why I brought up the meth.
Still want to see parts 2 and 3!
madder66mortem 10 months ago
Do you have any idea how much that plunging knife to terrified Sharon would have felt like as she begged to have her baby and have them come back to kill her after -wards? Can you even fathom the terror of seeing all your friends brutally cut down in front of you from total strangers? However, Watson, married his social worker and had kids with her in communal visits. What ya think of that? Do you call that justice as Sharon, her baby and friends live six feet in the ground? Think about it.
TheJohnlennongirl 1 year ago
Well at least this film is from that era. The 1960's were a very unique time in history. And they cannot recapture that in movies or re-enactments made today
tapeduk 2 years ago
FREE SUSAN, DAMMIT!
DA4LE 2 years ago
amen amen amen
Makeyoubleed 2 years ago
she is free-free to burn in hell.
BrickLaneBetty 2 years ago
perhaps....aren't we all?
DA4LE 2 years ago
not those of us who don't choose to kill pregnant women and anyone else we choose, taste their blood and laugh about it like it meant nothing. you obviously have never had an immediate family member brutally murdered. anyway she's died behind bars and she deservedly suffered, there is little else to say.
BrickLaneBetty 2 years ago
There is quite a lot more to say, you are NOT the judge, only God is.
DA4LE 2 years ago
it's all the same. blind faith is just that...blind. don't ask questions, don't break rules, 'keep sweet', don't question the preacher or priest, or rabbi...just swallow it all and believe....bullshit. most people fall for all this crap because they think they need something to believe in...great! believe in yourself and the part of the creator that lives within you, be the best you can be, and that's it. why follow another humans' interpretation of something? stupid.
laceydays 3 years ago
this film is to warn of the dangers of drug use...are you kidding me? what a joke this is...right up there with reefer madness!! this crime wasn't about drugs, it was about guillable people following a conman leader... the same type of folks that are everywhere, those who will join a religion, or a cult (no difference in my book), and get sucked in by a charismatic leader, who they follow blindly...jeffs and the lds...jones and the peoples temple, elijah mohammed, billy graham,
and the pope..
laceydays 3 years ago
In fact drugs are also guilty of what happened. An important part of this sad chapter of the story was the madness and the guillable and unstable people but drugs were a key element of this "blood rampage". I understand perfectly the sense this movie want to give...However, it is the first aproximation of cinema to this story.Obviously the whole sense wasn´t absolutely clear yet.
kelillo 3 years ago
Perhaps for its' time, the movie may have made some sort of an impact, but really, it was a tragic waste of film and time. Totally inaccurate and definitely horrible acting. The whole thing was pretty bad. No wonder it was rare...
societalnorms 3 years ago
in spite of all the limitations the film contains lots of nice details, for example Mr Spahn walking with one of the Manson girls in the ranch. And the soundtrack is simply awesome...
kelillo 4 years ago 3
Anyway..
kelillo 4 years ago
the victims didnt even look scared
wwloaab 4 years ago
I think the hippie music festival sequence is a very strong piece of observational filmmaking; a suble indictment of the hippie subcultures' efforts to seperate individuals from themselves. Less than drug abuse, the real message of the movie seems to be directed toward the dangers of surrending your own mind to anything wholly outside of you.
Tavlov 4 years ago 3
The event had just happene and was still unfolding amidst the absurdly long trial, and so the filmmakers are too close to the event to see it clearly so what stands is a motion picture historical document; a deliberately dry and cold visual record that applies expressionistic details to make up for what could not be captured by their limitations and the limitations of the medium itself.
Tavlov 4 years ago
The static black and white, plus flashback and transition effects make it seem like something from the 50s, remve it from late 60s context.
The end title card seems like a last minute decision because the filmmakers couldn't really wrap it up with a statement of finality or purpose within anything they shot.
Tavlov 4 years ago
Very little dialogue is used, which lets the atmosphere breather and every one acts in a mechanical robotic manner because they are deliberately directed to do so. This is creative use of the non-professional actors limitations.
I'd like to know more about the circumstances of this being made because it's obviously produced as an exploitation quickey but so much thought and care was put into other aspects of its making.
Tavlov 4 years ago
This film is extremely well made given the budget limitations. Great photography, very rhythmic, fluid editing. A lot of the medium shots, focus on body gestures and reptition of gestures (Sharon Tate's photoshoot for example) reminds me a lot of Robert Bresson but with a little bit of Bob Fosse given the stylistic editing. (cont'd)
Tavlov 4 years ago
The negative comments about this movie seem to be from Manson-philes who are dissatisfied that the movie isn't exploitive enough, despite their claims otherwise. Much of the movie is restrained outside of the murder sequence. This restraint, the silences and waiting outside of the crime, similar to films like Elephant and United 93, serve to strip the horrific events away from the media swirl and cottage industries that abstracts a crime from what it is on a moral human level. (cont'd)
Tavlov 4 years ago
Tavlov- we are all impressed with your astute analysis. With all due respect, the film is just not good. The acting is horrible and there are too many inaccuracies for the film to be a reliable historical document. Nice try though.
volstar88 4 years ago
i agree with all of you
JarHed1982 5 years ago
who controls your eye ball controls your mind ...please if you are interested in knowing what really happened search the net for salvador astucia book ...FBI war on rockstars ...this will clear your mind ...the devil is not charlie is the USA goberment
zahorix 5 years ago
Film lacks accuracy. Better to watch parole hearings of the killers. To this day, none take responsibility, blaming the murders on drugs / Manson. Unless we do soul searching into our own darkness and these murderers' minds, like Columbine kids, we remain as shut down to each other as them. Herein the solution (and problem) lies.
fairlinda 5 years ago
The thing i hate about this film is it makes it very film-like. When i was watching it i completely forgot that they were real events..
lostbadger 5 years ago
I imagine few people would believe this film as documentary. It was one of the first films made on this subject, and has several points of potential interest, not the least of which being the fact that it was filmed on location at Spahn. The drug excuse tacked on at the end is a common gimmick in exploitation films. Giving the story a moral is a way of justifying exploitation under the cloak of social commentary. Hope this adds clarity.
OtherSideOfMadness 5 years ago
Well, according to Watson's (Tex) testimony, on the day of the Tate house murders he not only ingested LSD, but also methedrine and belladonna. In fact, he took the LSD and meth only hours before arriving at the Tate house (belladonna was taken much earlier), so he was indeed flying high as a kite during the crime. Just look at how he ascended the telephone pole, whose first rung was fifteen-feet off the ground, with a pair of thirty-pound bolt cutters.
brandpiano 5 years ago
The murderers did not kill because of drugs. It was said in the COURT by a specialist of psychic effects of drugs (here LSD). LSD makes more conscious. In the past, people did not commit murders after having took LSD. Only suicide happened, and really rarely.
The end of your video made me sick. It means to be a documentary. We do not get details! The book "Helter Skelter", by the prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, or the best Charles Manson website (www.charliemanson.com) are valuable informations!
imghost 5 years ago
Watson has said the meth was the drug that brought out the rage. LSD maybe cluttered his mind, but the meth was the drug that brought out the delusions and violence. Abounding Love Ministries is Watson's website, go there if you want to know what really happened.
volstar88 4 years ago
Hello. Meth may have another effect than LSD. Ok. But I wouldn't believe Watson only by having heard him... almost all the murderers try to protect and to defend themselves, to give (the best) excuses and to avoid jail (or stay as short as possible)... So I guess the question is whether Watson should be hold responsible. It implies law, ethics and psychology... (not simple)
imghost 4 years ago
I can agree with you on the reliability of Watson and I still think he would have killed w/o the meth. I do think the meth did push him to be more violent than he would have been otherwise. I was really just supporting your comments on LSD, I don't think LSD would turn someone into a killer either. That is why I brought up the meth.
volstar88 4 years ago
Ah ok. That's fine. ;)
imghost 4 years ago