The Manson Family

I like the movie a lot, probably not for the crappy set design and poor acting, or even the low budget premise. I just liked the fact that an independent film maker with a vision got to see his dream after 15 years get rewarded. I have to admit, the movie is pretty gritty and I got the parallel between the new Manson zeolites and the original family and found it more intriguing than the usual docu-drama the media portrays. Well done...oh and people that hated this movie, it's too bad because I was entertained throughout and in a way it took out the mystique of the Manson family rather than glorifying it. Yes it was low-budget but if you watch the documentary on the film's creation it's quite brilliant and fascinating.

A really demented but compelling take, on the life and times of Charles Manson. Incredible story for all the best (and worst reasons) and a difficult picture to get exactly right. At times this film takes you into a world were madness and mayhem, truly rules the roost. One long acid trip and no doubt a fairly accurate portrayal of events that actually happened (on the Spahn Ranch). To be honest you could never make up a fiction story anywhere near as bizarre as this and whatever your views on Charles Manson, he was a complete one-off!

I'm giving the film a 10/10 because of how I feel about it, but ignore that part of this review. What I'd like to do is help you, the potential viewer of The Manson Family, figure out whether you'd love this movie or hate it. It is a polarizing film, as is obvious from the reviews - no genuinely bad films get such an extreme reaction, positive or negative. The worst movies on earth are the ones where you just feel like your time was wasted. At worst, this film will make you feel like your time was violated - remember that the people who give it one star were motivated to find this web page and leave their comments. Go look up any god-awful Fred Olen Ray movie and see what people say: they give 2 or 3 star reviews. I suggest that the only one-star reviews on this entire site are motivated by being offended, not by the movie being "bad" in any objective sense.

Okay, that said, I think this is a well-made film, which I am prepared to support with evidence. The people who said that this is poorly shot ("the camera doesn't move") are clearly out of their minds. Not only does the camera move (and why would it matter if it didn't?), but the filmic technique is a dead-on mimic of the film techniques of the period it is depicting (late 1960s). This is a low budget, 16mm film, so it doesn't have any kind of Hollywood gloss - it is semi-documentary in it's approach. However, I found it to be stylish and evocative of Vietnam documentary footage, Woodstock (the film), and classic drive-in exploitation movies of the period. Again, this is something you'll probably either love or hate, but it is a calculated decision to look "unprofessional" by modern Hollywood standards.

As far as the content of the film, I think it is mistakenly regarded by some as a "message" film, and by others as an "exploitation" film. I think it is neither, or maybe more accurately, both - this is a "depiction" film, intent on depicting the Manson Family as realistically as possible. Why do that? Because Manson and his "Family" is one of the most sociologically interesting phenomena of the 20th century, in many ways comparable to Hitler and the Nazis. Jim VanBebber made a conscious (even a little heavy-handed, lending a little credence to the idea that this is a "message" film) decision to focus on the "family," the actual killers (Manson himself was convicted of inciting the crimes, not participating). Having read a lot of Manson literature including the Vincent Bugliosi book Helter Skelter, I think that this is the most accurate way I've seen the story told, particularly with the "Rashomon"-esque narration of the participants, where they whitewash their own involvement in the crimes, something that frustrated District Attourney Bugliosi to no end.

Now, how will you be able to tell whether this movie is for you, with all the "VanBebber is a genius" or "this is the worst movie ever made" crap out there? Here's the checklist:

1: Do you like low-budget 16mm horror films? It looks low-budget like Evil Dead or Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original), a look which I find to be raw and immediate, but that's an opinion. The much-debated quality of the acting is exactly in keeping with this style. If, for example, you thought the acting in the Texas Chainsaw was rough and real, you'll probably like this, too.

2: Can you cope with graphic sex, drug use, and violence? The sex is near-X-rated and the violence, though they use 70's-style Karo syrup blood, is intense, grotesque, and on-screen. And really happened to real people, which freaks me out.

3: Do you find the twisted social mores of the Manson family to be interesting? This is not a film about a charismatic leader - it's a film about lost sheep. This type of senseless killing is only committed by people who have lost their empathy, an effect that is all too easy to achieve - it takes a lot less than what Manson did to subvert a person's ethics (see the psychological research of Milgram, Zimbardo, et al).

I thought the film did an excellent job of making an intellectual point at a (mostly) visceral level. The point is that human ethics are incredibly flexible and that hedonism is ultimately selfish, even when the love is "free." My final statement: A person with a (very?) strong stomach who is willing to engage his or her intellect in something that doesn't seem quite worth it on the surface will probably enjoy this movie, and be surprised at how deep the well runs. A crazy gore fan will probably like this movie. Fans of underground and experimental film (esp. Richard Kern fans) will love this movie. Mainstream Hollywood fans will not; non-genre fans will not.

Director Jim Van Bebber finally got his low budget Manson picture released. Was it worth the wait? Sure, if you're interested in the case, that is. From what I can gather, the film is fairly accurate with its portrayal of events, actions, and even some dialogue. Van Bebber does take some liberty though, showing a few things that were only suspected in the real case. I guess that's to be expected. Anyway, the movie basically shows the story from the Manson Family's point of view, complete with faux interviews, tied together with a running subplot of a modern TV station putting together a documentary on Manson and his followers. Obviously, it is a very violent and disturbing movie, not shying away from the drug use, orgies, or murders. The shot of his three female followers with shaved heads, coming down the courtroom stairs, is a haunting one. The movie as a whole is not great, though I did find it intriguing, horrifically trippy, and ultimately tragic. It's a shame that some youths still look up to the guy, even wearing shirts with Manson's picture on it. The two DVD set includes two feature length documentaries and a short interview with Charlie Manson. Boy, is he out there.

**1/2 out of ****

By golly, it's about time that a film about the Manson Family wasn't made to be more of an event then it really was. I mean sure, it is very tragic that those people died, I always will mourn for their families and them, being that they were innocent people who did not deserve to die, but the family isn't something that should be really feared. When you really break it down, the members of the cult were not smart people. They didn't ask questions as to what was the purpose was for murdering all those innocent people, they didn't see Charlie as someone who should not be taken seriously, and they didn't even know who they were murdering. They were very foolish people, and they should be anything but feared. I don't understand the rationale of someone who finds the incident of the cult to be so shocking. I mean sure, it's shocking that these people actually went out and committed these murders, but they were just a group of people who had obviously lost too many braincells. That is why I thought this was a good movie. Because it is honest, shows the incident from the evil side, and does it in a responsible and realistic manner.

The film structure consists of the members of the family being interviewed in jail about what they did. We briefly see Charlie as the ringleader and we see him as a foolish looking funny man who mostly doesn't know what he is talking about. The film builds up to a Roman Polanski's MACBETH style third act in which the family goes on their killing spree, but by the time they begin to do these things, the audience realizes that these people don't have any rationale except for hate, and they gradually became blinded by it and began thinking that they were doing something of purpose, which they were certainly not.

I don't recommend this to the casual movie goer. People who rent this thinking that it's just a horror film are wrong. This is not just a horror film. This is an extremely disturbing, gruesome, tasteless, and senselessly brutal film that just so happens to depict an honest representation of the family. People who will see this film will wonder if it merits any purpose. Indeed, it may not. That is not the point though. The point is that Mario Vanbebbler wanted to make the most realistic version of The Manson Family as possible, so even though the film may not be good, I am happy to say that he has succeeded in doing exactly what he wanted. That is something I greatly admire, and that's why I like this film.

Not Rated. Adults only. contains explicit violence and sexuality, and drug use.