I am appalled to read that there are imdb.com members who actually think that Charles Manson and his "Family" were prosecuted because he was a hippie or a flower-child. He was neither. He is neither to this day. Have any of these idiots seen the TV interviews with Manson (by Diane Sawyer, I think) a while back? It would creep you out, as it shows how completely mad he is, to this very day. And his anger is creepy, too, and I thought he was going to physically harm the female interviewer at one point. When told of some of the things that the now older and wiser "family members" said of him (that he asked them to kill for him, that he instructed them in detail, and that they no longer have any regard for him), he just laughed and derided them as getting to be "old broads". This is a flower child?
I've done enough reading of various books and articles about Manson. He was the product of our institutions -- the one point on which he is correct. From childhood on, he never lived a normal life, always an institutionalized life. Then he took on this Messiah persona to impress the only people who were impressed by him -- young teenaged girls or other young women from homes where they felt unwanted. He literally rented them out as sexual favors to his biker pals, whom he was trying to impress and keep on his side. This was a flower child? Hardly! He has, and still has, a twisted but skillful mind.
As for the stupid premise that Buguliosi "framed him", have these people who write such nonsense read his book? Buguliosi documented, and this was affirmed in such books as "The Family", that Manson actually liked his prosecutor and respected him, and said so, even though there is good evidence that he wanted him dead. Like I say, Manson is a twisted person.
This TV movie is good drama, and totally accurate. Unlike others, I would like to see it redone for the big screen. I think the entire story of Manson's life and of his "family" and what they did to others at the Spahn Ranch before the murders of Sharon Tate and the others, needs to be told. Maybe bring people up to date with interviews with this monster on TV. No, not Oliver Stone! But to tell it somewhat in the way "In Cold Blood" was transferred from book to movie.
I expect to get nasty, threatening replies from Charlie's idiot disciples. That's right, you are all whacked-out idiots for thinking that he is anything but a monster.
I've done enough reading of various books and articles about Manson. He was the product of our institutions -- the one point on which he is correct. From childhood on, he never lived a normal life, always an institutionalized life. Then he took on this Messiah persona to impress the only people who were impressed by him -- young teenaged girls or other young women from homes where they felt unwanted. He literally rented them out as sexual favors to his biker pals, whom he was trying to impress and keep on his side. This was a flower child? Hardly! He has, and still has, a twisted but skillful mind.
As for the stupid premise that Buguliosi "framed him", have these people who write such nonsense read his book? Buguliosi documented, and this was affirmed in such books as "The Family", that Manson actually liked his prosecutor and respected him, and said so, even though there is good evidence that he wanted him dead. Like I say, Manson is a twisted person.
This TV movie is good drama, and totally accurate. Unlike others, I would like to see it redone for the big screen. I think the entire story of Manson's life and of his "family" and what they did to others at the Spahn Ranch before the murders of Sharon Tate and the others, needs to be told. Maybe bring people up to date with interviews with this monster on TV. No, not Oliver Stone! But to tell it somewhat in the way "In Cold Blood" was transferred from book to movie.
I expect to get nasty, threatening replies from Charlie's idiot disciples. That's right, you are all whacked-out idiots for thinking that he is anything but a monster.