This Manson thing won't go away! I just watched Charlie Says last night after reading about it in an article alerting us to Quentin Tarantino's new Manson film coming out this summer. I was surprised that Matt Smith was listed as playing Charlie, so that got my curiosity going!
First, 50 years after the murders, it's truly amazing to me that this subject still gets traction and that Manson is still touted as the ultimate boogieman. We now understand psychology in ways that supersede what was understood 50 years ago, thus stripping away all that "mystery" that used to be there. Or, at least, if you care to strip that all away, the information is clearly available: Otherwise, Hollywood continues cashing in on other people's suffering by monster making, etc.
Anyway, the film was definitely one of the more seemingly accurate portrayals of life on the Ranch that I've seen. Most other versions tend to be exploitative, whereas this tried to portray the kids as human. Still, I was under the impression that this was going in the direction of being Leslie's story, but random bits of Charlie's story kept disrupting that. At the end of the day, I wanted to know what happened to Leslie and her parents that pushed her away and into the life that led her to the Ranch. Manson was a prison-trained pimp and con-man that knew very well how to manipulate teen runaways... and then throw in the 60s culture wars and heavy drug use, and there's no mystery about him! We really didn't need any of the stuff with Dennis and Terry and Charlie's attempts to be a rock star. (I never bought that that was the main motive for the murders.)
I really liked the approach of Karlene trying to help the girls in prison, a few years after conviction, and then flashing back to the Ranch and murders. Trying to portray them as confused, young and human is a new approach. This is possibly the least exploitative version of this story so far, and that's to be lauded.
Still, the Manson stuff is always getting in the way! Bugliosi and the press sure created a mythological creature that seems to be standing the test of time! (Odd, since the reality is that Charlie was a little person with no education and nothing really going for him but his pimp instinct in a psychedelic world. He's not imposing, not threatening, and clearly not the mythological beast we think of!) Some of the scenes early on with Dennis and Terry felt out of place and unnecessary. The motive, in my mind, is purely speculative at this point: I doubt the murders were a grudge against Melcher. Yes, it was his old house, but that just might have been randomly in the back of their heads as they picked out a target. It felt like a distraction from the focus of Leslie and how someone could end up manipulated easily by a pimp.
All around, the film is well made, with solid acting, and the casting mostly looked really authentic. And, possibly a first in Hollywood: the hair and clothes were good!! (Modern films about the 60s and 70s tend to have bad wigs and really fake beards.) So my only real complaint is focus: in a story so well known to the popular culture, Manson isn't interesting anymore. Or shouldn't be. The Family and how they ended up there is the only last frontier anymore. This film comes pretty darn close to getting it!
Having seen the trailer for Tarantino's film, I can already say that I'll probably just ignore that film altogether. Charlie Says, despite flaws, might be the one last film worth seeing on this subject.
First, 50 years after the murders, it's truly amazing to me that this subject still gets traction and that Manson is still touted as the ultimate boogieman. We now understand psychology in ways that supersede what was understood 50 years ago, thus stripping away all that "mystery" that used to be there. Or, at least, if you care to strip that all away, the information is clearly available: Otherwise, Hollywood continues cashing in on other people's suffering by monster making, etc.
Anyway, the film was definitely one of the more seemingly accurate portrayals of life on the Ranch that I've seen. Most other versions tend to be exploitative, whereas this tried to portray the kids as human. Still, I was under the impression that this was going in the direction of being Leslie's story, but random bits of Charlie's story kept disrupting that. At the end of the day, I wanted to know what happened to Leslie and her parents that pushed her away and into the life that led her to the Ranch. Manson was a prison-trained pimp and con-man that knew very well how to manipulate teen runaways... and then throw in the 60s culture wars and heavy drug use, and there's no mystery about him! We really didn't need any of the stuff with Dennis and Terry and Charlie's attempts to be a rock star. (I never bought that that was the main motive for the murders.)
I really liked the approach of Karlene trying to help the girls in prison, a few years after conviction, and then flashing back to the Ranch and murders. Trying to portray them as confused, young and human is a new approach. This is possibly the least exploitative version of this story so far, and that's to be lauded.
Still, the Manson stuff is always getting in the way! Bugliosi and the press sure created a mythological creature that seems to be standing the test of time! (Odd, since the reality is that Charlie was a little person with no education and nothing really going for him but his pimp instinct in a psychedelic world. He's not imposing, not threatening, and clearly not the mythological beast we think of!) Some of the scenes early on with Dennis and Terry felt out of place and unnecessary. The motive, in my mind, is purely speculative at this point: I doubt the murders were a grudge against Melcher. Yes, it was his old house, but that just might have been randomly in the back of their heads as they picked out a target. It felt like a distraction from the focus of Leslie and how someone could end up manipulated easily by a pimp.
All around, the film is well made, with solid acting, and the casting mostly looked really authentic. And, possibly a first in Hollywood: the hair and clothes were good!! (Modern films about the 60s and 70s tend to have bad wigs and really fake beards.) So my only real complaint is focus: in a story so well known to the popular culture, Manson isn't interesting anymore. Or shouldn't be. The Family and how they ended up there is the only last frontier anymore. This film comes pretty darn close to getting it!
Having seen the trailer for Tarantino's film, I can already say that I'll probably just ignore that film altogether. Charlie Says, despite flaws, might be the one last film worth seeing on this subject.