Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA and the Secret History of the Sixties

[W. Niederhut]

18 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

Read the O'Neill book - the Bugliosi slam only gets better.

You know VB didn't write the JFK book, right?  (My opinion, not O'Neill's.)

Just like Curt Gentry wrote Helter Skelter.

       Wikipedia's bio on Vincent Bugliosi needs some serious editing.*   At the very least, they should have a Wiki reference for DiEugenio's work demolishing Reclaiming History.

 

*  " He (Bugliosi) later wrote Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (2007), in which he debunked numerous conspiracy theories and explored the events surrounding the assassination. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Bugliosi

[Douglas Caddy]

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

Over the hills: Quentin Tarantino and the end of Hollywood as we know it

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is supposedly about 1960s Tinseltown but is actually a lament for a film industry that has been humbled by time, taste and technology

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/02/over-the-hills-quentin-tarantino-and-the-end-of-hollywood-as-we-know-it

[Douglas Caddy]

From an article in today's Washington Post:

“Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” read the Hollywood Reporter headline this week, "needs to have strong staying power to be considered a success.” Pamela McClintock wrote that an original movie’s performance should be judged by its second and third weekends. “[W]hether the original adult tentpole can succeed as an antidote to the Age of the Franchise remains to be seen,” she said. In other words, we’ll know after this weekend whether it’s a lightweight or a Royale with cheese.

 

[David Andrews]

An interesting take on our Film of the Lunar Month:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/08/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-ending-tarantino-violence.html

 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

An interesting take on our Film of the Lunar Month:

https://slate.com/culture/2019/08/once-upon-a-time-in-hollywood-ending-tarantino-violence.html

 

"they don't know what's coming (Polansky/Tate).  But we do, and the move takes almost two and a half hours getting to it."

Not seen it yet.  Sounds like a fishing lure.  Manson/ Murder/Stars draw in the patrons to pay entrance fee.  Then the fish (me) get's virtually nothing about Manson/Tate/ LiBanca, History, but a belly full of action packed violence.

[David Andrews]

9 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

"they don't know what's coming (Polansky/Tate).  But we do, and the move takes almost two and a half hours getting to it."

Not seen it yet.  Sounds like a fishing lure.  Manson/ Murder/Stars draw in the patrons to pay entrance fee.  Then the fish (me) get's virtually nothing about Manson/Tate/ LiBanca, History, but a belly full of action packed violence.

That would be an awful lot of trouble at Slate for two hours of one's time, and a $10 ticket price.

The article's take on the violence theme in the film is convincing - in the article.  If QT had played it a hair sharper, the film would be more convincing along that line.  Or would doing that have been "too much on the nose"?

Edited August 3, 2019 by David Andrews

[Ron Bulman]

28 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

That would be an awful lot of trouble at Slate for two hours of one's time, and a $10 ticket price.

The article's take on the violence theme in the film is convincing - in the article.  If QT had played it a hair sharper, the film would be more convincing along that line.  Or would doing that have been "too much on the nose"?

An over simplification?  When it comes to historical murder movies, qt is no Oliver Stone?

[James DiEugenio]

Rick Dalton is not fictional and neither is Cliff.

As I said, they are clearly modeled on Reynolds and Needham.  Down to the title of the spaghetti western that Reynolds made and the  name of the director of that western. 

The fact that this guy misses that point is an example of QT trying to have it both ways.

And man what he does with that ending.  The killers get their inspiration for murder from a TV series? oh please.

And how about this one about QT: This is a country steeped in bloodshed and built on resentment, and movies, notwithstanding the romantic notion of audiences bonding in the dark, have sometimes worked to sharpen the appetite for both. 

Oh please again.

What American movies did for so long that its too ridiculous to note is to soften that past.  To take the horror out of it.  For example the dropping of the atomic bombs: has there ever been an American film that depicts that event honestly? It was this softening that provided the impetus for America to involve itself in more of these nutty crusades.  For example, the Hollywood mythology of the USA winning WW 2 in Europe egged on the invincibility myth that led to the tragedy in Vietnam. What QT does is take real historical events, dresses them up in smartass ways, and then gives them ridiculous happy endings: HItler gets killed, slaves rebels successfully, and in this one, the Tate/LaBianca killers get their just desserts.  Its what a disaffected 11th grade student would do  doodling on his high school history text.  Which is how I see this guy.  He is still the attendant behind the counter at that Manhattan Beach video store who didn't graduate from high school. And does not think me missed anything. 

Its interesting to compare him with Spielberg in that regard.  In Joe McBride's fine biography of Spielberg, he quotes him as saying that he wishes he had not dropped out of college.  If he had to do it over, he thinks it would have been better for him to get his degree, even though it would have delayed his career a couple of years.  That way he would have had a better and more widespread education going into the film business.  And BTW, later Spielberg actually did go back  to get his BA. Another thing about Spielberg. One of the reasons he waited a decade to do Schindler's List is that he did not think he was mature enough to take on such a subject. He even tried to pass it on to Polanski.  So he waited and waited until he felt he was ready to confront it.  QT has no such compunctions about approaching history.  He lines em up, chews them up and spits them out one after another.  For me, they are at the intellectual and artistic level of that Narbonne HS student.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[David Andrews]

And how about this one about QT: This is a country steeped in bloodshed and built on resentment, and movies, notwithstanding the romantic notion of audiences bonding in the dark, have sometimes worked to sharpen the appetite for both. 

If somebody else said it in a different context. we'd have to agree.  So why complain.

Leaving all of Manson's influences and protections aside - some of these are in the O'Neill book - Manson in Hollywood was nothing but resentment for people with record contracts and houses in Laurel Canyon or Benedict Canyon, or even bourgeois houses in Los Feliz, like the LaBiancas'.  Houses "steeped in bloodshed" were the result.

Edited August 3, 2019 by David Andrews

[W. Niederhut]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Rick Dalton is not fictional and neither is Cliff.

As I said, they are clearly modeled on Reynolds and Needham.  Down to the title of the spaghetti western that Reynolds made and the  name of the director of that western. 

The fact that this guy misses that point is an example of QT trying to have it both ways.

And man what he does with that ending.  The killers get their inspiration for murder from a TV series? oh please.

And how about this one about QT: This is a country steeped in bloodshed and built on resentment, and movies, notwithstanding the romantic notion of audiences bonding in the dark, have sometimes worked to sharpen the appetite for both. 

Oh please again.

What American movies did for so long that its too ridiculous to note is to soften that past.  To take the horror out of it.  For example the dropping of the atomic bombs: has there ever been an American film that depicts that event honestly? It was this softening that provided the impetus for America to involve itself in more of these nutty crusades.  For example, the Hollywood mythology of the USA winning WW 2 in Europe egged on the invincibility myth that led to the tragedy in Vietnam. What QT does is take real historical events, dresses them up in smartass ways, and then gives them ridiculous happy endings: HItler gets killed, slaves rebels successfully, and in this one, the Tate/LaBianca killers get their just desserts.  Its what a disaffected 11th grade student would do  doodling on his high school history text.  Which is how I see this guy.  He is still the attendant behind the counter at that Manhattan Beach video store who didn't graduate from high school. And does not think me missed anything. 

Its interesting to compare him with Spielberg in that regard.  In Joe McBride's fine biography of Spielberg, he quotes him as saying that he wishes he had not dropped out of college.  If he had to do it over, he thinks it would have been better for him to get his degree, even though it would have delayed his career a couple of years.  That way he would have had a better and more widespread education going into the film business.  And BTW, later Spielberg actually did go back  to get his BA. Another thing about Spielberg. One of the reasons he waited a decade to do Schindler's List is that he did not think he was mature enough to take on such a subject. He even tried to pass it on to Polanski.  So he waited and waited until he felt he was ready to confront it.  QT has no such compunctions about approaching history.  He lines em up, chews them up and spits them out one after another.  For me, they are at the intellectual and artistic level of that Narbonne HS student.

 

 

      Tarantino produces garish historical fantasy fiction.  It's entertaining, but not a genre that teaches people anything useful about history --just the opposite.

       I watched Django Unchained three or four times when it came out.  Loved the revenge fantasy and the spaghetti western music and graphics, but it was really a simple melodrama based on garish stereotypes-- e.g., the horrifying phrenology and mandingo sports obsessions of Leonard DiCaprio's character.

     Of course Spielberg, himself, has never shied away from garish ethnic stereotyping.  It has been so prevalent in most Hollywood filmmaking since WWII that Americans only recognize the sterotypy on the off chance that they see a historically realistic WWII film like Joseph Vilsmaier's Stalingrad (1993.)

 

[James DiEugenio]

Django Unchained is almost D.W. Griffith in reverse. 

But say this about Spielberg, he has been trying to change up a little.  I mean he had the sense to make Lincoln with probably the finest actor of his generation, Daniel Day Lewis.  Whatever one thinks of that film, Day Lewis' portrait of the man is simply indelible.  Amistad is also a really distinguished film.

And Schindler's List is a fine film.  Let me add something about Spielberg and that film. He did a free showing of it for students in Los Angeles many years ago.  He himself screened it and took questions after.  At that time he explained how he did not think he was the right guy for the project at first since he was too young.  But several people insisted he do it, this included a guy who gets almost no credit, Leopold Pfefferberg aka Page.  He ran an antique shop in Beverly Hills which Spielberg frequented.  He was one of the people Schindler helped  get out. Whenever he came into his shop, he would bug Spielberg with, "Why are you making pictures about sharks and aliens?  Why don't you make a film about a real hero, Oskar Schindler." And he would not let up on him.  He is actually credited in the film under the Page name.  Joe McBride tried to find him for his book, but I think he had passed on.  That would have been a great interview.

BTW, let me say something about a further comparison.  I am not a Spielberg groupie. But the disposal of the slaves on the ship in Amistad, and the Krakow ghetto liquidation in Schindler's List  are excellently done.  There is a way to direct violence in an artistic and imaginative way.  Those two sequences are models of how to do it.

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[W. Niederhut]

29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Django Unchained is almost D.W. Griffith in reverse. 

But say this about Spielberg, he has been trying to change up a little.  I mean he had the sense to make Lincoln with probably the finest actor of his generation, Daniel Day Lewis.  Whatever one thinks of that film, Day Lewis' portrait of the man is simply indelible.  Amistad is also a really distinguished film.

And Schindler's List is a fine film.  Let me add something about Spielberg and that film. He did a free showing of it for students in Los Angeles many years ago.  He himself screened it and took questions after.  At that time he explained how he did not think he was the right guy for the project at first since he was too young.  But several people insisted he do it, this included a guy who gets almost no credit, Leopold Pfefferberg aka Page.  He ran an antique shop in Beverly Hills which Spielberg frequented.  He was one of the people Schindler helped  get out. Whenever he came into his shop, he would bug Spielberg with, "Why are you making pictures about sharks and aliens?  Why don't you make a film about a real hero, Oskar Schindler." And he would not let up on him.  He is actually credited in the film under the Page name.  Joe McBride tried to find him for his book, but I think he had passed on.  That would have been a great interview.

BTW, let me say something about a further comparison.  I am not a Spielberg groupie. But the disposal of the slaves on the ship in Amistad, and the Krakow ghetto liquidation in Schindler's List  are excellently done.  There is a way to direct violence in an artistic and imaginative way.  Those two sequences are models of how to do it.

 

   The timing of the film Lincoln was also brilliant.  When the film came out, I was struggling with feelings of shock and dismay about the previously "latent" racism surfacing in response to Obama becoming POTUS.   (Congressman Joe Wilson's "You lie!" comment comes to mind.)   I thought America had made more progress on racism since the Civil Rights era.

     Watching Lincoln inspired me to go on a reading binge about Civil War and Reconstruction era history, (including a study Eric Foner's Reconstruction, and James McPherson's excellent social history, Battle Cry of Freedom.)

     12 Years A Slave is another timely historical film.  Unfortunately, the Americans who really SHOULD have watched that film probably didn't.  (My brother-in-law built the slave ship hold/set used in 12 Years A Slave.)

    

[James DiEugenio]

McPherson and Foner are really good on Civil War and Reconstruction. 

I read the McPherson book as a graduate student in history. Foner has just about dedicated a large part of his career to unearthing the whole Reconstruction era.

BTW, Amistad came about because because Debbie Allen saw Schindler's List and said he ought to make a film about the Middle Passage now.

Those are the kinds of films that can be used in history classes. 

 

[Joseph McBride]

Thanks for your kind comments about my Spielberg book, Jim. Yes, Spielberg has taken the care

to educate himself in history. He is an autodidact, partly because he is dyslexic, which caused him

to be a weak student in high school. His historical films are carefully researched. I interviewed

35 Holocaust survivors to see what they thought of SCHINDLER'S LIST. They all said the same

things -- that it was so authentic it felt like being back there in the midst of those events, which is a high compliment. Their criticisms

were that the film, as violent as it is, was not as violent as the actual events -- even though the film pushes the envelope

on realistic violence and does not flinch from it, some of the stories they told me would have caused

people to run out of theaters, as Spielberg said when explaining why he didn't show SS men throwing

babies into the air and spearing them with bayonets for "fun" during the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto

(you can be sure Tarantino would have shown that). I heard one story from a survivor of the Plaszow camp that is the

worst Holocaust story I have ever heard, and that is saying a lot. The survivors also said Ralph Fiennes

was too handsome to play Amon Goeth, who was an ugly monster. Spielberg wanted to explore the human

nature of even such an evil man, so casting an actor who looked like a slug might have worked against it by

desensitizing the audience. But the survivors emphasized those were relatively minor complaints in

view of the film's overall honesty. They were deeply grateful for it. By the way, Polanski turned it down

because he was actually in the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto, and even he felt he was not ready

to deal with the subject of the Holocaust then (he later did with THE PIANIST). 

Edited August 3, 2019 by Joseph McBride

[W. Niederhut]

28 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Thanks for your kind comments about my Spielberg book, Jim. Yes, Spielberg has taken the care

to educate himself in history. He is an autodidact, partly because he is dyslexic, which caused him

to be a weak student in high school. His historical films are carefully researched. I interviewed

35 Holocaust survivors to see what they thought of SCHINDLER'S LIST. They all said the same

things -- that it was so authentic it felt like being back there in the midst of those events, which is a high compliment. Their criticisms

were that the film, as violent as it is, was not as violent as the actual events -- even though the film pushes the envelope

on realistic violence and does not flinch from it, some of the stories they told me would have caused

people to run out of theaters, as Spielberg said when explaining why he didn't show SS men throwing

babies into the air and spearing them with bayonets for "fun" during the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto

(you can be sure Tarantino would have shown that). I heard one story from a survivor of the Plaszow camp that is the

worst Holocaust story I have ever heard, and that is saying a lot. The survivors also said Ralph Fiennes

was too handsome to play Amon Goeth, who was an ugly monster. Spielberg wanted to explore the human

nature of even such an evil man, so casting an actor who looked like a slug might have worked against it by

desensitizing the audience. But the survivors emphasized those were relatively minor complaints in

view of the film's overall honesty. They were deeply grateful for it. By the way, Polanski turned it down

because he was actually in the liquidation of the Krakow ghetto, and even he felt he was not ready

to deal with the subject of the Holocaust then (he later did with THE PIANIST). 

Hopefully, Spielberg will eventually make a historically accurate film about the Israeli snipers who have been shooting all of those Palestinian protesters in Gaza lately.

Also, why has Hollywood never produced a single movie about the 20 million Russians and Ukrainians murdered by Bolsheviks like Beria and Kaganovich in the worst holocaust in human history?