Jump to content
The Education Forum

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


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, David Andrews said:

If QT had called this picture Hollywood Ending, would everybody feel better about the joke?

It's not a Manson movie.  The Manson character literally has a walk-on part, and no background information is given about the killers, the Family, etc. 

It's a fantasy about what might have happened had the Manson crew gone one road further up the canyon and attacked the house of somebody like Burt Reynolds.  Who didn't live there, though there was a nearly identical house to 10050 Cielo just up the hill.

We need a dedicated Manson thread, so we can talk about the real business.  So I'm going to kill this one later with a disquisition on the creepiness of Hollywood as represented in film.  Nobody can kill a thread like me.

Glad someone realizes this isn’t a Manson film. Not talking about anyone here but on a few other forums I’m on people are talking about it as if it’s specifically about the Tate /Bianca murders. I’ve even seen headlines on major entertainment sites going back 6-8 months that describe it as Tarantino’s Manson movie. Like you said Manson has a “walk on” role. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 280
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On ‎7‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 5:08 AM, Robert Harper said:

John Barbour wrote on Facebook today:

My profound thanks..and deep apologies. My thanks for the 100's of comments on my review of 'Once Upon A Time In Hollywood,' my apologies
for my techy challenged ability to answer them. Some of the comments were better than mine, as were some of the questions. Only 2 people liked the film..and still understood my revulsion.
One who loved the movie admitted he was stoned😊😊If anyone has an additional question..stick it on Messenger and I will answer it. Thanks. And have a great day. John.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Douglas Caddy said:

As a grad student, I took a part-time job serving coffee and emptying ashtrays at a clubhouse dedicated to hosting meetings for various addiction groups: AA, Al-Anon, Ala-Teen, Narc-Anon, and the like.  It was close to my apartment, and I didn't have the time for harder, better-paying work, because I both studying and teaching.

Everybody at the club was very nice and very sympathetic - good people, people I pulled for in my heart, and whose privacy I respected.  I learned a lot about human frailty and tolerance there, none of which I ever exhibit here.

I still remember so much about the place, but the only strange thing I remember happened when Woody Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters came out in theaters.  According to the opinion of the membership, the actress Dianne Wiest gave a devastating portrayal of a recovering alcoholic in the film, expressing aspects of the condition and lifestyle that they found exceedingly true to life.  Some of them recommended that I see the film so I could better understand addiction, but I was wasting my money on food then.

A few years after that job, I was able to catch Hannah and Her Sisters on cable TV.  I waited for this incisive portrait of alcoholism to appear; what I found was that Wiest's dialogue about recovering from alcoholism is approximately three to four lines long, badinage spoken in passing to the actor who plays her sister during a party scene where a lot else is going on among the large cast.  There were no drunk scenes, no AA meeting scenes, just...badinage.  Throwaway dialogue in light comedy. 

At the club, they'd gone on about it over twenty times longer than it occupied the screen.

This was the only false moment I experienced among a group of honest, striving people that I liked very much, many of whom I remember by name some thirty-five years later.  But I learned something from that moment as well.

Edited by David Andrews
Link to post
Share on other sites

(BTW,  David's comments above fit in with what I am about to say.)

In my review of Spielberg's The Post, I praised his direction of the film with specific examples.  You will not see me do that with QT.  Spielberg could take this guy to school in that regard. I was also clear about my problems with The Post, in script and dramatic license.  That is not my beef with OUATIH.  

When Dwight MacDonald--in my view one of the four best American film critics who ever wrote--signed off on his career, it was with his long review of Morgan!  Some think it drove him into retirement. He began that review quite pointedly.  He said if the film was a comedy, he forgot to laugh.  If it was supposed to be a drama or wring pathos, he was unmoved.  If it was a satire, Reisz failed again, since satire had to have a point. He then said, the film's defenders will reply that he was doing all three and molding it into a fantasy--I mean, my God Dwight, you aren't really taking this seriously are you?

He then compared what people who liked the film were doing to what the European members of the in crowd did in the 18th century; they visited sanitariums to be cool. And that was the problem with the film, people thought it was cool to like this mess of a movie--which he then tore apart on every level. Exposing the likes of Bosley Crowther as poseurs.

Ok, say its a fantasy.  So is Beatty's Heaven Can Wait. But that film was funny and had qualities of pathos and sentimental charm to it. This has none of that. QT is above that, right, since he is post modern. And therefore, a la Susan Sontag, there are no rules.  Therefore Brad Pitt can take a girl from the Manson gang and ram her face into the top of a fireplace three times as we watch in bloody and bloodier and bloodiest close up as her face gets cracked in more and more and more.  Pretty artistic right? Eisenstein's Potemkin?   Maybe David will say that later he realized that is what the audience wanted to see .  No. Its what QT wanted to depict since he has no artistic sensibility or aesthetic imagination.

The success of this guy, along with Jordan Peele, is really an indication of how bad Hollywood has become.  I thought I could not see anything worse than Us.  Then I saw this.  I mean on the one hand you have the Marvel takeover, then these guys are the alternative? Ouch. 

Spielberg is beginning to look like Kubrick in his heyday against that backdrop. 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the QT movies I've seen, there's exactly one scene that I love, and it really has nothing to do with QT's artistry or lack thereof. It's the twist contest in Pulp Fiction. Uma Thurman can dance, and I love Chuck Berry's music. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Andrews said:

Since Manson brings up Helter Skelter and the Beatles,  why not fake Beatles lip syncing  a Mc Cartney song?

https://www.bing.com/search?q=give+ireland+back+to+the+irish&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=d721eaa2ffd54f10b990e7eb9e642919&sp=1&qs=AS&pq=give+ireland&sc=8-12&cvid=d721eaa2ffd54f10b990e7eb9e642919

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting article about Manson and Vincent Bugliosi.

"...people who worked with Bugliosi in the D.A.’s office, and the cops, the majority of them didn’t trust him.

I found plenty of documentary evidence that Bugliosi procured false testimony, withheld evidence, and covered up information during the trial, and that law enforcement knew a lot more about the family’s potential for violence even before the murders."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/spotlight/journalist-misses-his-deadline-on-manson-article-by-20-years/ar-AAF2BLW?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/30/2019 at 12:47 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Ron:

If you chained me to a pole and started whipping me, after a few lashes I would have to agree.  

BTW, in that picture Dave linked to, God the make up job they did on DeNiro.  They made him look 20 years younger.

It's CGI also, which at this stage of the technology is harder than Cinerama.  The world will be complaining about it at Xmas:

https://www.slashfilm.com/the-irishman-cgi/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lewis Reynolds said:

Interesting article about Manson and Vincent Bugliosi.

"...people who worked with Bugliosi in the D.A.’s office, and the cops, the majority of them didn’t trust him.

I found plenty of documentary evidence that Bugliosi procured false testimony, withheld evidence, and covered up information during the trial, and that law enforcement knew a lot more about the family’s potential for violence even before the murders."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/spotlight/journalist-misses-his-deadline-on-manson-article-by-20-years/ar-AAF2BLW?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid

 

Thanks, Lewis.  It's kind of dispiriting to read (between the lines) that O'Neill doesn't have a second book on Manson in mind.  His publisher might, however.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/31/2019 at 1:59 PM, Lewis Reynolds said:

Interesting article about Manson and Vincent Bugliosi.

"...people who worked with Bugliosi in the D.A.’s office, and the cops, the majority of them didn’t trust him.

I found plenty of documentary evidence that Bugliosi procured false testimony, withheld evidence, and covered up information during the trial, and that law enforcement knew a lot more about the family’s potential for violence even before the murders."

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/spotlight/journalist-misses-his-deadline-on-manson-article-by-20-years/ar-AAF2BLW?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid

 

Bumped for DVP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...