Chaos: The Manson Murders

While this documentary was highly entertaining, holding my interest for its duration, it certainly wasn't earth-shattering in its analysis or profoundly insightful. As far as this viewer could tell, the central premise of the film - that Manson and his followers were (perhaps unwitting) participants in MK Ultra, a CIA-administered "mind control" project relying primarily on the use of the hallucinogen LSD - the research into both components of this dyad (i.e., Manson and MK Ultra) seemed superficial at best, retelling only what numerous previous docs on these subjects separately have reveled, drawing only tentative, unsurprising correlations between them. Still, the presentation of material was concise and balanced, allowing viewers to arrive at their own conclusions. The interviews with many of the key players were likewise fair, interesting, and new. All-in-all, a well-made, if not jaw-dropping, endeavour.

While it is understandable why Charles Manson was regarded back then as having a supernatural charm and ability to influence his followers to commit unspeakable acts, the growth of knowledge into psychology, especially childhood trauma and personality disorders, in the past 50 years will easily dispel any conspiracy theory that arose in the 1970s following the murders. The roll-call of cultish personalities that followed Manson, such as Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite and David Koresh, is proof that there is nothing magical about their ability to indoctrinate those who are susceptible to their influence; they are all basically following the same set of rules used by the greatest con-artists.

At the start of the documentary, Manson is shown proclaiming that he is not a nice man, but his would-be followers insisted that he is; they needed to view him as "nice" and thereby safe, perhaps helped by his diminutive stature, so he admitted to "reflecting nice back to them". People like Manson wield enormous influence over some simply because their superpower is sniffing out the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of others, and using that to their advantage. This superpower is often the result of severe childhood trauma and/or neglect, where the child does not have any healthy adult role models to learn empathy from, and views other people as merely tools to survive and get their needs met.

A cursory search into Manson's childhood revealed an alcoholic mother who was ill-equipped to raise him, a biological father that he never knew, and a step-father who flagged the mother for "gross neglect of duty". It is therefore no surprise that Manson's life was characterised by anti-social and criminal behaviour. In an ironic twist, the people most susceptible to those like Manson, such as Manson's followers, are usually themselves lost children seeking the guidance and love they never received from their parents. This shared experience of childhood trauma, and subsequent trauma bonding, is why Manson had such a hold over those he sent out to do his bidding. Manson himself was a scared child faking bravado to face the big bad world; that he ran away after injuring Hinman, leaving Beausoleil to deal with it, and how he delegated the killings to his followers proved what a coward he truly was.

As Beausoleil put it, Manson was not a mastermind. Far from it, he was instead a broken child in a man's body, hateful at the world for thwarting his desires, and the murders were his misguided way of taking revenge and exerting his will. That the documentary failed to explore any of his psychology and childhood, as well as that of his followers, makes it incomplete because the conspiracy theories are ultimately not as compelling as the truth behind Manson's deranged machinations. The only thing I got out of it was that Manson was a competent musician and songwriter. Perhaps in a parallel universe, where he had better parents and childhood, he might have become a successful musician, adored by many, instead of this infamous trainwreck of a human being.

As "Chaos: The Manson Murders" (2025 release; 96 min.) opens, the documentary states its opening premise: how did Charles Manson get total control over the minds of the so-called Family, ordering them to murder innocent people? We then go to "August 9, 1969", the day after Sharon Tate and 4 others were murdered and before 2 more innocent people were killed later that day. At this point we are less than 10 minutes into the documentary.

Couple of comments: this is based on Tom O'Neill's book "Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties", in which he wonders whether the CIA somehow was involved in all this as it was working on a secret project called CHAOS to understand how to control people's minds. I have not read that book, and frankly I would not have been all that interested in watching this documentary, but for the fact that this is directed by the Oscar-winning Errol Morris ("The Fog of War"). Morris interviews O'Neill extensively, and makes it clear that he (Morris) is quite skeptical about O'Neill's original premise. One of the things that sets this documentary apart from the many other documentaries about these events is that Morris pays close attention to Manson's music (the lack of getting signed by a label; even better: the use of 8 songs sung by Manson, culled from his 1968 demoes).

"Chaos: The Manson Murders" recently started streaming on Netflix. After reading an interesting review on it in yesterday's NY Times, and realizing that Errol Morris directed this, I watched it last night. The documentary is currently rated 66% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, which sounds about right to me. If you have an interest in the Manson murders now 56 years later, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

A deep dive? Hardly, more like a disjointed mess with quick cuts of old documents and photos with little or no explanation.

There is no narrative here, no explanation of the theories on which the film is allegedly based, namely the book by Tom O'Neill. I've read the book, which is quite fascinating, but if you haven't, there is just no way to follow the random bits and pieces thrown out by this documentary.

Case in point, O'Neill is briefly interviewed, but without any explanation of who he is. O'Neill briefly discusses some of the shadowy players associated with the Manson saga like Jolly West and Roger Smith, but little information is given about why they were relevant and what they did or might have done. Music industry people like Brian Wilson, Terry Melcher and Gregg Jakobsen are briefly mentioned, but with little background on their relationship to each other or Manson.

The film is a complete waste of your time. If you are truly interested, read O'Neill's book and skip this incoherent trainwreck.

I have yet to read the book that this documentary is based on ("Chaos: The Truth Behind the Manson Murders" by Tom O'Neill and Dan Piepenbring. I believe the hardcover version was titled "Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties"). I've read several reviews of the book that go into the specifics O'Neill uncovered in greater detail than this documentary did. This documentary touches on some of what he found, but not all of it. O'Neill's book appears to be a much more thorough and truthful book on the subject than Bugliosi's Helter Skelter (O'Neill proves that Bugliosi purposely lied and left key facts out of his book). For a good introduction to O'Neill's book, check out Abby Aguirre's Substack post about it, or her excellent review "Down the Manson Rabbit Hole" in the LA Review of Books.

It's worth watching if the subject interests you, but from the reviews I've read the book sounds much more comprehensive. The documentary has some interesting interviews with one of the prosecutors, some Manson family members, and O'Neill himself. It brings up some of the questions found in the book, such why did Manson's parole officer continue to insist that Manson was doing great when meanwhile he was arrested repeatedly (and not locked up for violating his parole)? Why have Manson's complete parole records never been released? Why were his parole files not permitted as evidence in his trial?

I feel the documentary could have been edited better and should have been longer and included more of the details from the book, but it is still interesting for people who want to learn more about this subject.