Chaos: The Manson Murders

An enormous disappointment, CHAOS (based on the excellent Tom O'Neill book of the same name) barely scratches the surface of the incredible discoveries O'Neill made and the implications they have for the Manson case. This oddly short, 90-some minute doc, instead plays more like your standard true crime piece, with much time devoted to summarizing the murders themselves for anyone who hadn't yet heard about them. What about the story about how the victims of the Tate murders had the power lines cut when they were watching TV at Jay Sebring's home, the night before the murders - proving that they were not killed as a result of some mixup about Terry Melcher still living at Cielo? What about incredibly suspect names and connections like Reeve Whitson and Charles Tacot, or mobster (and associate of Jay Sebring) Charlie Baron? What about even Bugliosi's astonishing corruption, and incredibly vile acts of evil in his personal life, which hint at him being controlled via blackmail by higher ups? And on and on. This documentary is simply a joke and does not do justice to the true scope and horror of this case. It makes Wormwood look like an absolute masterpiece, and indeed at least that effort from Morris was pretty fair to the subject and didn't seem quite so neutered. This should have been easily a 3-5 ep miniseries; 90 minutes is just far too little for a story like this.

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.

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.

So sloppily done. I couldn't even tell who was speaking most of the time as there were no titles. We were to assume we knew who they were. So the author made the claim that the author of Vincent bugliosi was way off in his theory about why Manson and followers murdered in cold blood. Yet the author of this book did not offer any evidence to the contrary. He uses the term "brainwashing " which can not be used in a court of law because there is no such thing as brainwashing. It's correctly called thought conditioning or thought reform, supported by peer encouragement. The idea that the CIA had anything to do with this event was ludicrous. They were freaking high on drugs and in an isolated cult which removes them from any sort of consciousness or morality other than what they were told. The author Tom O'Neill was simply not credible enough for me to believe.