Charles Manson Superstar

Over the last few decades, all but the faintest trace remains of the potently symbolic light in which Charles Manson, his Family, and the murders that brought him notoriety were originally seen. While now sanitised by parody, media-overexposure, and age, it takes some feat to imagine the supernaturally charismatic anti-messiah and serious-threat-to-the-foundations-of-society he was once portrayed as. Yet it is this image which 'Charles Manson Superstar' evokes and explores in a way which begins by mixing erudite objectivity and reasoned (but slightly unnerving-in-its-implications) apologism with the kind of all out glorification writer/director Nikolas Schreck has made no bones about in the past. Indeed, one time associate of the Church of Satan and founder of spin-off, eugenics-endorsing, organisation the Order of the Werewolf, Schreck and partner Zeena (daughter of Anton) LaVey were the driving force behind the 8/8/88 Satanic rally, held on the anniversary of the Tate murders to commemorate the "cleansing" they represented. What's more, during the rally, a movie ('The Other Side of Madness') was shown which depicts the murders in grisly detail and drew cheers from the crowd when the slaying began.

Morally dubious this may well all be, but 'Charles Manson Superstar' is nonetheless a highly rewarding documentary. This is due to the fact that the all-out Manson sympathy agenda only emerges on a few occasions and yet somehow the fearlessness needed to admit this perspective (so readily dismissed as misguided or otherwise condemned as degenerate) has a curiously liberating effect on the remaining parts of the documentary which objectively contextualise the man and the crimes as well as broach the difficulty/futility of attempting to penetrate the body of sensationalist media myths and social paranoia that plagues discussion of the topic. Furthermore, the line separating glorification/objectivity is blurred by the extended interview footage with Manson himself which between some silly karate moves, word-salad, and uber-60s style opining on "the music…you dig?" permits him space to elaborate on the role of the Gnostic God Abraxas, the ecological movement (ATWA) which he founded, and offer penetrating criticisms of the incestuous relationship between the media and society and the parasitic relationship both have to crime and criminals. All of which really does offer glimpses of an attractive anti-establishment philosophy synthesised by a keen mind which could easily offer solace to society's disaffected and certainly shows Manson as far more intelligent than the one-dimensional malevolent-hippie-lunatic he is uniformly presented as.

Having read several reviews over several sites, much seems to have been made of the supposed "numerous" factual inaccuracies which "litter" the film. However, most reviews I have read stop short of actually listing them. As far as I can gather, this is an exaggeration: a few inaccuracies there are, but these include the birthday of Ed Gein and the fact the documentary claims Lennon wrote the song 'Helter Skelter' when we all know it was McCartney. Hardly condemning stuff, and it seems that focusing on these kind of trivialities is designed to detract attention away from the more penetrating and thought provoking aspects of the documentary. However, having said this, there is one inaccuracy of note: the film advocates the apologist argument that Manson's incarceration is due to his anti-establishment ideas and that he was not responsible for the murders nor even present at the scenes of the crime. While there is an argument that Manson's continued incarceration is an unjust political move designed to avoid the uproar that would accompany it, the role of wholly innocent sacrificial lamb really doesn't suit him and it is generally acknowledged that while he never actually slayed anyone, he was present at the scene (albeit in a casing capacity) and it was the acid soaked apocalyptic milieu he crafted that was certainly a fundamental aspect of the atrocities.

This point duly noted, in my opinion the wealth of information and the wholly original perspective the documentary offers makes its limitations forgivable and even though the caveats are that Schreck's agenda should be known and it should be watched alongside other documentaries as a point of comparison, 'Charles Manson Superstar' is nonetheless a fascinating watch and has much to offer even the most knowledgeable followers of the pop-culture phenomenon that ended the Sixties.

Aside from the "Pro" Manson bent and factual errors this an excellent & intriguing documentary. The best parts (as I'm sure anyone who has seen this will agree) are the one on one interviews with Charlie himself. Sure he seems pretty nutty, but underneath some of the babble he babbles has a ring of truth to it (his thoughts regarding prison for example). At times the narration gets a little monotonous and boring and some facts are presented wrong. But still over all entertaining and it makes you think. If you're really into this s**t like I am, you should check out the 1973 documentary "Manson". The two together make an excellent double feature.

This documentary is a dubiously sympathetic, though fascinating; look at perhaps the most famous killer of his generation. The film makers trace the personal history of Manson; challenging conventional takes along the way(and sometimes doing some very sloppy research, John Lennon DID NOT write the song "Helter Skelter") and letting the viewer judge for themselves.

They accomplish this, almost in spite of themselves, by including long slabs of interviews with Manson done in the late eighties. He rails against "PC MFS!(!), shows a truly passionate and poetic side; and reveals that his often sampled, seemingly meaningless ramblings are probably the result of mental illness due to long stretches of solitary confinement. How naturally evil and violent was this individual? The film lets you judge for yourself.

Watch it if you can find it. 9 out of 10.

The film itself is interesting to see because it's a great example of a documentary that gets across the exact opposite message of what the filmmaker intended (Triumph Of The Will is another). The basic film goes between two types of footage. One is made up of still photos and stock footage (sometimes "enhanced" by lame psychedelic effects) with narration. The narration, read in monotone, sounds about like what you might expect a pseudo-rebel middle school student to post in a Manson chat room - It's Manson's familiar history told with glowing admiration and peppered with phrases like "Manson only reflects the society that imprisoned him" and references to "the conditioned masses" that consider Manson to be the half witted turd that he is. The narration criticizes Manson's victims and his keepers, while praising Manson. The filmmaker, Nikolas Schreck, also managed to score a lengthy prison interview with Manson. The interview delves only slightly into what Manson is infamous for (the pointless, envious, brutal murders of his racist hate cult), and instead centers on Manson's "philosophy". Manson's philosophy, as anyone who has seen him interviewed knows, is basically that everyone is phony and screwed up except him. He really says nothing else in the interview, and whenever he reaches a point in his monologue where he might otherwise say something informative, he instead makes a contorted face and giggles or does some kind of karate dragon dance. He is un-chained and un-handcuffed in the interview and is free to walk around the room. Whenever the filmmaker asks a difficult question (though, not much more difficult then "say something to the camera that you have always wanted to tell people"), Manson masterfully intimidates him off the topic by standing and approaching him or touching him, at one point taking one of his hands and caressing it for several seconds. The entire thing is scored by bootleg recordings of Manson's tortuously bad music.

I watched this movie because I was expecting to get an inside look into the real Charles Manson. I wanted to see if I could figure out why he did the things that he did and why in the world anyone would follow him.

This documentary begins with a very creepy voiced narrator telling you that basically this is Charlie's turn to explain things. All the songs in the film are very satanic. The whole thing has a very dark feel about it.

Charlie spends a lot of time preaching or teaching as he would call it. He compares himself with Richard Nixon and discusses how "everyone has Lucifer inside of them". The man really seems a mix of possessed and crazy to me. I did not really gain any understanding of why he did things that he did. I just got further proof that this person is exceptionally disturbed, not gifted as he thinks and as the film tries to persuade you.

The film takes you to the famous Spaun ranch and shows pictures of then and now. Charlie tells stories of the ranch and explains how his "world" is still there. He goes on and on about how he does not live in our world, he is above and beyond us. Our world and the United States is the devil, an evil machine.

I have watched a lot of documentaries about killers and criminals, trying to figure out why someone would do the things that they do, how they must reason it in their mind. This is unlike anything I have ever seen. At times, it is very boring, at times unbelievable. I got a very creepy feeling while watching it and confess, I did not finish the whole film. I lost interest in listening to Charlie rant and rave, he is clearly insane.

All in all, you get a feeling of perhaps what his followers heard and saw from him. I bet that his story has not changed much. It didn't make sense then, and it does make sense now.