The Manson Family

Jim Van Bebber's "The Manson Family" is an extremely violent and bloody horror film that reconstructs the early activities of the Family and their descent into the Tate-LaBianca killings.Van Bebber mixes this with a contemporary sub plot involving tabloid journalist Jack Wilson's quest to film a documentary on the subject.The film is loaded with plenty of sex and full-frontal nudity.The final third of "The Manson Family" is a grueling nightmare with some of the most sadistic and savage murders ever captured on screen.The acting is generally amateurish,although Marc Pitman is truly impressive as Tex.The photography perfectly captures the hazy sex-and-drug fuelled lifestyle that Charlie and his largely female disciples indulged in on their Californian ranch.The killings themselves are extremely graphic and gory as hell,so I was satisfied.The scene of blood drinking orgy is truly frightening as is the slow progression of Charlie from a peaceful Jesus Christ figure to Satan himself."The Manson Family" is easily one of the most controversial and disturbing horror films ever made.Give it a look.

I like the movie a lot, probably not for the crappy set design and poor acting, or even the low budget premise. I just liked the fact that an independent film maker with a vision got to see his dream after 15 years get rewarded. I have to admit, the movie is pretty gritty and I got the parallel between the new Manson zeolites and the original family and found it more intriguing than the usual docu-drama the media portrays. Well done...oh and people that hated this movie, it's too bad because I was entertained throughout and in a way it took out the mystique of the Manson family rather than glorifying it. Yes it was low-budget but if you watch the documentary on the film's creation it's quite brilliant and fascinating.

Director Jim Van Bebber finally got his low budget Manson picture released. Was it worth the wait? Sure, if you're interested in the case, that is. From what I can gather, the film is fairly accurate with its portrayal of events, actions, and even some dialogue. Van Bebber does take some liberty though, showing a few things that were only suspected in the real case. I guess that's to be expected. Anyway, the movie basically shows the story from the Manson Family's point of view, complete with faux interviews, tied together with a running subplot of a modern TV station putting together a documentary on Manson and his followers. Obviously, it is a very violent and disturbing movie, not shying away from the drug use, orgies, or murders. The shot of his three female followers with shaved heads, coming down the courtroom stairs, is a haunting one. The movie as a whole is not great, though I did find it intriguing, horrifically trippy, and ultimately tragic. It's a shame that some youths still look up to the guy, even wearing shirts with Manson's picture on it. The two DVD set includes two feature length documentaries and a short interview with Charlie Manson. Boy, is he out there.

One can certainly forgive the filmmaker for not consulting with the family for accurate info. Dead end there. As Robin Williams said, if you can remember the sixties, you weren't really there. What remains is a great pop-culture plethora of reconstructions to choose from. What we sicko film fans have been waiting for for years is a truly hardcore no-holds barred version of the Manson saga. The two made-for TV versions are okay, Steve Railsback is great in The Stunt Man as well, and Ed Gein, very underrated actor.

Anyway, mad overdue for an NC17 splatterfest, and as long as it's low budget, you can expect some artistic license and the freedom to inject more social commentary on the subsequent generations who've adopted such an apocalyptic mind-set. JVB does get a bit carried away, integrating modern-day punks, junkies, tabloid journalists,Jim Jones recordings and poseurs into the mix. JVB goes out of his way to mirror the history of nihilistic punk attitude, straight on through the 80s with the Richard Kern film clips (You killed me first, starring the inimitable Lung Leg) So the film is a bit inconsistent. Far from perfect. It also combines remakes of the Manson documentary footage shot in the early 70s, while the girls are all armed and determined to free Charlie and crew. It's all over the place, very NBK. Also a very big dose of processed noise and simulated dirty film effects.

But the performances are good, the frenzy and mania are there. Very queasy and rough recreations of the Hinman/Tate/LaBianca murders. Strong stuff. Managed to cram a lot of character development into 95 minutes, despite also having fictional characters running rampant as well.

I'm giving the film a 10/10 because of how I feel about it, but ignore that part of this review. What I'd like to do is help you, the potential viewer of The Manson Family, figure out whether you'd love this movie or hate it. It is a polarizing film, as is obvious from the reviews - no genuinely bad films get such an extreme reaction, positive or negative. The worst movies on earth are the ones where you just feel like your time was wasted. At worst, this film will make you feel like your time was violated - remember that the people who give it one star were motivated to find this web page and leave their comments. Go look up any god-awful Fred Olen Ray movie and see what people say: they give 2 or 3 star reviews. I suggest that the only one-star reviews on this entire site are motivated by being offended, not by the movie being "bad" in any objective sense.

Okay, that said, I think this is a well-made film, which I am prepared to support with evidence. The people who said that this is poorly shot ("the camera doesn't move") are clearly out of their minds. Not only does the camera move (and why would it matter if it didn't?), but the filmic technique is a dead-on mimic of the film techniques of the period it is depicting (late 1960s). This is a low budget, 16mm film, so it doesn't have any kind of Hollywood gloss - it is semi-documentary in it's approach. However, I found it to be stylish and evocative of Vietnam documentary footage, Woodstock (the film), and classic drive-in exploitation movies of the period. Again, this is something you'll probably either love or hate, but it is a calculated decision to look "unprofessional" by modern Hollywood standards.

As far as the content of the film, I think it is mistakenly regarded by some as a "message" film, and by others as an "exploitation" film. I think it is neither, or maybe more accurately, both - this is a "depiction" film, intent on depicting the Manson Family as realistically as possible. Why do that? Because Manson and his "Family" is one of the most sociologically interesting phenomena of the 20th century, in many ways comparable to Hitler and the Nazis. Jim VanBebber made a conscious (even a little heavy-handed, lending a little credence to the idea that this is a "message" film) decision to focus on the "family," the actual killers (Manson himself was convicted of inciting the crimes, not participating). Having read a lot of Manson literature including the Vincent Bugliosi book Helter Skelter, I think that this is the most accurate way I've seen the story told, particularly with the "Rashomon"-esque narration of the participants, where they whitewash their own involvement in the crimes, something that frustrated District Attourney Bugliosi to no end.

Now, how will you be able to tell whether this movie is for you, with all the "VanBebber is a genius" or "this is the worst movie ever made" crap out there? Here's the checklist:

1: Do you like low-budget 16mm horror films? It looks low-budget like Evil Dead or Texas Chainsaw Massacre (the original), a look which I find to be raw and immediate, but that's an opinion. The much-debated quality of the acting is exactly in keeping with this style. If, for example, you thought the acting in the Texas Chainsaw was rough and real, you'll probably like this, too.

2: Can you cope with graphic sex, drug use, and violence? The sex is near-X-rated and the violence, though they use 70's-style Karo syrup blood, is intense, grotesque, and on-screen. And really happened to real people, which freaks me out.

3: Do you find the twisted social mores of the Manson family to be interesting? This is not a film about a charismatic leader - it's a film about lost sheep. This type of senseless killing is only committed by people who have lost their empathy, an effect that is all too easy to achieve - it takes a lot less than what Manson did to subvert a person's ethics (see the psychological research of Milgram, Zimbardo, et al).

I thought the film did an excellent job of making an intellectual point at a (mostly) visceral level. The point is that human ethics are incredibly flexible and that hedonism is ultimately selfish, even when the love is "free." My final statement: A person with a (very?) strong stomach who is willing to engage his or her intellect in something that doesn't seem quite worth it on the surface will probably enjoy this movie, and be surprised at how deep the well runs. A crazy gore fan will probably like this movie. Fans of underground and experimental film (esp. Richard Kern fans) will love this movie. Mainstream Hollywood fans will not; non-genre fans will not.