THE OTHER SIDE OF MADNESS 1971
“The Other Side of Madness” is a niche art film that was released in December 1971. It starts off with a disclaimer that the events of the movie were recreated based off of the news articles and broadcasts available to the public at the time. Because of that, it’s important to note that there are many things depicted in this film that weren’t completely accurate, though that’s before Susan Atkins, Vincent Bugliosi, and Tex Watson’s books were published.
The movie is mostly without dialogue, being more of a visual experience. Mostly in black in white, very few scenes of the film are in color. Stylistically, this is a great choice in my opinion, as much of the film is based off of recollection and memories. I imagine that using black and white allowed for higher quality cameras, as much of the film has very clear shots of the actors, scenery, and ideas. There are shots used in the movie that I felt were quite modern, something I’d expect to see in films from today. I do give credit to the director for being artistically creative.
There are problems with the film, one of the main contentions being that very little is explained. Despite all of the literature I’ve read about the Manson family, I still found myself confused as to who was supposed to be who. Nearly none of the characters in the film are named. Only a couple of the actors were obviously playing certain characters, such as Charlie, Susan Atkins, and Tex Watson.
Though I know that this film came out before most of the books on the crime, it’s clear that they had to inference a lot with depictions of The Family. “The Gathering” scene in the movie seemed out of place with how The Manson Family have typically been depicted. In books from members, The Family weren’t having gigantic parties like in the movie. The group was large, yes in real life; but The Family was more intimate and closed off than that.
What I found strange about the movie, was that despite the creators claiming that they used news articles about the crime, there is little dialogue incorporated from it. They did a lot to recreate the scenes of the crimes, but many pieces are still missing. One of the most important things they should have put in the film should have been Jay Sebring’s last words before getting shot by Tex Watson. In real life, Jay said, “Can’t you see that she’s pregnant?!” when he was defending Sharon Tate. The movie completely glosses over the fact that Jay Sebring defended sharon with his life. This is something that would have been available to read when this was being created, as Susan Atkins had talked to the Press before the trial even began.
Some of the depictions of the deaths are slightly out of order, like some of the things with Voytek Frykowski. Abigail Folger’s death is nearly completely wrong, as she is seen just wrestling with Patricia Krenwinkel’s character, who doesn’t appear to stab her. In the movie, it was just one blow in the stomach (I assume) from Tex Watson. In real life, Abigail’s death was much bloodier, and gruesome. In the movie, her character passes out then come back, to run out of the house. Her famous last words aren’t depicted here either, where she told Tex Watson, “I give up, you've got me. I’m Already Dead.”.
Sharon’s death is also incorrect, and they had her character in the movie only plead for the life of her baby once. Even news article from the time, it was known that Sharon begged, multiple times. I found it gross that this movie didn’t give much light, info, or anything about the victims. The movie focuses nearly entirely on the criminals, and thinks nothing of those that were murdered. Steven Parents’ death isn’t completely accurate, he is only shot in the movie, none of the stabbing depicted.
After the murders at Cielo Drive, the scene was of Tex being confronted by the couple whose water hose he was drinking out of. It wasn’t completely accurate either, with the scene ending with him acting like he was going to shoot the husband of the house. In real life, he walked back to the van with the girls, and they drove off. The movie makes it seem like Tex threw the gun last minute, but in reality, he was driving the van and gave the gun to Linda Kasabian, who threw the clothes and gun out the window. Small inacuracies like this really bother me, as it makes the entire picture as a whole appear barely credible.
The film ends with the group going to Waverly drive, but it doesn’t depict the murders there. The movie ends with a card saying that four of the defendants were found guilty, and then warned about the unregulated use of drugs.
Overall, I found the film to be interesting to look at, artistically beautiful in a way, but aggravatingly innacurate. Looking at the history of the film, apparently the creators weren’t able to name any of the defendants, because of legal issues, as much of the film was made during the Tate-LaBianca trial itself. Though I understand this, watching this movie decades after its creation makes it hard to follow. As said before, though I know the details of the actual crime, without any indication of anything, it makes it hard to follow. Because of this, I find the film to be very niche; I don’t see this appealing to anybody other than those who have spent years reading about Charles Manson, such as myself.
Despite seeming like a film that focuses only on Charlie, he’s really not that much a part of it. The film would have scenes where the group would be driving on the road, and you’d hear people chanting along with Charlie, or hearing one of Charlie’s so called “sermons”. But the things said in the film weren’t ever things I recall reading about in any of the books. I don’t even recall any of it in the original news clippings either. For example, the chant of “Kill all White Mothers” was said, but what news article wrote that? It’s clear that the movie was just an exploitation of the murders, for the director to get some cash.
This is proven, with articles I found about the movie, dating back to when it came out. For example, the Star Tribune posted in 1971, that the film “deals in grisly detail with the Sharon Tate murder orgy”. First of all, there is nothing of the sort in the movie, and second of all, there was nothing like that in real life!
Another article, from the Sunday Mirror in 1971, stated that the film showed “in bloody detail the killings of Sharon and four other people at her Hollywood home. It also features a horrific ritual dance in which Manson and his “family” worship Satan.”. Once again, there was nothing like that in the film, nor, in real life. I suppose the closest thing to an “orgy” is the “The Gathering” scene, where a bunch of the people got naked while an Acid Rock band was playing. There wasn’t anything Satanic in the film at all!
The article stated that Wade Williams claimed that the killings in the movie were done “with restraint and good taste”.
I find the advertising to the film to be gross. It just goes to show how many people tried to make a quick buck, and get 15 minutes of fame off these brutal deaths, that weren’t even depicted accurately. While many things are technically right, there is still a lot wrong too.
I give this movie 2/5 stars. I don’t hate it, but I cannot stand how a real life tragedy was watered down to make the criminals look “cool”, whether that was the intention or not. I don’t recommend this to anyone that knows nothing about the Manson case, it would be too confusing to watch, and make no sense. I guess that proves how exploitative this film is, they obviously didn’t think about whether or not anyone in the future would even be able to follow this.
If you’re deep into the Manson rabbit hole like me, I’d say to watch the movie once, but that’s it. Nothing more.
2/5
My video: https://youtu.be/iW-JO7TqYEM
