"The Family: Inside the Manson Cult" is a 2009 docu-drama that recalls the events that led up to the Tate-LaBianca murders, as told from the perspective of Linda Kasabian. Linda was at Cielo Drive on the night of the Tate murders, though she did not go inside the Polanski residence. Of course, Linda was also taken on the second night of the murders, though of course, we hear about the potential third murder that didn't happen. I watched this on tubi. It's an hour and a half long.
While I went into this knowing that it was going to be garbage, I still had some hope that it would be at least entertaining, if not hopefully divulge some new details to the case. In retrospect, I don't know why I ever hoped that.
As seen in many other Manson-sploitation films, there are people cast as members of The Manson Family, who look nothing like their real life counterparts. The only actor that looked somewhat correct, was the man who was cast as Charlie, and even still, it wasn't that great. The idea that they could just cast any ole body to be Tex Watson, Patricia Krenwinkel, and the others is so lame to me. If you want people to hear about this true story and actually care about it, you'd think that it would be important to put effort into this. But no.
As stated before, the story is told from Linda's perspective, but there are many details that are left out of this film, in what seems to be ways to make Linda seem a lot better than what she really was. I'm not trying to sound like some of the co-defendants in this case, but I think that viewers should know that Linda was a drug dealer, had been caught with drugs before ever being in the Manson Family, and sold drugs even after. They left out the detail that Linda was pregnant when the murders went down, which may have been why she felt sick to hear that Sharon Tate was pregnant when murdered. The film also got George Spahn's age wrong, stating that he was 71 for some reason. In 1969, Spahn was 80 years old. It's strange to me that they got this simple detail wrong, considering that Vincent Bugliosi is in this film quite a lot too, and the film is basically a retelling of his book "Helter Skelter".
Yes, unsurprisingly, this film is just another rehash of Bugliosi's meal ticket, and seems like a way for people to still applaud Linda Kasabian for being the "Star Witness" at the trial. Which is odd to me. By the time this film came out, it was 40 years later. A whole new generation of adults were around that didn't grow up with Charlie Manson, or had even heard of the murders. The film seems to take some sort of assumption that the viewer automatically knows a bit about the crimes.
At the same time too, there are a lot of things that the film under explains. Even the details that are left into this version of the story, aren't what are completely seen in the book "Helter Skelter".
I found that this film was very lazy, and not very good. It tried this odd thing where they wanted to make the event seem modern. The actors didn't wear clothes or have hairstyles that were seen in 1969. For the most part, the characters looked liked they could have been from 2009. The actor that played Bobby Beausoleil looked a bit like a Hippie, though he also looked nothing like Bobby. It's like you couldn't get either thing to go right. No-one looked like a hippie, neither did they look like the right person! It was just so bad!
The depictions of the group using Acid and being in their orgy was laughable. The movie shows them taking it on sugar cubes, where we assume drops of the drug were placed on it. Yet...there are multiple accounts between the trial transcripts and Bugliosi's book, that show they usually consumed it in tablets and pills. Leslie Van Houten and some of the others were recorded talking about this.
It's clear that this film was just slapped together, probably as a 40th year commemoration thing. I think that Bugliosi and Kasabian were were called in for this and they might have thought it was one thing, when in reality, it was another. You could tell, even in old age, that Bugliosi still felt very proud of himself for prosecuting and getting the convictions of The Manson Family. It was clear that even at the age of 75, he was pretty arrogant about it.
While I'm not mad that the convicted were done so, I just don't know why Bugliosi had to act like he was some sort of Superhero. It rubs me the wrong way that he used this tragedy as a way to gain fame.
What was strange, was that in this film, Bugliosi says himself that Gary Hinman was targeted for money and that he was a drug dealer. This is strange, because in the past, he acted like this wasn't the case. Of course, this was the only time that drugs were talked about as a potential reason for the crimes.
For some reason Catherine Share was in this film, and this was the first time that I ever heard her say that Charlie beat her. This was also the only instance in this film where it was mentioned that Charlie beat on anyone. They never talked about how he beat on Dianne Lake, or would slap around Mary Brunner, or anything of that. There are certain facts which are presented in this film which drive the narrative a different way from how reality was. I guess it is unsurprising though, since this is one of those pieces of Bugliosi media that try to paint Charlie as the bad guy entirely, and not like this wasn't an entire gang of drug dealers and criminals.
Bugliosi said that the people in The Manson Family came from normal backgrounds, which isn't the truth either. Susan Atkins definitely didn't. But I guess that this was all part of the illusion that Charlie could convert people into killers. Something that was never true.
--
I found it odd when the film interviewed Debra Tate. She of course, expressed love for her sister, but I was confused as to why she said that Roman and Sharon had a great relationship. I guess that this was done for the sake of the film. There has been evidence that Sharon was going to leave Roman, who kept cheating on her even after she was pregnant. Roman constantly cheated on Sharon with other women. Debra recalled how happy Sharon was to tell her that she was pregnant. The sisters were happy. Sharon was happy to become a mother. While this is true...the movie doesn't tell the viewer that Roman initially didn't want the baby. Roman wanted an abortion.
The film tried to make Linda seem as if she were innocent, and just along for the ride. It seems to make light of the fact that she admitted to stealing $5,000 because Tex Watson told her to. Linda said that she did it for acceptance into the group. Like as if it was just a little white lie told. When adjusted for inflation, that 5000 comes closer to being $45,000! Linda stole that much money, and the film acts like it was nothing!
The movie also makes it seem like it doesn't matter that much that Linda left her child behind when she left The Manson Family. The movie made it seem like Linda was a victim in fear for her life, and had to leave no matter what...even if that meant leaving her kid behind. The film makes it seem like she left so that Charlie didn't kill her...not because she was an accomplice to the crime. The movie leaves out the fact that Linda also fled to the East Coast, where she was originally from. I don't know why the film tried to make it seem like she was so naive and innocent. 4 decades later, most people wouldn't have be thinking of Linda Kasabian anyway. I don't know if they were trying to rewrite history or what.
Overall, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's not worth your time, or the full watch. There's nothing in here that you can't read in "Helter Skelter". Better yet, you would be better off watching "Helter Skelter", from 1976. There's more things in that movie which are correct, than in this one.
I gave this 1 star on letterboxd. I wanted to give it a half star, but the site wouldn't let me for some reason.
