MovieChat Forums > Aquarius (2015) Discussion > Great show, but fails to capture essence...

Great show, but fails to capture essence of Manson I think


Charlie Manson didn't control his followers merely through intimidation as the show seems to indicate.

Granted it would be hard for anyone to duplicate what Manson did to those kids, and it would not be able to be shown on network television anyway. Manson found lost souls. He was an expert at reading people and figuring out just how to con them. The show is right about his use of LSD for group indoctrination. He also used group sex, directing the girls to have sex with each other. He even went down on one of the guys to show his followers that it didn't mean anything. He directed the other guys to have homosexual sex also. He was breaking down their association with their past sense of morality and rebuilding their beliefs the way he wanted to be.
I know they cannot show that on network television.

But I hope that somehow they can indicate how much he brainwashed those people. Some were totally brainwashed; they were around him nearly all the time so he kept them under control.
Tex Watson told how Charlie, apparently worried that the police might be on to Tex, sent him to live alone at another location. When he was all alone he had time to think by himself, for himself. He noticed that Helter Skelter had not started the way Charlie told them all it would. After a while Tex figured out that maybe Charlie was not right about all that stuff he told them.

Others were less under his control. And some left the group.

But they were scared of him. He did threaten to murder those who challenged his control, and he did commit some murders himself though we only have hearsay on that. He committed attempted murder for sure, but the guy survived.
People were frightened of him and with good reason. His family members were like zombies under his control and they did kill a lot of people before the Tate and Labianca murders, and people knew this.

I guess it would be very difficult for anyone to capture, to convey the way Manson controlled his followers.

As I said, I love the show. I just hope they can show how completely he controlled the inside group of his followers.



reply

If you watch the first season on Netflix (where it's uncensored and contains additional scenes), it's shown in pretty graphic detail that he does exactly what you describe on multiple occasions.

reply

Thanks for replying.

I have been watching it on Netflix, I hate commercials so I think watching on Netflix is way better. I do wish they would add the next seasons sooner. Some series are on the third or fourth season but Netflix has one season available. I suppose there are reasons for that. Still, no commercials is great.

Anyway, I watched it on Netflix. And sure, it shows that he had them tripping on acid a lot, and that he preached to them and sang his songs, and that he directed how everything was done there. It shows that Manson directed the girls to have sex with each other, and with whomever he told them to do it with. It doesn't show Manson telling the male family members to have sex with each other (unless I just missed that), or him demonstrating to them by going down on a male family member. But it does show Manson as bisexual when he has sex with the repressed lawyer Ken Karns. So it implies the gay sex angle. So the show does hint at a lot of what we know from testimony of first hand witnesses went on there.
Like I said I love the show. I realize it is not meant as a retelling of history per se, but a show which is 'inspired by real events' or however they put it. I am not knocking it for that, at all. Some people have criticized it for that, but not me.

Having thought about it more since I posted above, I doubt any show can truly convey the hold Manson had on those people. It would be nearly impossible to do that. Manson had been in juvi-lock up and in prison for a little over half of his life at this point in time. He was someone of small stature. He had to learn to be tough mentally. He was of above average intelligence for sure, and he learned how to quickly read people, how to con them, and how to pick up on their fears. He used elements of Scientology and another cult according to Vincent Bugliosi, and the Bible as well, mostly Revelations. So he tapped into and tied religious beliefs to himself, implying he was God, Jesus, calling himself the Son of Man. He was an expert at conning people, and controlling them, and not just through fear.
Many parts of this are implied in this series. I said before I hoped the show could portray how thoroughly he had brainwashed his followers. But that probably isn't really possible.
I know I could not portray Manson in a way which conveys the uncanny ability he had to manipulate, brainwash, and control people. Frankly, I doubt anyone could.

My original post on this subject probably sounded critical of the show, though I am not. I should have proofread it before posting. I would have caught it and written it over to express myself better.



reply

Charlie Manson didn't control his followers merely through intimidation as the show seems to indicate.


They've shown him appealing to the good will and generosity of others, stroking egos, using criticisms or doubts which lay down a challenge, bribery, blackmail, offering affection or sex, whatever is needed, and alternately, using violence, abusive and aggressive verbal attacks, and manipulating others into meeting the standard of his narrative, "If you were real, if you were free, if you let the creativity rule, then you'd do..." fill in the blank with whatever he was after.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply

Yeah, I tend to be overly critical sometimes. All you said is correct. And I really like the series and think it is well done all around.

I guess I was thinking it is almost impossible for anyone to really portray Manson or the trance like devotion of his 'family' in a way that would give the audience a good understanding of how those family members became so brainwashed.
I doubt anyone could portray that story in such a way that viewers could understand how those kids minds were so controlled that they could go out and commit cold blooded murder on the orders of that deranged con-man.

The story can be told, but how can viewers really understand how he broke their minds down and took them over? Perhaps it is good that we cannot really understand it. That kind of complete influence and control over others, the destruction of their sense of right and wrong, is a bad thing, and the audience should not be taught how it is done.

What you said is right. I was overly critical, and really didn't convey what I was thinking very well in my opening post.

reply

The story can be told, but how can viewers really understand how he broke their minds down and took them over? Perhaps it is good that we cannot really understand it. That kind of complete influence and control over others, the destruction of their sense of right and wrong, is a bad thing, and the audience should not be taught how it is done.


You wrote the words for me! ^^^

What you said is right. I was overly critical, and really didn't convey what I was thinking very well in my opening post.


I re-read it. I thought you were clear but simply honed in on the one part of it. And, what I didn't say, you did. I listed all of the ways they showed Manson using to manipulate others. They've done a good job of showing how he was a master snake oil salesman. Something of the carnival in him. Crass. Mocking. Delighted to fool anyone available to be fooled. The guy personified contempt and disdain. In this, I think this actor nails it. And, I personally feel a bit grateful that I can watch this without any manipulation towards being in any way, "pro-manson." He's repulsive. (I'm too kind.)

I don't think they can do more than show the progression of submitting to his vision and his will, while also showing the deterioration of their individuality. They are repeating acts of unquestioning obedience and that obedience is equated with love and loyalty and it's what bonds them together as the only family they feel a part of. The sex, drugs and rock and roll vibe supported that environment of blending your consciousness with others.

These people were desperately lonely, hurt and naive and in each other they found pleasure and belonging. They were a predator's wet dream and Charlie, being a product of America's youth detention system and then adult prison system, was just that predator. In that, I do pity him. It just seems true that people whom end up being that evil had suffered some unbelievably torturous trauma themselves and then no one noticed, or it kept happening or they did know and did nothing. Powerful stuff.

I haven't researched Manson but I read Bugliosi's book, "Helter Skelter" and then I saw the movie, which did not travel that adaptation road well. Skip the movie, read the book. Around that time there were the Moonies, the Jim Jones people, some star ascension suicide group, the Hari Krishnas so the Mansons didn't raise eyebrows until they committed violent crimes. I'm saying, in context, he wasn't so weird at first, to his followers. I mean, if I guy walked up to a woman today and said that stuff, they'd think he was a bad cartoon in need of some hygiene. But back then, he was a character and the people he preyed upon were weak or injured and vulnerable in some way which most of us can't imagine. Something lost in the "self."

That's about as close to empathy I can reach and it's not really empathy. Just what I think is going on and feeling very lucky that I don't really "get it." What I liked about Bugiosi's book was how he wrote it like a lawyer. Here's my assertion and here's the evidence or set of facts which led me to that conclusion. Or, this looks this way but it could also look that way. This is not enough to be sure, so leave that open until we know more. I love his high reverence for truth and reason. So, my impression of who these people are is largely based on his book or from their appearances in the news.

I don't love this show. The last two episodes of season 1 caught my interest. I was disappointed with Season 2's pilot. I have loved the writing in the shows Duchovny has chosen so I kept watching. I don't think it has found its legs. I think it lacks cohesion. And, I don't appreciate the crime scene photos being used like a bookend... it feels exploitative. Opinions vary... that one's mine. My reasons to stop watching are piling up.

Susan, "but I was thinking..." Leo, "STOP! Thinking is for losers!" - Scandal's satirical message.

reply

These people were desperately lonely, hurt and naive and in each other they found pleasure and belonging. They were a predator's wet dream and Charlie, being a product of America's youth detention system and then adult prison system, was just that predator. In that, I do pity him. It just seems true that people whom end up being that evil had suffered some unbelievably torturous trauma themselves


Right, all those people were a bit lost, or far from home and searching for something. Charlie had learned very well how to read people, sense weakness, and exploit it. He is short in stature and this put him at a disadvantage physically in the boys homes and prison. So he learned to use his "crazy" bit to his advantage, and he learned how to invoke fear in others and use that as a manipulative tool. It can be used in a hypnotic manner, it changes the state of mind. Charlie could induce fear in someone and then spin his esoteric rap and ask for and gain their assent, their 'yes' to him. When he hit San Francisco during the hippie period and met those lost kids, who were experimenting with LSD, he found fertile ground for his style of manipulation.
I'm saying, in context, he wasn't so weird at first, to his followers. I mean, if I guy walked up to a woman today and said that stuff, they'd think he was a bad cartoon in need of some hygiene. But back then, he was a character and the people he preyed upon were weak or injured and vulnerable in some way which most of us can't imagine.

[Yes, I agree again. I was just a kid in those days but I remember the times. I tried to tell a young friend of mine once a little about the different attitudes and viewpoints of that time but failed to convey them. He had no point of reference, and what I was saying didn't make sense to him. He could only think about it in present day terms.]

What I liked about Bugiosi's book was how he wrote it like a lawyer. Here's my assertion and here's the evidence or set of facts which led me to that conclusion. Or, this looks this way but it could also look that way. This is not enough to be sure, so leave that open until we know more. I love his high reverence for truth and reason. So, my impression of who these people are is largely based on his book or from their appearances in the news.
Yes, I agree. I read Helter Skelter also and thought it was well done. Some might have found the style a little dry, but I appreciated him laying out the facts, telling the story of what happened when and how, etc. LAPD was not so great in those days. If not for Vincent, who knows what would have happened in that trial.
I also read part of a book by Tex Watson. He talked about Charlie's hold over him and the others. At one point Charlie took a knife and put the point to his chest over his heart and asked him if he loved him. Tex said I love you Charlie. Manson asked Tex if he could kill him. And Tex said Yes, you can kill me Charlie. That is serious brainwashing.
acts of unquestioning obedience and that obedience is equated with love and loyalty and it's what bonds them together as the only family they feel a part of. The sex, drugs and rock and roll vibe supported that environment of blending your consciousness with others.

Yep, and Charlie was the glue that held them together. A few remained really crazy after he was gone, but most of them became free of his hold over their minds.

After the Tate murders I think Charlie began to worry about the cops. I believe he wanted to set up Tex to take the rap. He told Tex to hide out alone, first in the attic of some shack. Charlie told him to kill any police who might show up. But when Tex was all alone there for a day or so he had time to think on his own, without the family, the mass group belief (which is powerful) and without Charlie. A cop did stop by the shack but Tex didn't shoot. Tex said he began to wonder whether Charlie was right; Helter Skelter was supposed to be coming down, but there were no riots, no civil war, etc. And Charlie still had not found the hole in the desert leading to the city underground.
This is what I found interesting; when Tex was apart from the others for a while, he started to think critically, to think for himself, to reason.
It is a shame Tex ever met Charlie. He had been a really good kid from good parents in a small town in Texas. He was a star athlete (his track records still stand at his high school) and good student. But he began to feel he was missing out on fun. He wanted to drink beer with the guys, drive fast, and chase girls, and his parents were way too strict for that. He wanted to get away where they would not know what he was up to. Damn shame.

reply

[deleted]

"Essence of Manson"- Worst. Perfume. Ever.

Shame we won't get a third season. The show had its flaws, but still better than most of the junk on network TV.

reply

😁

good one

reply

Honestly, how historically accurate the Manson portrayal was was the least of my attractions to this series. I felt the series was much more than the the Manson subplot.

reply

Me too. I liked it for a lot of reasons. I don't knock the series over this. It is probably a good thing they could not do Manson exactly as he was. He is not something we want to see duplicated at all.
I wish the series was still going.

reply