MovieChat Forums > Aquarius (2015) Discussion > To those already familiar with the era, ...

To those already familiar with the era, is this worth watching?

posted 8 years ago by metatron1970
15 replies | jump to latest

I like to think I'm fairly well-versed in late 60's history and culture and have studied it from multiple angles. Most modern movies that try to depict the era do no more than put ratty wigs on their actors, dress them in bright psychedelic clothing, and expect that this will automatically conjure up the spirit of that period. David Fincher's ZODIAC is perhaps one of the better films that deal with that period. Others have done it terribly: the 2004 HELTER SKELTER and ACROSS THE UNIVERSE come to mind. How historically accurate is AQUARIUS? I am very familiar with the highly unusual Manson case and am not in the mood for the typical way this important case has been represented. I am also not interested in hearing another bad Manson impersonation. (Bob Odenkirk did perhaps the best Manson I've ever seen in "The Ben Stiller Show" from '92). I am wondering if the show merits an investment of my time. I am especially interested in hearing from those already familiar with the era through research or because they lived through it.

[–] kjperes13 8 years ago

It's a fictional take on the era...

[–] Pippy-4 8 years ago

I think its enjoyable. How true to life it is I do not know. I was around at that time but really was to young to take it all in. I remember the way people dressed and the music more than I did the Manson case.

[–] EstaQ 8 years ago

As one who was *Actually There* at the time, the most grating aspect is the music. It is accurate for the time period, but not authentic, that is, they play the real songs, but not by the original artists. I'm talking Stones, maybe some Crosby Stills Nash, etc., the iconic music of the era. It was rather irritating, to be honest. It was also pretty distracting when I'd be trying to discern if the music was "real" so I'd find myself missing the storyline. (thank God for DVRs). So I'm not saying the clones weren't pretty good, but sheesh, if you have any measure of confidence in your project, PAY FOR THE ORIGINAL MUSIC!! This is one show it would have been worth it.

[–] cinles 8 years ago

The money for the original songs probably went in David Duchovny's pocket. 

[–] MNGal28 8 years ago

I would say that I'm fairly well-versed in '60s history & culture as well. I am also very well read on the Manson family case.

I do enjoy the show. I like the acting & the '60s theme, but it is always in my mind all the inconsistencies w/ what really happened in the Manson family & what they portray in the show. The whole character of Emma is an invention for the show. She is given a lot of the Manson family responsibilities that were given to other, real-life members.

And it's just a lot of little things too. Like Susan Adkins has shoulder-length, reddish-brown hair in the show. It throws me off b/c IRL Susan Adkins had long, almost black hair.

IMO it's not very historically accurate- at least when it comes to the Manson family part of it.

[–] cinles 8 years ago

It's not a TV show just about Charles Manson - it's about a guy who is an LA cop during that time frame. I like to think of it as kind of a dramatic Forest Gump. It's a story that uses some historical figures, but much of it is made up. It's no different than any period show, there are errors - like the people are far too pretty and sometimes they don't get the dialogue quite right, but it's an enjoyable show.

[–] readyrock-89315 8 years ago

I was a hippie on the east coast in 1969. DC area, went to Woodstock, lived in a commune. I find the show interesting. I really like it.

[–] writetopcat 8 years ago

So far the show is dealing with events of the time leading up to the most publicized murders of the Manson family. That period is not very well documented, not like the murders themselves and afterwards. And they have to make up fictional stories for the detectives to make their lives interesting enough to hold viewers attention.

The show bills itself as being inspired by historical events, not as recreating historical events, so I am sure they take creative license. To a large degree they have to make up some of the stuff since they don't really have extremely detailed accounts of the Manson family life during that period to go on. Still, I think they fail to show just how much control Manson had over his followers. The show seems to indicate Manson's control was mostly through intimidation, but Manson had a certain way of gaining control. First he found somewhat lost souls, drifting along. He made the engage in group sex, homosexual sex, lesbian sex, whatever. He broke down their previous morality and built them back up into the people he wanted. Together with the drugs and his ability to read people and con them he gained control over them. His lifetime growing up mostly behind bars taught him how to read people and con people.

Also I noticed in tonights episode in the flash forward to just after the murders they used a cook as an initial suspect. In reality the cops were looking at the caretaker simply because he was there, and he did not hear the shots. However his stereo was playing loud enough that he could not hear them.
Also tonight in the show Det. Hodiak was grilling the maid who discovered the bodies. But in reality she was never a suspect.

Having said all that I think it is a great show. I enjoy it for what it is.

[–] Dennis_Cooper 8 years ago

It's essentially alternative history, just using the names of a few actual people.

[–] kuntext 8 years ago

How historically accurate is AQUARIUS?

The show is billed as, "inspired by true events." Some characters are somewhat familiar while others are apparently composites (like 3 characters stitched together into one).

Having read Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter," I'd say Aquarius is not like the true-life story.

I agree with the other poster about the covers of the music being a disappointment. It's as if the producers lack any sense of how integral to the culture those original artists and their songs were.

The characters are unlikable and although they suffer bleak lives it's difficult to feel sympathetic. There's a lot of evil going on and so far, Manson's not the worst of them.

I think the writing relies heavily on sensationalized flashes of the carnage in time jumps to the future. The stories are disjointed. I think the police station is meant to be the hub and connective tissue for all of the characters' stories but it doesn't work. If the Duchovny character is meant to be where all roads lead, so far, he's just too "checked out" to have any deep connection with anyone.

I keep watching based on my interest in the original case but this is really a completely different story. I thought it would examine Manson's character and his ability to hunt, choose prey and captivate them into following him... nope. Instead, this guy is just the average drugged-out, sleazy loser whom looks like he'd smell bad if you were near him. He lacks charisma, talent and humor. Not believable at all that anyone would want to spend time with him or invite him into their homes.

What I do love about the show is how they capture how oppressed the women are in that time period. From horrible husbands to horrible employers - their lives are sh**.

It is possible that the series will take a few seasons to build up to something more connected and more interesting but for now, if you value accuracy, this is not for you.

I'm feeling a growing anxiety about the plot because as another poster said, they use names from the case and key public figures from the era but otherwise, it's just any old story. So, if they weren't going to explore how Charlie Manson evolved, then why do this at all? As is, it is beginning to feel opportunistic and exploitative.

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

[–] cinles 8 years ago

This show would have been better if they had left the Manson part out - because as the show has progressed it does feel a bit exploitive. However, from the beginning I never expected it to be historically accurate. Hodiak is the hub of Aquarius and boy if you don't pay attention to this show one can get lost. I'm inclined to go back and watch episode 6 and 7 so I can understand some things that happened in episode 8 and 9.

[–] Pippy-4 8 years ago

It is possible that the series will take a few seasons to build up to something more connected and more interesting but for now, if you value accuracy, this is not for you.

Unfortunately the show will not get another season. I read somewhere that it's going to be canceled. Not that I'm surprised.

[–] cinles 8 years ago

I didn't want to bring that up as it seems some of the shows I'm watching now are on cancellation watch and I almost feel like a buzzkill writing that over and over on boards. 

[–] Pippy-4 8 years ago

Yes quite a bit of the series I like will be gone. I'll miss Rizzoli and Isles, Beauty and the Beast and Mike and Molly

[–] kuntext 8 years ago

Hodiak is the hub of Aquarius and boy if you don't pay attention to this show one can get lost. I'm inclined to go back and watch episode 6 and 7 so I can understand some things that happened in episode 8 and 9.

I almost said that Duchovny's character is the hub of the story but I think that is more a matter of the writers' attempt or intention combined with audience expectation rather than one of actual achievement. He should be the hub, but instead, he just blends in like wallpaper. The stories are scattered and his connection to each of them is superficial or fleeting - if Hodiak is the hub, then it's only by default. That's why I referred to a building rather than Hodiak, as the hub.

I'm not saying, "I'm right. You're wrong." Just that at least one viewer sees it differently, you know?

I did re-watch and still found it challenging to follow. Plus, it really does do too much telling to the detriment of showing and that adds to the superficial, emotionless tone.

This show would have been better if they had left the Manson part out - because as the show has progressed it does feel a bit exploitive. However, from the beginning I never expected it to be historically accurate.

I'd read in advance that it was "inspired by" so I was expecting a prequel of sorts and it's not that. So, okay, I gave it a chance to see what they were doing instead... still don't know.

It's a scathing look at police whom are portrayed as haters - sexism, racism and greedy criminality all-around. They are high on their own power OR they are inept and uncaring, to put it mildly and they treat everyone like cattle. And that tone is exactly why the series feels exploitative.

I do expect to see some sensitivity and respect for the victims conveyed by at least some of the characters. Showing graphic murder imagery without some accompanying human caring is too callous, too objective, too exploitative.

An example of the opposite of my criticism would be the film, "The Cell" with D'Onofrio and Lopez. Very shocking visuals but they never out-powered the human connection of caring.

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