Manson's Lost Girls (Lifetime)

[Tara Ariano]

The true story of Linda Kasabian and the other women who were members of Charles Manson's cult and accomplices in the murder spree that became infamously known as "Helter Skelter" is recounted from the creation of Manson's commune to his persecution.

 

Premieres Saturday, February 6, at 8 PM ET on Lifetime.

[ShadowHunter]

I will be watching though I don't know how they will fit the story into a 90 minute movie.  The beyond the headlines story that airs after the movie will probably be better.

 

Its a shame the 1976 miniseries Helter Skelter never airs anymore. Steve Railsback really brought the crazy. The 2004 movie which also focused  on Linda Kasabian wasn't bad but not as good as the 76 one.

[GHScorpiosRule]

The fact that it's Lifetime doing this gaurantees I won't be watching the movie. Maybe I'll check out the beyond the headlines story.

 

I have Helter Skelter on dvd, and it is eons better than any and all remakes, dramatizations that have taken place since. It still scares the bejesus out of me. Bugliosi's book of the same name is fantastic reading.

[Primetimer]

Manson's Lost Girls rises above the usual wiki dreck with help from Hollywood royalty.

Read the story

[chick binewski]

I didn't expect Manson's Lost Girls to receive any decent recommendation but after reading Sarah's review I'm going to have to check this out. As others have stated Helter Skelter (the book & the movie) have always been the quintessential recount of the murders for me, and I had a lot of respect for Bugliosi (still have "Outrage" on my very lengthy reading list based on Sarah's post after Bugliosi passed).

[Glade]

...Except their family background and resulting psychological makeup was equally responsible, and they weren't all 100% innocent victims of one evil man. This sounds like a typical lifetime movie, I'll pass.

[Sarah D. Bunting]

I've still never seen the '76 one but my mother still speaks of it in shuddery tones.

[pigs-in-space]

I just watched the '76 version of Helter Skelter, and I didn't find it all that creepy.  I thought the guy who played Bugliosi was great, but I wasn't scared or really enthralled during it.  I thought the '04 remake was creepier.  But maybe it's just because I knew the whole story and had read the book already.

 

That said, I have Lost Girls set to record tomorrow night.

[tv-is-addicting]

I've been reading SDB for 16 years and 'gurunt' is my new all time favorite.

Not certain how this differs from last year's 'Aquarius' as more than a few episodes focused on one [fictional] girl's circumstances putting her into Manson's orbit. Although this sounds much more fact based than Duchovny's vanity project...

[ShadowHunter]

In the review from Variety they said those fascinated by the Manson mythology shouldn’t be disappointed so yes this will be more fact based.

 

in the 76 version I always found the watch scene a little creepy. That part always stayed with me. Even when reading Bugliosi's book I always picture it.

[Sarah D. Bunting]

I should do a ranking of all the Manson credits on IMDb, a la the one I did of all the Bundys. ("Bundies"?) http://www.the-blotter.com/five-actors-whose-ted-bundy-imdb-credits-might-surprise-you/

[Avaleigh]

...Except their family background and resulting psychological makeup was equally responsible, and they weren't all 100% innocent victims of one evil man. This sounds like a typical lifetime movie, I'll pass.

If only I'd been as wise as you, Glade.

Edited February 7, 2016 by Avaleigh

[MuuMuuChainsmoker]

The You Must Remember This podcast did a good 12 part series on Charles Manson's Hollywood.  It's focus is Old Hollywood, rather than true crime, but it's an good overview and includes interesting side bars on some of the more minor players.   And it doesn't fetishize Manson, which is always good. 

[Simon Boccanegra]

You've missed the 1976 Helter Skelter, Sarah? It used to be a TBS stable. I think there are longer and shorter cuts. 

 

I don't think either that one or the 2004 miniseries does full justice to the book. The '76 one is smarter. The way the '04 justified its existence (essentially, "We're going to tell this story again, and this time we're going to show you the murders") left a bad taste. The '76 one has some awful TV-melodrama scenery chewing (the Linda Kasabian, for one), and the pseudonyms kind of bug: "Cisco Budge" for Bruce Davis, "Bolger" for Irving Kanarek. So does the faux-Beatles soundtrack by Silverspoon. At the same time, even though the '04 actors are generally better, the '76 ones are more convincing as people of that time. Playing "period" is a strange process, and not everyone has the knack. The girls in the earlier movie had lived through that time. They had the right look, the right inflections, without trying. The ones in the newer movie seemed so turn-of-the-millennium contemporary, no matter how they were styled. 

 

The great performance in the '76 was George DiCenzo's Vincent Bugliosi. He delivered Bulgiosi's closing argument as powerfully as I could imagine the real one doing. I don't know what was behind the casting of Bruno Kirby (fine actor, but all wrong) in '04. Steve Railsback's Manson has its admirers, and yes, he is scary, but I find it so over the top that I reluctantly sympathize with one of the Manson girls (!) who said that she would never have followed for a minute someone who acted like that, let alone stayed so devoted to him. Jeremy Davies's Manson in '04 is an unheralded great performance, quiet and intense and thoroughly malignant. Owen Gleiberman described him as "seething like a scorpion that has lost its sting," or words to that effect, and that's a perfect description. He was the best thing in it. 

Edited February 8, 2016 by Simon Boccanegra

[Qoass]

Having read the book Helter Skelter, my objection to depictions of Manson are always visual:  the real CM is 5'2" so when I see taller actors in the role, I have trouble buying it.  The 1976 version really tried to show how a tiny guy used other means of menace.  Also, during all the sexual scenes, all I could think of was that hygiene on the ranch was probably a bit lax so I didn't find them titillating at all.

[Jadzia]

With how good the new show American Crime Story is, I wish that they would do this case for next season. When I was watching the Behind the Headlines special after the movie, I was thinking how many parallels there were to the OJ Simpson trial and this. Both cases really changed the culture of the time and still remain infamous.

[WendyM]

I have to chime in also to recommend the series on the You Must Remember This podcast. I had read (and seen) everything about Manson and the murders--at least, I thought I had. Giving it the old Hollywood spin changed my thinking about Manson's original motivations. It's really worth a listen, even if you're tired of the story.

[lovinbob]

I've still never seen the '76 one but my mother still speaks of it in shuddery tones.

I watched this movie, more than once, late at night when I was in high school. I developed a life-long phobia of Manson, as if he might come to my home at any moment and kill me. Particularly when I'm under stress, this phobia manifests itself. It's all because of Steve Railsback!

[Aquarius]

I watched Manson's Lost Girls, hoping to learn something more about the girls.  That's why I stay semi-fascinated with the case.  I've never gotten any satisfying explanation about what was so wrong with these people that some little no-account psycho could get them to kill for him.  Not even for monetary reward - for some disjointed and bizarre idea of "helter skelter" and kicking off a race war.  To be fair, I've never done LSD or experienced hallucinogenics of any kind (other than the unfortunate side effect of one prescription medication).  But that can't be all there is to it, the drugs.  It just doesn't account for the influence Manson had over them.  There has to be more to their makeup that made them fall for it.  I was hoping to get some new insight into that.  I got to see the girls kiss; I think that's the only new thing here.

 

Disappointing.

[MsTree]

The Rumer Willis look-alike...was that supposed to be Susan Atkins?  She didn't need ANY reason to do as CM instructed because she had a mean/sadistic streak all her own!

[pigs-in-space]

I have to chime in also to recommend the series on the You Must Remember This podcast. I had read (and seen) everything about Manson and the murders--at least, I thought I had. Giving it the old Hollywood spin changed my thinking about Manson's original motivations. It's really worth a listen, even if you're tired of the story.

 

Thank you for the recommendation!  I've started listening to it and it's really fascinating.

[psychoticstate]

I finally saw this for the first time over the weekend and while I thought it was good in certain aspects, in others it fell flat for me. 

 

First, I didn't like the sympathetic portrayal of Linda Kasabian because I really do question how involved she was.  When she fled the ranch (out of fear, she said), she not only left her toddler daughter behind (with people she said were cold- blooded murderers) but she didn't run to the authorities but rather to a friend in New Mexico.  What now? 

 

Despite having read a multitude of books and info on the case, it wasn't super clear who was who. 

 

Susan Atkins did not meet Linda Kasabian in a restaurant; Linda was actually invited to the ranch by Catherine Share (aka Gypsy.)   The Susan Atkins of the trial (and pre-trial) came off as extremely blood-thirsty.  This Susan seemed almost docile and her eventual participation in the murders of Hinman and those at Cielo Drive inexplicable.  Patricia Krenwinkle (Katie) was really not represented at all; Leslie Van Houten was seen more but still not a lot of character development. 

 

The actor playing Manson was all wrong if for nothing else but his height.  Manson is notoriously short; much shorter than the other men, especially Tex Watson. 

 

I also felt that the Family members looked remarkably clean in this production when in reality they were quite filthy.  And some were portrayed as attractive, pretty people when in reality they were more ordinary (at least IMO.)

 

This movie made it seem as though Linda had been with the Family longer than she actually was - - she arrived in July of 1969, just a month prior to the murders.  She didn't accompany the Family to Brian WIlson's home; by that time, Wilson was avoiding Manson (and was in fear of him.)   Terry Melcher did not tell Manson the record deal was dead immediately before the murders; that happened in or around May of 1968.

 

I get certain events had to be dramatized and tightened up but it took me out of the movie to a degree. 

 

I do like that Gary Hinman was not glossed over nor forgotten and the murders on August 8-9 and August 10 were not glorified.   Rather than focus on those persons at Cielo Drive, this production chose to show Leno LaBianca being confronted and restrained and I think that was the most heart-wrenching moment for me, knowing what these animals were going to do to him. 

 

Worthwhile production but to me, the 1976 Helter Skelter will always reign supreme.

[GHScorpiosRule]

The actor playing Manson was all wrong if for nothing else but his height.  Manson is notoriously short; much shorter than the other men, especially Tex Watson.

 

 

I read this and immediately thought. They get an actor too short to play OJ, and here, an actor too tall to play Manson! Hee.

 

Worthwhile production but to me, the 1976 Helter Skelter will always reign supreme.

 

 

Nothing will ever top the 1976 docu-movie. Like I posted upthread, and I think over at TWoP, I had to convince myself when I first watched it, that those were actors playing Manson's women in that movie. They were so good, I thought, at the time, are those the actual women? This was near the end, after they shaved their heads and I could see the bastardized swastika imprinted into their foreheads.  And then I read Bugliosi's book, and was afraid to go to sleep for a week.  And I was in my early 20's then. The last time that happened, I'd just read a book by John Saul, Hellfire, I think it was, and I couldn't sleep for three days, because I have such a vivid imagination.

Edited March 21, 2016 by GHScorpiosRule

[psychoticstate]

 

 

I read this and immediately thought. They get an actor too short to play OJ, and here, an actor too tall to play Manson! Hee.

 

 

 

Nothing will ever top the 1976 docu-movie. Like I posted upthread, and I think over at TWoP, I had to convince myself when I first watched it, that those were actors playing Manson's women in that movie. They were so good, I thought, at the time, are those the actual women? This was near the end, after they shaved their heads and I could see the bastardized swastika imprinted into their foreheads.  And then I read Bugliosi's book, and was afraid to go to sleep for a week.  And I was in my early 20's then. The last time that happened, I'd just read a book by John Saul, Hellfire, I think it was, and I couldn't sleep for three days, because I have such a vivid imagination.

 

As a fellow refugee from the American Crime Story board, that first comment had me snorting!  Ha!

 

Amen, my friend.  I remember the first time I watched the 1976 HS, it scared the absolute crap out of me.  I don't remember when that was but Steve Railsback . . . he gave me chills.  The opening sequence with that freaky music, of various people hearing random sounds, and with George DiCenzo reading the first sentence of the book . . . it really sets the disturbing tone that would follow.  I eventually bought the DVD, still have it and pull it out every now and again when I feel like watching something "witchy." 

 

I think it's interesting to remember that when this was filmed -- back in 1975 or 1976, it had only been 6 or so years since the murders.  I recall reading somewhere that when it originally aired, the LA area considered not showing it at all because the crimes were still very fresh to a lot of people.   And despite showing flashes of the murders, this was probably quite graphic to television audiences of the mid to late 70s.

 

In any event, I think it most closely captures the horror and fear of the book and of the original crimes and makes Manson out to be neither a rebel nor a charming lothario but a lethally angry father figure who preyed upon insecurities, took advantage of the times and was an expert con.  I also think it did a very good job of showing that some of the Family members were depraved with or without Manson.