Here's a tidbit. Brad Pitt says of the new Tarantino Manson movie "It's one of the most amazing scripts Tarantino has ever written."
Well at this point in time, I'm really hoping that Tarantino can finally get the car right, the characters right, the dialogue right and the houses right regarding the TLB murders.
Because there hasn't been ONE movie yet that did!! Not even ONE!
BTW that girl doesn't look like Sharon Tate. At ALL!!! Not even one bit!
Tarantino's new film set during the Charles Manson murders is the 'closest to Pulp Fiction' he's ever done
Brad Pitt says it's "one of the most amazing scripts Tarantino has ever written." This will be great!
Despite the fact that filming hasn't even started on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino knows how to hype a film better than most.
A few weeks ago, we brought you the news that Brad Pitt will be reuniting with the director of Inglourious Basterds and that Leonardo DiCaprio will also be along for the ride.
As reported by The Hollywood Reporter, Tarantino said: "It's very hush-hush and top secret. But I can tell you that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969, at the height of the counterculture hippie revolution and the height of new Hollywood." He added that he and his team will transform the city of Los Angeles "block by block" into 1969 Hollywood.
Despite the fact that filming hasn't even started on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Quentin Tarantino knows how to hype a film better than most.
A few weeks ago, we brought you the news that Brad Pitt will be reuniting with the director of Inglourious Basterds and that Leonardo DiCaprio will also be along for the ride.
As reported by The Hollywood Reporter, Tarantino said: "It's very hush-hush and top secret. But I can tell you that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969, at the height of the counterculture hippie revolution and the height of new Hollywood." He added that he and his team will transform the city of Los Angeles "block by block" into 1969 Hollywood.
42 comments:
The original Helter Skelter movie that came out in the 70's as a TV movie was awful. When they were walking up to the Cielo Drive house it looked like they were walking in a park.
Course it was just a TV movie.
A couple of days ago I caught the tail end of a movie on Lifetime called "Manson's Lost Girls". It made the Cielo Drive house into a 2-story house with stairs, and the car they were driving looked like a 1962 Catalina. They made the LaBianca house look like it was on the street, instead of up on a hill.
I guess people who are putting these movies out don't care about the facts of the case, because the viewers don't care. But people who have studied this case KNOW the difference and they DO CARE.
Mr. Tarantino, if you're going to make this movie, please READ THE FACTS OF THE CASE!!! The Cielo Drive house has been torn down, but there are plenty of videos to show you what it looked like. It was NOT a 2-story house, but it had a loft. The LaBianca house was high on a hill, with a long driveway that wound up to it.
Sharon Tate was beautiful. There are very few women before or after her to compare to her.
She just was. She was very photogenic!
Agreed. Very beautiful.
Yes, very beautiful lady. Shame.
LOL.
Bill Cosby was found guilty on 3 counts.
I have high hopes for this film. But probably will be disappointed. Thanks, Katie for the post!
Hi Starship! Yeah, I'm hoping that Tarantino will take this film to a new level. But we'll see what happens!
I hate biopics. I honestly have never seen one that I thought, yeah, that wasn't half bad. In a way, for me they are set up to fail because I'm more likely to watch one if I know something about the subject and usually, I have some concept of the subject's own take on matters {or those involved} and the film never gets close.
katie8753 said...
The original Helter Skelter movie that came out in the 70's as a TV movie was awful
That's being generous !
I remember seeing it a few years ago on one of those SKY film channels that shows all these obscure made for TV films. It came in two parts. Because I never watch live TV and record everything I want to watch, I taped it and then watched it at my leisure. Of course, being au fait with the book and the case, it never stood a chance with me. Not one of the characters on screen evoked the feeling that came over in the book.
Even those dramatizations that came with that 2009 documentary {the one where Linda says she got into Steve Parent's car} were abysmal. When they did the Cielo scene, they looked like they were in the woods. The cutting of Gary Hinman's face was made to seem so overly evilly dramatic, whereas when you read the eye witness accounts {even if the perps were lousy liars}, it happened in such a way as to take people by surprise.
Film makers don't seem to get that going out of their way to make Charles Manson appear to be as evil as evil gets misses the point completely. Partly why the case continues to fascinate to this day is because most people that knew Manson didn't picture him that way. Violent with the females at times, yes. Bossy and directing traffic, yes. But in a way that even his staunchest buddies came to recognize was rather subtle. A good film maker could get across the real horror of the man by not actually needing to show him as a ranting raving madman. In much the same way that Tex is always going to be a scary character in the story because everyone that knew him pegged him as a well mannered gent.
Yeah Grim, any movie about the HTLB killings is going to depict Charles Manson as an evil raving lunatic who knows how use a sharp weapon and how to keep the women in line. Sex & violence sells in Holly-Weird.
Plus, on the TV movie Helter Skelter, Uncle Rico played Bill Garretson. LOL.
Katie after you read this quote, I wonder if your opinion on Van Houten will change. This is a quote from Watson to an author in Headquarters Magazine in 1978,
"(Van Houten)should be allowed to go free.
She didn't kill anyone. I was standing over
this woman and I noticed Leslie down on the
floor. She was terrified! I saw her knife
lying beside her and there wasn't a drop
of blood on it. But I was dripping all over
the place and some got on the handle of the
of her knife. I didn't want to leave with-
out everyone having at least stuck a knife
in the body of one of the victims. I told
her to do her part. She was a wet rag. I
pushed her towards the lady sprawled out
facedown on the floor. The lady was dead.
I pushed Leslie down besides her. She shook
her head. I turned her face up towards me.
I had blood all the way up my arms and I
had a knife in my hand. She was one scared
girl. (HQM: 'If she didn't kill anyone I
said, aren't you going to help her out?'
"What! If I brought that kind of attention
down on me, I'd never get out. No way am I
going to blow my chance to get out just to
testify in Leslie Van Houten's behalf."
Tex was a real humanitarian and this quote shows it.
Maybe this should have it’s own post.
I have a hard time thinking of Leslie as innocent Beauders. She admits that she "begged with her eyes" to go on the 2nd night of killing. Then afterward it didn't seem to bother her to raid the fridge and rifle thru Rosemary's closet to find a "cute outfit".
I don't think Leslie is as deranged as Pat & Tex, but I do think there's something sinisterly wrong with her.
Beauders can you post a link to that interview with Watson in 1978?
I got it out of a magazine, I don't know if it is available on line.
Katie....never realized Garrettson was played by Uncle Rico!
OK thanks Beauders.
Lurch, Uncle Rico also was the balding homeless guy on Seinfeld.
I don't think Van Houten is innocent either, but I do realize that there are a lot of worst people on the streets of California than Leslie Van Houten. We are going on fifty years since these crimes were committed if parole is offered then she should truly be considered and not have it thrown out by a governor who is concerned about his legacy. I agree with the parole board on Van Houten but not with Davis. He is a slimy character who would not help the police try to solve other murders he supposedly wasn't involved in. What is he hiding? Van Houten has been the perfect inmate no matter what people think of her. I do think she will eventually get out in her eighties but none of the others.
Good point Beauders. And I agree, Bruce Davis is a scumbag.
LVH may be a model inmate, but that does not change the fact that two people are dead, and she played a role in that. She has had more bites at the apple than most inmates, but the results are the same. Why? Because she is guilty. The opportunity for parole does not mean you get parole. Being a perfect inmate does not mean that an inmate has given due penance, but rather, that in a controlled environment, that person has learned to adapt and behave, nothing more. LVH’s ongoing saga of denying responsibility, as well as her 1981 marriage and attempted escape plot, should continue to be used against her in determining her fitness for release. I would, however, support her release if she agrees to the same type of release as Susan Atkins...
Thanks Dill!
I understand Dil, I just think she's been punished enough. According to Tex she was forced to stab a dead body. Would she have stabbed Mrs. LaBianca if she was still alive, I think she would have but Mrs. LaBianca was dead, a technicality that the Board considers. No one forced her to join the Family and it is her fault she was in the position she was in. I think her wanting to go was youthful arrogance, bravado, wanting to be a good soldier, wanting to be as 'brave' as her best friend and stupidity. She only really got it when the stabbing started. According to Tex she was terrified. These crimes happened almost fifty years ago and she has been punished for most of it. Isn't fifty years long enough. I would let her out in her seventies, no sooner. I am not soft on crime, I believe in the death penalty and that it should be used for other crimes---those against children and violent sex crimes.
Here’s the thing, it was not proven that Mrs. LaBianca was dead when some of the stab wounds were sustained. In fact, it was not until years later that LVH began to claim that she was only stabbing a dead person. Which, in and of itself, shows a degree of callousness that you do not find in an average person. It is one of the worst examples of deprivity. Two people were brutally twenty-three and a half years per murder, no, I do not think it is anywhere near enough.
@beauders:
However one looks at it, that supposed quote from Tex to Headquarters magazine in '78 is as suspect as the Atlantic is salty. Whatever else Tex was, he wasn't stupid, certainly not by 1978 so I very much doubt he'd say something so obvious and so obviously stupid to an interviewer. Talk to a reporter/interviewer and what you say is going to appear publicly in print. We well and knew that by the late 70s.
It's actually an interesting exercise to compare that with a quote Sandy Good is supposed to have made about the death of Ronald Hughes being "the first of the retaliation murders," which appeared in Helter Skelter. She denies it to this day, the person she is supposed to have said it to has never verified it yet it is almost taken as fact.
In both instances the quote cannot be verified and therefore can't be challenged.
As for Tex, in his book from 1978, he says quite openly: "I went back to the bedroom and told Leslie to help Katie stab the woman, even though it was obvious that Rosemary LaBianca was already dead. Leslie obeyed me, striking mainly on the exposed buttocks, but with none of the enthusiasm that Katie showed."
So why would he say he wouldn't help Leslie in an interview when he'd already said stuff in his book that could have gone in Leslie's favour ?
Because he didn't. The information has been out in the open for 40 years.
Dilligaf said...
it was not proven that Mrs. LaBianca was dead when some of the stab wounds were sustained
The opposite is actually true. LVH says she stabbed 14-16 times. Only 13 of the wounds were post mortem. It's not possible to conclude anything other than Rosemary was alive when Leslie's first blow was struck. Whether it technically was a blow that was fatal, that we can never know. But as for her stabbing a corpse, for at least one {and possibly 3} blow, nah.
In fact, it was not until years later that LVH began to claim that she was only stabbing a dead person
That's factually untrue.
As a matter of fact, if you think about it, stating she stabbed a dead person is what ultimately convicted her and why she is in her current situation.
At some point in September '69 at Willow Springs, LVH told Dianne Lake that she had stabbed someone that was already dead. Linda Kasabian's evidence of Leslie getting into the car on the 2nd night and getting out at the LaBianca's house was ineffective because there was nothing to corroborate it, particularly being a co~conspirator.
However, Dianne Lake repeating what LVH said is what culled LVH because there were post mortem wounds and she was the only person in the Family that made any claim about stabbing dead bodies, ergo, she had to have been there.
So, long before that crowd were even arrested at Barker, she was saying it. She said it to Marvin Part, her lawyer in December '69. The thing there is that this was a private communication, we only became privy to its contents in 2015. In the tape in question, she admits to her role in everything, she doesn't minimize or try to get out or make herself a victim, but among her many revelations are that she thought Rosemary was dead. Part even asks her why she thought this and she says whereas Leno was making a gurgling sound, Rosemary was just lying there. And in even in her first trial when she was trying to absolve Manson and take responsibility by lying during the penalty phase, she states that Rosemary was just lying there not moving, before she stabbed.
For me two things are clear ~ she stabbed someone still alive {even if they were a beat away from dying} and she has always been sure Rosemary was dead ~ repeating that belief to Dianne is what did for her.
Dilligaf said...
She has had more bites at the apple than most inmates, but the results are the same. Why? Because she is guilty
She has had more bites at the apple than most inmates because she has been in longer than most inmates. Saying "because she is guilty" is like saying "rain makes things wet." She would unlikely be be in jail seeking parole if she wasn't guilty ! It kind of goes with the territory.
The real reason she's still in is because of the Manson connection and everyone knows it, even those of us that aren't American or live in America. Guv'nor Brown actually says that in a variety of ways with each reversal. He just won't use that particular form of words.
The opportunity for parole does not mean you get parole
And neither should it. It can't be on time served, it has to go way deeper than that.
It is kind of interesting that by 2013, of the 106 people that were on death row at the time of the 1972 court ruling in California, 42 of them of them were eventually paroled and 12 of them committed crimes while on parole and of those, 3 killed.
Interestingly, the 2 women that were on the wing that LVH and the others found themselves in when they were initially sentenced, both were paroled within ten years, having been sentenced to death. Nothing has been heard of them since and their crimes were as brutal, one murdering an old lady during a robbery and the other murdering her lover's wife.
The possibility of parole doesn't mean the guarantee {and neither should it} of it but it does heavily imply that if you comply with certain criteria and more importantly, behave and show signs of change, you'll be given a fair crack at it.
Being a perfect inmate does not mean that an inmate has given due penance, but rather, that in a controlled environment, that person has learned to adapt and behave, nothing more
Now, I agree that that will apply to a number of inmates at various times throughout the history of mankind because that can be very much part of human nature. But it's such an absolute statement that its very absolutism militates against it being true. Life and people simply are not that black and white ~ although they can be.
You only have to look at the large number of inmates that don't adhere to correct behaviour within that controlled environment allied to the number of years LVH has been inside to at least question whether someone could keep an act going for 45~ish years. Not only that, why should it be suspect that someone on the wrong side of the law who then lands in prison learns to adapt and behave ? That's one of the purposes of incarceration, is it not ?
You might find someone who has killed is more likely to seek to change their ways than someone that steals violently, given that the robber knows that generally speaking, they will be out at some point so there's no need to change if they're only going to face 10 years as opposed to life.
LVH’s ongoing saga of denying responsibility, as well as her 1981 marriage and attempted escape plot, should continue to be used against her in determining her fitness for release
i. She doesn't deny responsibility. In fact, it gets kind of monotonous hearing her take responsibility.
ii. So....she had a marriage 37 years ago that didn't work out. To say that should be used, as Stephen Kay does, to determine her fitness for release, even if tongue in cheek, is frankly insulting to millions of people around the world that have found themselves in a marriage that, for whatever reason, didn't work out.
iii. I'm surprised that you would link her to that escape plot given that there's not a shred of evidence to support such a notion.
beauders said...
Would she have stabbed Mrs. LaBianca if she was still alive, I think she would have
I don't think there's any doubt of that. Yes, she got cold feet {she admits this to Marvin Part} when it came to the actual moment but that doesn't somehow soften her heart at the time. If one goes to descriptions of the event, LVH said to Part: "I was going to hold the woman down, and because Katie had done it before it would have been easier for her to actually stab the woman because I was getting kind of freaky about the whole thing. And then I was watching, you know, I was looking more than I was paying attention to what I should have been doing". One can kind of surmise from that that if Pat had got in some telling blows and Rosemary was helpless, she would have joined in without Tex having to make her do so. What got her "kind of freaky about the whole thing" was the difficulty that Pat was having and the fact that Rosemary was raising merry hell and fighting back.
Of those that did kill once it was on, Leslie will forever remain the only one that actually wanted to and really believed in the cause. But anyone that chooses to can see she'd left that all behind by 1978 when she was re~tried.
I think when it comes down to it, the argument surrounding someone like Leslie comes down to two things: can a person change from a previously held set of values for the better {no one argues it the other way} and should that person ever be given a second chance ?
For me the answer to both is yes.
But I say that guardedly because as with most things, it's not straightforward. It's a minefield of nuances. For example, a paedophile that has sexually abused children doesn't just change one day and say "oh, I'm not going to do that again." I wouldn't release a child sexual abuser back into society, I'd probably not release a serial rapist either, but then, life is full of nuances.
Grim, what can I say I hate Tex Watson and believe he was the main catalyst for the Tate/LaBianca murders. I realize that Watson would be stupid to have said what was quoted but it does ring true situationally. My question to Katie was would that quote change her mind about Van Houten. In my world all pedophiles would be locked up for life and the violent (such as murdering the child to make it easier to get away with it) would be executed. Same with violent rapists either life in prison or death. Clara Harris was released from prison last week. She ran over her husband several times, killing him, because she found out he was having an affair. She was middle aged, no mental illness, no drugs or alcohol, no brainwashing, no hippie cult leader, just an angry wife. She served fifteen years of a twenty year sentence. Now this crime was premeditated, not only did she plan it but she ran over him several times. This woman is just as guilty as Van Houten and committed her crime in the "hang em high" state of Texas. My question is how is it alright for Mrs. Harris to be released after fifteen years and Van Houten won't be released after fifty years?
Theory is great but until you have rubbed elbows with convicted felons, I will continue to rely on my actual experience. Rehabilitation is fine for some, however it does little for paying the price for one’s actions. When a woman kills her child by immersing that child into scalding water because it would not stop crying, I have no room for tolerance. When a person starves, or otherwise abuses, an elder relative, and that relative dies, compassion and forgiveness is not at the top of my list. You can copy my posts, and try to dissect and interpret them to match your beliefs all you want, but until you have seen what I have, do yourself a favor and don’t.
Dilligaf said...
Theory is great but until you have rubbed elbows with convicted felons
I have rubbed shoulders with and had fascinating conversations with convicted felons and known some personally, both before and after they were convicted.
Theory ain't that great.
You can copy my posts, and try to dissect and interpret them to match your beliefs all you want, but until you have seen what I have, do yourself a favor and don’t
So yours is the last word on everything ?
I don't know what you've seen, but I take on board whatever experience you've had. You are entitled to whatever view you've arrived at, I'm entitled to disagree at those points that I may do so and given that this is a public forum, I assume there is something of a discussion going on, one that involves agreement at points and disagreement at others.
If you don't like having your posts "dissected" as you put it, perhaps you should just be happy with your views and keep them to yourself. Then you have your "win~win."
To all posters here, I responded to Grim Traveler, but out of respect to you all, I deleted my response to his childish comments. This site does not deserve the type of drama that has occurred elsewhere. The best way to handle it is for me to ignore him, that truly is a win-win...
Thanks Dill. I intend to respond to all that when I get a chance later in the week.
Grim, Dilligaf has been a good friend and trusted blogger for many years now, as well as most of our other bloggers. For you to suggest that he "keep his views to himself" is not gonna fly around here. He's welcome to post his opinions any time he wants.
If he doesn't want you "dissecting" his posts, then please stop doing it. You can respond to his comments without doing that. Everyone else does.
Beauders, the difference between Clara Harris and Leslie Van Houten, to me, is that what Harris did was "a crime of passion". I guess maybe you could associate that with "temporary insanity". I'm not sure what her defense was. She was married to a man that was having an affair and he told her he broke it off and she caught them together that day and just "lost it".
I'm not defending what she did. But it's a far cry from going into someone's house that you don't even know, have no animosity or hard feelings whatsoever for, and help restrain and kill that person, and afterward raid the fridge, raid the closet, and laugh about it all during your murder trial.
I know I keep bringing that last stuff up about the fridge, etc, but it's part of what Leslie is. And that's what makes her, in my opinion, distanced from reality.
I wonder even now if she can fully accept what she did. Only she knows.
katie8753 said...
Dilligaf has been a good friend and trusted blogger for many years now
I agree. I've read his stuff on three different blogs, to varying degrees and much of what he's said has been insightful and thought provoking.
For you to suggest that he "keep his views to himself" is not gonna fly around here. He's welcome to post his opinions any time he wants
Please look at the context Katie, in which I said those words. Am I genuinely saying to someone "don't comment here and keep your views to yourself" ? Of course I'm not. For starters, it's not my blog to do that and even if it was, I wouldn't. That's just not my style. If you will have picked up anything about me at this point of having contributed here for 3 years, it's that I'll discuss or argue pretty much any point with anybody if I have a view on it. I'd argue with the Queen and President Trump if I happened to disagree with them on a particular point and they wrote in here !
I'll state for the record, of course Dill is welcome to post his opinions. That's actually what the post he objects to means. But we can't have it both ways. Unless you're saying that certain people are fireproof and their opinions so sacrosanct that they must not be wrestled with/disagreed with/questioned.
I'm happy for him to say what he desires. It seems however, that the vice is not versa.
If he doesn't want you "dissecting" his posts, then please stop doing it. You can respond to his comments without doing that. Everyone else does
Contributors often say several things or make more than one point within a post or posts.
But I must raise the point that if you don't want whatever you say to be responded to, then why be part of a situation that, in order for it to continue and thrive, demands response ? You may as well keep them to yourself. On top of that, Dil made some points that are factually incorrect. We've made enough noise down the years about how we get a little irked by documentary makers or article writers getting things wrong when the info is out there and easily available so I'm not going to apologize for pointing such out, especially if one is using that wrong info as a bulwark of the point they are making.
Katie to date there is a difference of almost 35 years between Van Houten and Harris, isn't that enough to cover the food and clothes?
Dilligaf said...
This site does not deserve the type of drama that has occurred elsewhere
I agree. I once said to you in particular that I wasn't interested in any flame wars in cyberspace. I'm still not.
I think disagreement should be handled in an adult manner. Sometimes strongly worded, sometimes passionate, but always respectful. I respect you. I agree with some things you say and I disagree with other things that you say. And I don't object to being disagreed with.
katie8753 said...
I'm not defending what she did
You're not defending what she did, in terms of murdering someone, but you are providing mitigation which in a way is on that road of "she's not really fully responsible and therefore can be cut some slack." You refer to it as a crime of passion and temporary insanity and then point out the husband was having an affair, said he'd broken it off and then was found with the woman, so that's two mighty points in Clara Harris' favour and three mighty strikes against the husband.
But as Beauders points out, she was calculating beforehand and during the crime, made damn sure she rolled the husband and rolled him good.
That she knew him and had reason to be angry towards him doesn't somehow legitimize or take the sting out of the crime.
beaudera, a couple of thoughts come to mind, the first being that criminal statutes, and sentencing, vary from state to state. That alone can make the difference. However, crime does not happen in a vacuum. While there are always similarities in most murders, I think that the premeditated manner in which Harris acted was indicative of an anger or rage, however it did not rise to the level of brutality that the LaBianca’s experienced. Also, LVH was convicted under a Felony Murder rule, in which deaths occurred during the commission of a robbery, i.e., the money that was taken. Rather then saying that LVH has received a far more severe sentence, it could just as easily be said that Harris received too lenient of a sentence, and subsequent parole.
Okay I'm going to bed. See y'all in the morning!
I don't know if this is true or not, but supposedly Manson's grandson is selling his ashes to people to make money. That is messed up....
From IMDB - "While the LaBianca house was used in the movie, the Tate house was not."
And, "The Manson's "Family" car was the original one used by them, which was loaned by the authorities."
Probably BS about the car IMO, but...I have read about Waverly being used elsewhere too...
NOTE:
I JUST FOUND SEVERAL COMMENTS SITTING IN THE "MODERATION BIN"... ACTUALLY KATIE DISCOVERED THEM.
SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS ARE QUITE OLD.
MY SINCERE APOLOGIES TO ANYONE WHO TRIED TO POST A COMMENT, AND NEVER SAW THEIR COMMENT APPEAR ON THE BLOG.
I JUST POSTED ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS.
AGAIN, MY SINCERE APOLOGIES.
Post a Comment