Customer Reviews

Charles Manson Superstar [VHS]

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

The best "review" of this film is found on the DVD casing itself, which includes filmmaker Nikolas Schreck's 2002 concession that, since having made the film in the late 1980s, "I have learned much more concerning the actual facts of the Manson murders than I knew when this film was made. In light of this more accurate information, it is obvious to me that I presented several wrong conclusions in 'Charles Manson Superstar.' Were I to make this film now, I would have asked Manson very different questions than I did at the time. For example, I have heard credible evidence that indicates that Manson may well have been present at the scene of the murders and may have been far more involved in the crimes themselves than even his most vociferous critics have claimed. Therefore, I no longer believe that Manson was the innocent martyr he presented himself to be."

In this interview, producer Nikolas Schrek frames Manson as an iconic and misunderstood victim. On that level, of course, this is pure bosh. Some of the supporting historical information presented here about the "Family" and the murders is accurate but available in more detail and better format elsewhere. In other places, the filmmaker either deliberately slants or just doesn't have his facts straight. The sound and video quality of this product are low-budget and nominal.

So, why did i give this four stars? Because it provides more or less unfettered access into the mind of a pure criminal psychopath, and a very influential one at that. Charles Manson has touched the minds of many people and it behooves us as a society to try to understand how such a person can influence others. The interview should be mandatory watching for criminal psychologists and anyone involved in gang prevention or caring for juvenile delinquents.

I should add a few caveats here. If you're not familiar with the Manson case, this is not a good place to start. Pick up the Bugliosi book, maybe watch one of the TV movies based on it (both are good, not great). There are other books out there, but Bugliosi's "Helter Skelter" presents what are accepted as the facts of the case better than any of them by far. Extremely sensitive or impressionable people should probably do themselves a favor and not watch this DVD at all.

The history of the Manson cult and murders is really a fascinating one: the Beach Boys, the Beatles, Summer of Love, Berkeley free speech movement, the hippie/commune lifestyle, and (of course) lots of LSD all come together in the grisly story which brought the 60's to a tumultuous close. This interview does provide a new vision into what made helter skelter happen in 1969.

This documentary is for people interested in the person Charles Manson, not in actual facts about the case, since they tend to take Manson's word for fact. However, it is fascinating to watch Manson interact with the interviewer & prison guards; it gives a little insight into how he charms and/or frightens people. The video and audio quality are bad (sometimes you can't hear the narration above the booming bad music). The director/narrator/writer says that in researching Manson, "One is usually forced to read between the lines of the author's self-service." I couldn't have said it better myself.

Nikolas Schreck interviews Mr Charles Manson himself what more do you need to know? This quality work sees a genuinly impartial Schreck tackling the Manson myth and Manson himself in interview with intelligence, gently probing (whenever Charlie stops for a breath) this facinating man. The work is comprehensive, examining Manson's origins, the famous Bugliosi showcase trial, fellow characters in the 'manson family', 'hippies', the 60's and the decades of persistent media hype/myth around the era defining case. As a work of cultural study this stimulating film stands on it's own.

The first thing you should be aware of in terms of Charles Manson is his insistence of his personal innocence of the murders he is serving time for. In short he maintains there was no 'family', he did not control others free will, did not order any murders and indeed was not present at any murders. (You may choose to believe or not believe he is white as snow!) The second is that he is either mad, truely enlightened, or both. The lenghty 1989 interview in San Quentin has moments of great revelation (in the purest sense of the concept) and hilarity. The shadowy Schreck seems a little over-awed in the face of Mansons energy and conviction but regardless, Manson himself does an excellent job at debunking 'Charles Manson'. He comes across as a tremendously aware human being and ultimately a true paradox - for all his awareness he seems to be less than capable of making the best of his potential for 'rehabilitation' and all that could concievably bring.

This film should give any open-minded and/or inquisitive viewer great insight into life itself - rather than Charles Manson perhaps. That's to say you may feel you know more about yourself rather than more about Manson after viewing. This cannot be a bad thing. You may want to join the Manson fan club after watching this film tho so beware.

This review was based on the video. The dvd has a section on Mansons music which is of a surprisingly high quality - the 'family' could really sing.

If you feel like watching a looney-toon talk gibberish for a little more than an hour and forty-five minutes, then this is the perfect DVD for you! Otherwise, I cannot recommend it.

Charles Manson, the mythic architect of the August 1969 "Tate-LaBianca Murders" in Los Angeles, California, is interviewed in prison for this 1989 program, with very little (to none) in the way of what could be termed "useful" or "enlightening" information being revealed.

Charlie talks and talks...and talks some more during the program, seemingly coming up with answers off the top of his head...all of which have absolutely no coherence whatsoever. Not a sentence he spoke in this program made a grain of sense.

I think it's a safe bet to say, as has been said of him in the past, that Charles Milles Manson (Maddox) is a supreme master of obfuscation and double-talk.

This program, overall, has fairly rock-bottom production values too, featuring shrill sound, slow menus, not exactly top-notch video quality, and several errors by the narrator/filmmaker, who was obviously reading his spoken words straight from a written "script" (which I think would have been acceptable if not for the boring-like monotone quality in which its delivered in this presentation).

I'm fascinated by the subject of Charles Manson, but I wish I had skipped this program in favor of something more compelling and far less rambling and just plain nutty (which is how Manson comes across here).

If you're looking for quality Manson material on video, I'd opt for the A&E Biography on Manson, which is quite good IMO.

An archetypical icon on the 1960's, Charles Manson was a fitting conclusion of an eventful era of American history that included hippies, the Vietnam War, JFK, LSD,the creation of the Satanic Church by Anton Lavey, and Timothy Leary. He is the star of one of America's most awful nightmares and instigator of one of its most brutal crimes: the bloodthirsty butchering of Roman Polanski's wife and unborn child.
"Charles Manson Superstar" attempts to make sense out of Charles Manson through a long interview with him interspersed with details about his life as read in a monotonous droning tone by journalist Nikolas Shreck and Zeena Lavey and a beautiful painting by Joe Coleman. There is also a unconvincing attempt to link Manson and his cult with the Church of Satan, The Process, and other occult groups by using selective reasoning and coincidences that make it appear as if Manson is himself something greater that is a part of something on a larger cosmological scale than what he really is; a psychopathic madman with visions of grandeur. Schreck goes so far as to try to pass Manson off as a prophetic visionary who has tapped into a vague shamanistic perception of the world that is missed by the rest of humankind who are too controlled by technology and media to be able to see for themselves and who have unfairly crucified Charles Manson for crimes he did not commit becaise he is a reflection of all that they fear. Granted, although it's refreshing to see a different representation of Manson than what is normally seen in the media, any sane person who spends even a few minutes listening to Manson can see that the guy is totally out of his mind. Trying to make any coherent sense out of the garbled nonsense that makes up the majority of what he says, not to mention the concentrated effort it takes to attempt to follow along his disjointed sentences, random mumblings, broken syntax, and leap from one subject to another, leaves one feeling disturbed, confused, creeped out, and not a little repulsed by someone who is obviously insane. In fact, watching Charles Manson talk was like viewing uncensored footage of a train being derailed at full speed in the midst of a public urban area, smashing through untold numbers of unwitting bystanders while graphically showing in minute detail the suffering and carnage caused by the unstoppable metal rush of impending doom, leaving one feeling bewildered and anxious. Manson cannot sit still as he gesticulates wildly and moves his limbs like a demon possessed, his head swiveling around almost inhuman like as if he was a black magic sorcerous madman right out of an H. P. Lovecraft short story or the little girl from "The Exorcist."
Overall, "Charles Manson Superstar" is recommended viewing for anyone who has any interest in serial killers or psychology, however, for anyone who is expecting to make more sense out of the tragedy that was the Tate-LaBianca murders or the madman himself, look elsewhere.

I love listening to Charles Manson speak and this film is absolutely fascinating except for the interruptions to the interview. Why not just show Manson talking for 90 minutes straight? Nobody cares about the poorly made segments about the history of Charlie. We already know all that stuff; we just want to hear him talk.

And talk he does! He also jumps around, does martial art moves, beats on a trash can, does some weird yoga stuff and gets tangled up in his microphone cord about 10 times.

Even if the interviewer sucks, this is some mandatory stuff. Also for some added laughs read the biography of filmmaker Nikolas Schreck. Ha!

A bumbling work, the 1989 documentary "Charles Manson - Superstar" attempts to portray Manson in sympathetic rays - a man whose philosophy was too revolutionary for the conservative American machine. The film hints he was a radical prophet jailed more for his beliefs rather than the murders committed by his cult of wayward kids. It's shockingly naive, lacking in knowledge of the crimes. A distractingly low-budget documentary forged with minimal skill, the film does provide rare on-camera access to Manson's unique ramblings, and he truly puts on a show for director/interviewer Nikolas Schreck.

For 60-plus minutes, we see Manson genuinely trying to make sense of his notoriety, stroking his graying goatee, staring into space before abruptly standing up to perform his now-legendary shtick. He's quite animated, doing a jig here, karate chop there, inching towards Schreck with a wink and a smile. It's a first-hand look at the Manson con, formed during endless decades of incarceration staring from the windows of numerous cells. There has never been a doubt as to his charisma, and he hovers over Schreck and mumbles, "You and I are connected. I can see we have a lot in common." You realize you are witnessing first-hand the very rap he used to entice numerous kids into his brood.

There's some good footage of the Barker Ranch compound in Death Valley, with several haunting shots of the abandoned vehicles and trash still remaining from the days the Manson commune lived there in 1969. There's some nice footage of what's left of Spahn Ranch circa 1989. Schreck's narration, stiff and pretentious, attempts to make intellectual sense of the Manson aura, at times connecting his influence to current movements including the skinheads. Sadly the narration, undoubtedly penned by Schreck, exposes what an amateur mess the documentary is. His exaggerated proclamations and insinuations serve as evidence as to the shallow perception fueling the work. It's fairly easy to see through the propaganda.

As many know, Schreck is the leader of the latest version of the Satanic Church started by the late Anton LaVey, and he's married to his daughter. Not sure what they are calling the group today, the Werewolf Order or the Left Hand Path. These counterculture movements were hip in the late 1960s and Manson devotee Susan Atkins was in fact a dancer in one of LaVey's San Francisco productions. This minor connection is documented in the film and supported by urban legends to create a "wow" factor for the uninformed. Schreck's awkward questions during the Manson interviews are harmless, possessing the power of lobbed cotton balls.

In addition, Schreck's knowledge of the crimes is shockingly ignorant. Then again, had he known the facts, would Manson have allowed him such access? Oh well, even as far back as 1989 it was genuinely known Manson was a major instigator in the LaBianca slayings, choosing the very house and victims himself. Today, additional evidence seems to point towards Manson visiting the Polanski/Tate household following the murders (and just a couple of hours before dawn) to inspect the crime scene. So for Schreck's documentary to attempt to portray Manson as an innocent bystander jailed for his beliefs causes the film to slide into the neighborhood of UFO abductions.

To Schreck's credit, he's gone on record to say his documentary was incorrect in assumption and he believes he was conned by Manson. Surprise, surprise.....A blunt curiosity, lacking skill or insight.

This is one of the the worst documentaries I've seen, regardless of subject. Manson is an extremely romantic character and a pop culture icon and while that explains the interest it does not explain this film. The quality is incredibly poor, that audio is sometimes incoherrent and the interviews are cut poorly with no editing to speak of. If you are incredibly curious and fanatical you will pursue regardless of any review, but if you want a good documentary, try elsewhere.

It's time the leech Nikolas Schreck's great journalistic acumen be exposed for what it is: sheer pushy opportunism. In the mid-80s, Schreck's motivation for chumming up to Anton LaVey was the hope of prestige and financial gain. (At one point he approached LaVey about taking over his position of High Priest of the Church of Satan!) He used his acquaintance with LaVey to insinuate himself into many peoples' confidences, including Manson. Prior to meeting LaVey, Schreck was known around L.A. as a gay-bashing neo-Nazi. Schreck, used his own brief membership in LaVey's organization to leverage the interviews leading to his book, The Manson File, despite LaVey's ongoing censure of Manson's horrendous crimes, then later induced Manson to allow himself to be videotaped by Schreck for the resultant Charles Manson Superstar video. Schreck has NO originality or creativity, stealing everything and crediting NO one. The CM-Superstar tape is boring and overly long, because Schreck simply set a microphone up and let Charlie interminably ramble and self-aggrandize. We actually learn nothing we didn't already know about Charlie. A good interviewer knows the right questions to ask to effect self-revelation in his subject. He couldn't even think up a an original title, but instead exploits the popularity of Jesus Christ Superstar. If you want to buy into the support of the little creep's ego mania (and Schreck's), then by all means purchase this video, take some No-Doze, and prepare yourself to cry, "Editor, editor." As one famous critic once remarked at the conclusion of a dull screening, "I always know if a film's good by whether my ass starts to itch halfway through."

If Schreck is to be credited with anything its for knowing how to brown-nose himself into LaVey's good graces and having the sense to pounce on an opportunity to use LaVey's name to get his foot in the door before LaVey gave him the boot. How did Schreck get close to LaVey? Why, by using one of the age-old methods--he courted the patriarch's daughter.

I was "on the scene" during this timeframe and witnessed Schreck in action.