Finding out you're biologically related to one of America's most infamous "cult leaders" is undeniably a bad day. But does discovering you share DNA with a "historical monster" you've never actually met warrant an entire feature-length documentary focused on your own emotional distress? according to the film-makers of My Grandfather Charles Manson, the answer is a resounding, tear-filled "yes."
The result is a highly polarizing film that walks a wobbly tightrope between profound psychological exploration and a self-indulgent reality show.
Therapy belongs behind closed doors, Not on screen
Let's start with the detractors, who have completely dog-piled this documentary with low scores. Critics and viewers alike are calling the documentary erratic, cringeworthy, and an over-dramatic public airing of family grievances. The main sticking point? The math of the emotional reaction simply doesn't add up to the reality of the situation. The main aspect that didn't work for me was the repeated comparisons between her father, Danny and his father, Charles Manson. I found those comparisons to be unnecessary, and frankly ridiculous. In several instances, they seemed to paint Danny as a villain by drawing parallels that I don't believe were warranted. Rather than letting the viewers understand Danny on his own terms, the documentary appeared to frame him through the lens of Charles Manson, and I don't think that was either fair or justified.
This brings us to one of the most eye-rolling moments in the documentary: the therapy sessions. We watch Sophia earnestly explain to her therapist, Dr, Rose, what happened to her father, trying to frame the fact that she was "overprotected" as a severe case of, you guessed it, generational trauma. Let's clear something up right now: having what we call a "helicopter parent" who keeps a close eye on you might be annoying, but being overprotected is not generational trauma.
To be fair, the documentary has it's defenders. For a select few, this was a raw, engrossing look at-you guessed it- generational trauma, and how ordinary people grapple with sudden earth-shattering family secrets.
These reviewers argue that the documentary accurately captures the dizzying, paralyzing "what ifs" that come with inheriting a "monsters" genetic legacy. If you can get past the melodrama, the erratic pacing isn't a flaw; it's just an honest reflection of how messy it is to suddenly realize your family has a massive, poisonous root.
The Snake in the chair
Whatever side of the fence you sit on regarding the filmmakers, we all need to unite to talk about the absolute circus act that is Nik Schreck. Frankly the man is a snake, and his interview is an unintentional comedy goldmine.
Early on, Sophia sets the stage by telling us that Nik steadfastly defended Charles Manson over the years. Cut to Nik opening his mouth and immediately throwing Charlie so far under the bus he practically implies felony murder. Thanks, friend!
If Schreck were a patient of mine, the alarm bells would be deafening. Just observing his body language is a masterclass in deception and anxiety. The nervousness of touching his face before the interview started, and the frantic swiveling in his chair act as a desperate, self-soothing physical reassurances to calm himself down.
He looks like a guy trying to talk himself out of a parking ticket, not a stoic defender of the truth.
Because of this deeply disingenuous vibe, the best part of the documentary is when Danny finally stands up to Nik, and flat-out tells him he doesn't believe a word he is saying. It's a beautifully cathartic moment of common sense.
To top it all off, Nik shoots his "defense" in the foot by casually admitting that while Charlie may have denied any role in the murders, that doesn't mean it's true. Gee, thanks for the hot tip, Nik! we really appreciate you going out of your way to clarify that absolutely nothing a "serial manipulative cult leader" said can be taken at face value. With friends like you, who needs enemies?
The other character of this circus is Nik's old pal, Ed Roach, The man who can't keep a story straight on how he met Charles Manson. Ed somehow managed to set the bar even lower. Watching Roach's interactions with Sophia is a masterclass in how to present yourself as a thoroughly disgusting human. The sheer perversion in the way he talks to her is beyond uncomfortable- it's repulsive. It leaves you wondering how anyone involved with the production let those exchanges fly without stepping in, adding an extra layer of grossness to a wildly inappropriate circus, which also includes a cell phone recorded argument between Sophia and Danny that appears to have happened after the Nik Schreck interview. There was no need for that dirty laundry to be aired like that.
It was nice to see Stephanie Schram after all these years. Contrary to what Sophia called "anti-Manson" books when Stephanie showed Sophia her research material, I believe they are, in fact, essential reading. Whether one agrees with their conclusions or not, understanding the full scope of the subject requires examining multiple resources and perspectives.
My own view is similar to that of Lynette Fromme's comments regarding Manson In His Own Words. While the title suggests the book contains Charles Manson's own words, he did not actually write it. Even so I believe there is a thread of truth running though the book. Of course, Mel embellished much of the material-or, if he didn't the publisher likely did. But that is a topic for another time.
I also have no personal issues with Diane Lake. She's a sweet lady. My disagreement is with the narrative, not Diane herself. Much like Stephen Kay, she was repeating the same old talking points. Even Diane has acknowledged that the publisher and her ghost writer took many liberties with her story.
If I'm not mistaken, someone is welcome to correct me on this, but didn't Diane say that Charlie was not trying to start a race war in this documentary? I honestly can't bring myself to go back and watch it again to verify, I've already sat through it twice, and I just can't a third time.
I also felt the interview with George Stimson was cut far too short. Given his depth of knowledge, it was a missed opportunity to provide more context and information.
My Grandfather Charles Manson is a wild ride, but perhaps not for the reasons it intended to be. If you want a grounded deep-dive, skip this. But if you're in the mood for an over-the-top airing of grievances, questionable definitions of trauma, and the sheer comedic joy of watching Danny tell a swiveling Nik Schreck that he's full of it, grab some popcorn,
No comments:
Post a Comment