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,
35 comments:
I wasn't aware that Dianne Lake has claimed that elements of her time with Manson were changed by her ghostwriter & publisher. I read her book when it was first published. Does anybody know precisely what parts of her Manson story were altered/exaggerated? Thanks in advance to any responders.
She also told us when working on Making Manson that her two points of research was Bugliosi's Helter Skelter and The Family by Sanders.
Thank you for the review. It will probably be quite awhile before I see it, for I don't have a subscription to that service. Most of the time I'm disappointed in these documentaries. I think the six part "Helter Skelter, an American Myth" is probably the best by a long shot.
Did Dianne Lake have both a Ghostwriter and a Cowriter? A ghostwriter is someone whose name does not appear in the credits. This was true for "The Killing of Sharon Tate", sort of for it is hinted at, that there were writers. Some people make a living as a ghostwriter, where others take credi for the work. It's true for many term papers and some thesis that are bought. Bugliosi, Watkins, Atkins, etc had creditted cowriters.
Lake had a cowrter and that same cowriter finished Tubick's memoir. Where the cowriter added to Tubick's book, the factual errors are quite noticeable. Lake's book was comical at times because of the errors it had. I find Dianne likable and don't think she was trying to mislead people. She may not remember. Some combination of the cowriter and publisher did not care about accuracy or truth. The cowriter was junior when it came to this subject matter.
Watkins book has a lot of inaccuracies but I think that was on him. He changed the story he told from trial to trial. In his book he told of stories that happened but not how they happened.
Most interesting, and thanks for the review. Speaking of books, it has often been said of Sanders' book, The Family, that he rarely credits sources. But when I studied his archive, I found he records names of interviewees and the dates of interviews on many of his handwritten notes.
Sanders may not have thought it all that important to get 'chapter and verse' about including those reference details in The Family.
Thank you Torque for that info.
Great review James completely agree with your analysis of Barry.. I mean Nik.. squirming in his chair. That was fun
Also the irony of Sophia lamenting her father as a narcissist whist making herself the hero of the film is hilarious
Torque,
Am I correct in concluding that the only two ways to see Sanders sources are to visit the library or pay for photo copies?
She called Deb the "ghostwriter" since Diane didn't physically write anything in the book. She said the book was written as if it were an interview.
Yes. But if you're lucky, you can hire a student to make copies for you. I've had the chance to do that in the past. Princeton has other boxes at another library and sometimes you have to make an appointment so they can have the boxes pulled and ready for your viewing. The library charges $2.00 a copy or you can take photographs for free.
I do have a question for Nik and I know I'll never get a honest answer other than "trust me bro" since he provides no proof for any claim.
Where did he come up with "CM stole a large amount of money from Leno Labianca?"
Considering the home had been robbed serval times before, and from sources, Leno and Rosemary didn't find the house safe enough for Leno's daughters to visit. It's very unlikely that Leno Labianca would have "a large amount" of money laying around the home. And how much was this alleged amount?
Orwhut, yes as James D said. There is a fee involved. Hiring a personal researcher is an option, but would have to be carefully coordinated so they know exactly what documents you are looking for. There would be a fee for that service, too. What that fee would be would depend on the researcher.
Does Leno's daughter still post on this site? She might know
Decotodd, Louise LaBianca passed away earlier this year
that's so sad
CieloDrive, so very sorry to hear about Louise LaBianca. I did not know she passed away. Louise did in recent years make some contributions to the blog and share memories of Leno and Rosemary. I always appreciated her generosity in sharing memories and photos.
Yeah, Louise was great and is very much missed
Im grateful that I got to know her some and learn more about Leno Labianca vs myths
I am so sorry to hear this
Can't find any verification of Louise's death after a few google searches. Do you have a source you can share? Thanks.
It's Helter Skelter time
RIP to the victims and I cannot imagine what their families endure every parole hearing.
RIP to all the victims.
A member of Louise's family mentioned there was a memorial service during a weekend previous to June 7.
Can we get a post commemorating Louise Labianca?
I am working on that Patty.
Damn I made a comment on that special day but I think I passed out before I published! Anyway, very funny post, thank you. I just read a book of funny film reviews called Shit Actually and this post would've fit right in with it.
I've wondered that, too. Maybe he's piecing information together to support an already formed opinion. It does seem likely that Leno had a large amount of money in his home. It was Saturday night and since he owned a grocery store he could have been holding the cash from the busiest day of the week in his house. If he was unable to make the bank because they were out of town, maybe that's what's referred to.
What I find interesting is the narrative laid out in Sanders' book about the driving from Spahn's to LaBianca. People in the car claimed CM drove aimlessly for hours, occasionally stopping, exiting the car alone, then returning with a story of why they would keep going. Could it be he was calling the LaBianca's to see if they were home yet? I only mention that because after one such exit and return, the witnesses claimed CM got in and drove directly to the LaBianca's, knowing exactly where he was going. Maybe Leno answered the phone. It's also odd that reportedly the side door was unlocked. Not consistent with the idea that Leno didn't think the home was safe for his daughter to visit. Equally odd is why CM left the LaBianca's and then drove to Venice. If you're looking for people to kill to start a race war, why bypass all that is between Silverlake and Venice? That's a long drive, bypassing thousands of homes. Why drive to within a couple of blocks of the Straight Satan's headquarters? People to whom (according to Dubin/Schreck speaking for CM) CM owed money? I'm not saying I believe Dubin. But it's a narrative that makes sense. I find Dubin wholly unreliable and one of the funniest things I ever hear from him is when he pretends he’s NOT a trust fund boy living off his family’s money and tries to speak slang.
Earl Keese - from what I've gathered, Charlie took money from the LaBianca house and used that to pay back the bikers in Venice Beach. But he kept some to buy milkshakes for the gang!
According to conversations with Louise, and she was aware of the Manson File book, she said that it was very unlikely her father would have large amounts of money laying around not only because the house had been broken into several times before they were murdered, but also because Leno wasn't as well off as people assume. She also said that Leno and Rosemary considered the house to be unsafe for Louise and Cory to visit because of the break-ins. .
She also said there was no way her father had money to loan Jay Sebring as Nik claimed in the book, and she wanted to see Sebring's phone book as Nik claimed Leno's name was in it. She said if Nik saw it, they had a right to see it.
Earl said: "It does seem likely that Leno had a large amount of money in his home. It was Saturday night and since he owned a grocery store he could have been holding the cash from the busiest day of the week in his house. "
Leno and Rosemary weren't at home until after or around 1am on the 10th. Given the break-ins in the house, I also think it's highly unlikely that Leno would leave the grocery store money at the house. From what I was told, even the coin collection was taken into evidence during the investigation but I'm assuming it was later turned over to the Labianca family.
Why would Leno have money from the store when he and Rosemary had spent the day driving to the lake and back to pick up Frank?
As Mike said, it was confirmed by a family member of Louise.
Post a Comment