The Volokh Conspiracy: Once Upon a Time in the California Court of Appeal

Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time in Hollywood doesn't infringe 1960s actor Christopher Jones' right of publicity.

EUGENE VOLOKH | 2.17.2023 8:19 AM

From McKenna v. Sony Pictures Entm't, Inc., decided Wednesday by the California Court of Appeal, in an opinion by Justice Lamar Baker, joined by Justices Laurence Rubin & Dorothy Kim:

Paule McKenna ..., the executor of the estate of Christopher Jones, sued defendants and respondents Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Boss Film Productions, Inc., and Visiona Romantica, Inc. ... for allegedly misusing Jones's name and likeness (posthumously) in the film Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood....

Christopher Jones was a popular actor in the 1960s. He starred in the television series The Legend of Jesse James and a number of movies including 3 in the Attic and Wild in the Streets. Jones quit Hollywood in 1969. He died in 2014.

Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood (the film), is a film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. It was produced by Boss Film Productions and released by Sony Pictures Entertainment in 2019. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio as fictional actor Rick Dalton, Brad Pitt as his fictional stunt-double Cliff Booth, and Margot Robbie as real-life actor Sharon Tate. It depicts a few days in the lives of the three main characters in February and August 1969, and imagines (or reimagines, in Tate's case), how their lives intersect with the Charles Manson family.

A variety of products with recognizable name brands appear throughout the course of the film. For example, there is a scene in which Pitt's character Booth cooks a box of Kraft macaroni and cheese. A box of Wheaties cereal is on his counter while he does so, and a copy of TV Guide is seen elsewhere in his home. The same scene includes brief glimpses of Booth's television, which at one point plays an advertisement for Jones's movie 3 in the Attic and identifies Jones as one of its stars. In various other scenes, Booth wears a t-shirt with a logo for Champion spark plugs on it. Characters also at one point drive down Hollywood Boulevard and pass the Pantages Theatre, which was displaying a marquee for 3 in the Attic featuring Jones's name.

The court concluded that the complaint was properly dismissed under California's anti-SLAPP statute:

[The anti-SLAPP statute applies because t]he creation of a movie is an exercise of free speech ... [as to] issues of public interest. The film concerns the culture of the late 1960s in Hollywood and the Manson family murder of Tate. These are matters of public interest about which discussions are still ongoing. The uses of Jones's name, the portrayal of Booth and/or Dalton in proximity to branded products, and the portrayal of Booth wearing shirts with brand logos on them are details that add to the depiction of the culture in Hollywood in the late 1960s. The public interest in these topics is demonstrated by the numerous articles and reviews discussing the film that defendants submitted in support of the motion, some of which specifically reference Tarantino's inclusion of era-appropriate products, as well as the many-months-long run the film had in theaters (late July to early October 2019).

Plaintiff advances a number of arguments to the contrary, most of which relate back to her contention that the activity on which her complaint is based is simply "false brand endorsement" or, in other words, the recreation of Jones's likeness and portrayal of that likeness in connection with commercial brands, without consent or credit. The film, she claims, is incidental to this false endorsement for profit issue and she asserts there is no public interest in the brand endorsement or in her private dispute with defendants over their alleged use of Jones's likeness. The problem with plaintiff's argument, however, is that the broader creative acts of including the aforementioned aspects in the film and the alleged use of Jones's likeness are inextricably linked. For example, in the context of the film, any alleged commercial reason for dressing Booth in a t-shirt with the Champion logo on it cannot be isolated from the creative impetus for the same action. Furthermore, defendants submitted a declaration representing the brands depicted (other than Hennessey) were included for artistic reasons and were used to "capture the look and feel of the time period," and to "accurately portray the late 60s."

Plaintiff also relies upon a handful of cases for the proposition that advertisements for an artistic work are not necessarily noncommercial speech. To the extent plaintiff relies on these cases to argue the advertisements for the film should not be eligible for anti-SLAPP protection, the authority is inapposite. Unlike the advertisements at issue in the cases plaintiff cites, the advertisements for the film are not alleged to include any false statements and are merely adjuncts of the film. To the extent plaintiff contends these cases transform the portions of the film with product placement into commercial speech, that is also incorrect. Both of plaintiff's cases addressed separate advertisements for creative works, not allegedly integrated advertising within the works themselves....

Thus, to resist the anti-SLAPP motion, plaintiff had to show a probability of prevailing on the claim, and she couldn't:

Civil Code section 3344.1, subdivision (a)(1) provides in pertinent part: "Any person who uses a deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods, or services, without prior consent from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c), shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof."

Subdivision (a)(2), however, exempts from subdivision (a)(1) a "play, book, magazine, newspaper, musical composition, audiovisual work, radio or television program, single and original work of art, work of political or newsworthy value, or an advertisement or commercial announcement for any of these works ... if it is fictional or nonfictional entertainment, or a dramatic, literary, or musical work." But there is also an exception to the exemption. Under Civil Code section 3344.1, subdivision (a)(3), "If a work that is protected under paragraph (2) includes within it a use in connection with a product, article of merchandise, good, or service, this use shall not be exempt under this subdivision, notwithstanding the unprotected use's inclusion in a work otherwise exempt under this subdivision, if the claimant proves that this use is so directly connected with a product, article of merchandise, good, or service as to constitute an act of advertising, selling, or soliciting purchases of that product, article of merchandise, good, or service by the deceased personality without prior consent from the person or persons specified in subdivision (c)."

Subdivision (k) of the statute provides that "[t]he use of a name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in a commercial medium shall not constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a) solely because the material containing the use is commercially sponsored or contains paid advertising. Rather, it shall be a question of fact whether or not the use of the deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness was so directly connected with the commercial sponsorship or with the paid advertising as to constitute a use for which consent is required under subdivision (a)."

The film unquestionably falls into the exemption under Civil Code section 3344.1 subdivision (a)(2), as it is an audiovisual work of fictional entertainment. In order to demonstrate minimal merit under subdivision (a)(3), then, plaintiff must have made a prima facie case that the film "includes within it a use [of a deceased personality's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness] ... [that] is so directly connected with a product, article of merchandise, good, or service as to constitute an act of advertising, selling, or soliciting purchases of that product, article of merchandise, good or services ...."

There is no contention that Jones's voice, signature, or photograph was used in the film. Jones's name is mentioned twice during advertisements for his movie 3 in the Attic (played within the film), and his name appears fleetingly as characters drive past a marquee promoting the same movie. Plaintiff has not provided any evidence demonstrating these brief references to Jones, which narratively serve to identify Jones as a contemporary of Dalton and Booth, are "so directly connected" to any products, merchandise, good, or service that they constitute advertisements. The same is true of the appearance of Jones's name in promotional trailers for the film and the fake magazine promoting the film.

The true heart of plaintiff's claim is that Booth, and to a lesser extent Dalton, were based on and styled after Jones. Plaintiff identifies aspects of both characters that she contends make up a whole constituting a likeness of Jones. Some of these aspects are physical—like Booth's hairstyle and aviator sunglasses—while others are biographical—like the scene in which Dalton is comforted by a child. While we are doubtful that plaintiff has demonstrated a probability of success in alleging Jones's likeness was used in the film, we need not reach that issue to decide plaintiff has not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on her Civil Code section 3344.1 cause of action.

The film depicts Booth and Dalton, though primarily Booth, using a slew of household products and otherwise appearing in scenes that feature brand logos. It also depicts Booth wearing one or more t-shirts with a brand logo on it. In response to plaintiff's allegation, defendants submitted the declaration of producer McIntosh that asserts the only product placement in the film was for Hennessy cognac, a product not used by either Booth or Dalton and thus not associated with Jones's alleged likeness. The declaration further asserts the other products depicted in the film were used solely for creative, not financial, reasons and the filmmakers were not paid to include them. As the film was, in fact, not compensated for the inclusion of the products and was not advertising them through any sort of product placement, Booth and Dalton's proximity to the products was not so directly connected to any of the products that their presence constituted advertisement or sale....

The court likewise rejected plaintiff's federal trademark and false endorsement claim, as well as some other state law claims. Seems quite right to me. Congratulations to Louis P. Petrich and Elizabeth L. Schilken (Ballard Spahr), who represent the defendants.

The Col Presents : THE LAST WORD on Quentin Tarantino's ONCE UPON A TIME ...IN HOLLYWOOD

We'll begin by acknowledging a history with Tarantino that dates back to 1991.  It resolved itself by 1998.  Except for minimal "hi/bye" interactions with the guy since then, there's no issues on either side.

I saw the movie ONCE UPON A TIME...IN HOLLYWOOD twice.  Like in all things in this world, I feel the word "amazing" should be used sparingly.

I felt the music was AMAZING.  One of the greatest soundtracks of the year.  Just awesome, playable on its own, fantastic.

I felt the production design, recreating the era was AMAZING.  One day during the shoot I made a bad turn and ended up in the parking lot base camp.  I felt like I was there, on Hollywood Boulevard 1969.  I got my ass out of there rather than trip out.  But it was cool.

I felt that Brad Pitt was AMAZING.  Funny.  Cool.  He has always been a great actor but man was he a blast in this film.  Funny.  Tough.  Wry.  Hell, even hot.

I did not like the film overall- there's two reasons.

FIRST- and thankfully easiest, "what is the story of the film overall?".   I would say- "Flailing and failing actor in 1969 worries about his career going down the shitter and shares with his stunt double."  

LAME.  BORING.  WHO THE F  CARES????

But this isn't Slashfilm, this is the last remaining TLB Blog not run by the mentally deficient.

What we want to do is examine the Manson stuff in the film, and by extension some of the Tate stuff too.

Perhaps we can try to categorize scenes

1- Spahn Ranch- very key sequence for TLB folks
2- Stray Manson shits
3- Assault on Cielo Drive
4- Sharon Mains (Theatre, Final Montage)

1- The production department did a great job in this scene.  With the notable exception of Spahn's house it feels like the Ranch- they went to Corriganville and looked at the photos and made it look amazing.  Horse rides.  Check.  Tex leading in Charlie's absence?  Sure why not.  Gypsy was a babe, Dunham anything but, but sure let's take it.  Their attempt to put BOBBY in the background in a top hat looking like a mental patient when he was considered extremely beautiful was bizarre.  Using real names of some people versus made up names (Sundance ffs?) makes no sense- it was not for legal reasons, Gypsy is still alive.  But the sequence is strange and pointless.

There is this dramatic buildup with Squeaky (and her feet!) that establishes....ummm nothing.
Cliff forces himself into see George who he barely knows and....ummmm nothing.
Cliff promises to come check on George- and he never does
Cliff beats the living fuck out of Clem and makes him change the tire- this establishes that Cliff is prone to violence (setting up the end), but the Bruce Lee sequence shows that just as well.
Picking up the hippie chick is a great scene and of course she would love to get him to join the Clan- but she doesn't really try and flips on him too easily.

But you know what rings like holy empty bullshit? All the Family gathering outside the house to have a showdown with Cliff.   Which never happens/ And never happened.  There was never a show of force.  And where did this "you cannot see George" bullshit come from?

It is a fun scene, it is a pretty scene, but it is Tarantino's attempt to make the Family scary and intimidating long before any murders happened and it doesn't ring true.  Squeaky called the shots?  Rats in traps out of PSYCHO?

Literally the only purpose I can see in this sequence, which is long, is to have Tex meet Cliff and have Cliff mock him before the later home invasion.

2- Charlie shows up in the Twinkie Truck looking for Terry.  This scene, the only for the poor actor playing Charlie, is just so people can go "Oh look, Manson."  It is fine and mercifully brief. Andie MacDowell's daughter on the street corner is suitably cute and sexy and nuts.  There is almost nothing else in the movie about Manson before the Assault.

3- Assault on Cielo Drive- Five people, real living people including an 8.5 month pregnant woman were slaughtered by drugged out hippie idiots on Cielo Drive on that date in 1969.  It wasn't funny.  It was chaos- ropes, bullets, gun butts, knives, blood, death.  Real people died.

I could maybe see if you wanted to do a fairy tale where the five people lived and you taught me all about them so I cared.  But Steve Parent doesn't even exist in this QT world. Voytek and Abby are nothing.  Less than nothing.  Only Sharon has any real (minimal screen time).  "Saving" these characters (which isn't even what really happen) has no depth whatsoever.

Also, as scholars what jumped out at all of us?  Charlie didn't send Tex and Sadie and Patty and Uma Thurman's boring daughter to just kill some rando straights in Bel Air.  He sent them to kill everyone at Melcher's house (or something).  It was designated, it was targeted, it was purposeful.  To this day we debate what the purpose was but it could NOT have been any other house that night.  So the convoluted conversation in the car quoting Hendrickson's film about the love of violence where they decide fuck it let's kill that Western actor- it is nonsense.

For Tarantino's plot  to work they have to switch houses.  Rick doesn't save Sharon in HER house.  Rick and Cliff do not save her at all.  In this reality they never know she was even the target.  They are scarcely even heroic- they save themselves from a drugged out  hippie home invasion.  Yes this is good but it is not heroism.

I cannot address the violent deaths of Katie, Tex and Sadie because they are absurd and come out of fucking no where.  I did laugh at the "I am the devil" exchange, but Voytek waking up to this terrified and Cliff tripping on an lsd cigarette ( no such thing btw) are way different.

Hell everything about the assault is movie nonsense.  Uma Jr runs away with the car and they shrug?  Sure.  Superhuman dog with snapping jaws.  Sure why not.  Working, filled flame thrower just a few steps away?

And what is the result?  Two dead girls that we know NOTHING about.  One dead Tex who we saw for 2 minutes previously- this is all so Tarantino can make them cutouts we don't give a shit about. Go ahead toast them, they mean nothing.  They were stupid enough to switch houses!

REAL PEOPLE DIED THAT DAY.  They were not "saved" because the killers went next door.

And anyway, the real life death of Susan Atkins, death by 1000 papercuts, was more deserved that an instant shish kabob anyway.

4-  Sharon at the Westwood theatre and in the Westwood Theatre and the Final Montage-

The whole Westwood theatre sequence is sweet (even the dirty feet).  The real Sharon doesn't seem all that innocent or "good" as Tarantino calls her.  She partied with the rest of them (look at PLAYBOY AFTER DARK sequence).  It does make her seem like a ditz.  It does give her some dimension.  She is still not a real character but it is a sweet sequence.

I was less pleased by the pre-Assault montage.  Pregnancy melancholia?  What the actual fuck is that?   Why go to El Coyote and then use a different table?

I don't know- QT saves Sharon but it doesn't feel like a real person.

-------
The film just got a boatload of noms and will win for Cliff and script 100%.  The four hour cut, coming in a year or so will be fascinating.  Ultimately though a mediocre actor stops some hippies who might have killed a cipher.  That's the story and it is a pretty weak one, when most of us know so many much more interesting details.


NEXT: The Col Present: THE LAST WORD on DEBRA TATE

How Quentin Tarantino got the '60s sound for ‘Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood'

Mark Lindsay of Paul Revere & the Raiders, left,
Quentin Tarantino and David Wild in conversation
at the Grammy Museum on Wed., Oct. 2.(Rebecca Sapp / Getty Images)

Mark Lindsay of Paul Revere & the Raiders, left, Quentin Tarantino and David Wild in conversation at the Grammy Museum on Wed., Oct. 2.(Rebecca Sapp / Getty Images)

By AUGUST BROWNSTAFF WRITER
OCT. 3, 2019 2:05 PM

For a brief moment in his then-young rock career, Mark Lindsay lived in a gorgeous home at the top of Benedict Canyon. The singer-songwriter, co-founder of the group Paul Revere & the Raiders, moved there with his buddy, record producer Terry Melcher, in the late '60s. He wrote some of his band's best work there, including the single "Good Thing," which he penned on a piano in the living room.

Lindsay left the house when Melcher wanted to live with his girlfriend, actress Candice Bergen. They soon rented the place to director Roman Polanski and his wife, Sharon Tate.

What happened next in that living room inaugurated one of the darkest weeks in L.A. history. But Lindsay still remembers the place fondly, even if he did once bump into Charles Manson at a party there.

"Those two years were my golden years," Lindsay said onstage at the Grammy Museum on Wednesday night in conversation with director Quentin Tarantino. "I remember drinking rosè in the garden with Terry outside in that liquid sunshine and saying, ‘it doesn't get better than this' and thinking it'll never get worse. It didn't until 1969."

For director and L.A. native Tarantino, however, the coincidence is a thread that ties his whole film "Once Upon a Time ... In Hollywood" together. All of his obsessions — vintage rock and roll, movie-business lore, darkly comic idylls cut through with horrific violence — wound through that property at the top of Cielo Drive (it's now demolished, of course). He and Lindsay talked about evoking that golden era of L.A. rock radio in "Once Upon a Time ..." and how it set the tone for the nightmare to come.

"Paul Revere & the Raiders was exactly the kind of band that would have rocked my little socks off," Tarantino said of Lindsay's pre-fab conceptual, velvety-voiced act. "And the reason Manson knew of Terry Melcher was because of Paul Revere & the Raiders."

"Once Upon a Time ..." was the rare original summer flick to best $100 million at the box office this year. The star-packed throwback follows a TV actor (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his loyal stuntman sidekick (Brad Pitt) through the wane of their careers in late-'60s L.A., all while something evil kindles in the canyons over the hill.

Throughout the film, Lindsay's songs help set the hyper-specific tone of the era's music — less the raw psychedelia of the tastemaking historians and more the amber hues of the innocence that Manson would soon shatter. Though Margot Robbie's Sharon Tate pokes fun at the band in the script ("Don't tell Jim Morrison you're dancing to the Raiders!"), their slinky, creepy song "Hungry" plays as she meets her eventual killer for the first time in the driveway.

"The room where Abigail Folger slept was my room," Lindsay said. "It's just like I'm back again."

On Wednesday, even Tarantino's conversation was peppered with such callbacks. Onstage, moderator David Wild, a rock journalist and Grammy scriptwriter, got a text from another favorite Tarantino soundtrack source, Neil Diamond, suggesting the director sync a few more tunes in his next project. Tarantino's movies have always mined vintage rock for unexpected revelations and new contexts, ever since his impeccable use of Dick Dale's "Misirlou" in Pulp Fiction.

"I want to be known for my discography as much as my filmography," Tarantino said. When he's picking soundtrack cuts, he joked that he imagines that "every director I know is in there going ‘Oh god, now I have to get out of the business'."

"Once Upon a Time ..." was a chance to marinate ever deeper in the era's AM radio (especially the old L.A. station KHJ). Tarantino and music supervisor Mary Ramos unearthed around a full daytime block's worth of recordings from the era for research — ad jingles, DJ patter and all. Drive-time radio wasn't just a historical reference point in the film, he said, but a way to set the ambience in the eternal, doomed summer of '60s L.A. at the margins of the movie business.

"There's an L.A. quality to Brad Pitt's character where he works in Hollywood but doesn't live there," Tarantino said. "He's given his life to the entertainment business but doesn't have anything to show for it. He drives home to Panorama City, and in that time you hear four songs, which gives you an idea of how long it takes to drive there."

For Lindsay, the return to the stage has indeed been a long drive through a career that, if he hadn't lived it, could have been scripted by Tarantino. It wasn't all L.A. classic rock; Lindsay performed the synth score for the 1980 Japanese action flick "Shogun Assassin," a favorite sample source for the Wu-Tang Clan and other rappers.

But on this night, he did his best to invoke the mood of "Once Upon a Time," performing three songs from the movie with a choral ensemble from Orange County's Tesoro High School.

Lindsay's voice still had that velvety touch that made long, aimless drives through the Hollywood flatlands so moody back then. Tarantino almost always makes stars of his deep-cut soundtrack picks, but this was something else: an ever-rarer chance to hear the actual voice ringing through that house on Cielo Drive, back before everything went dark.

Manson Victim's Friend Posits Alternative Motive: "I Never Bought Into the Race War Theory"

Original Hollywood Reporter post here.

Six months after the infamous murders, Jim Markham — a hairstylist turned mogul whose clients included Paul Newman and Steve  McQueen and was a protege to victim Jay Sebring — hosted a federal sting to uncover the cult leader’s motive.

Jim Markham remembers vividly the days following the grisly Manson murders of Roman Polanski's pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, her former boyfriend and hairstylist Jay Sebring and three others at the director's Benedict Canyon residence in August 1969. At the time, Markham was Sebring's protege and business partner in a budding franchise of men's hair salons that stretched from a star-packed outpost on the corner of L.A.'s Melrose and Fairfax to Miami. Sebring became the second person to die at the hands of the Manson Family members during an infamous killing spree that claimed seven lives, including coffee heiress Abigail Folger and her lover, Polish screenwriter Wojciech Frykowski.

Markham, then 25 and splitting his time between his hometown of Albuquerque, New Mexico, and L.A., was the heir apparent to Sebring's 400-plus clientele, which included Paul Newman, Frank Sinatra and Steve McQueen. Markham heard the news on the radio and got on the phone with Sebring International president John Madden. "Jay and I had talked many times … that I'd be his successor if anything ever happened to him," Markham recalls. "I just took right over out of necessity."

The hair-care mogul sipped a Perrier on the deck of the Majestic Hotel in Cannes when he met with The Hollywood Reporter, a day after the world premiere of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood — Quentin Tarantino's spin on the events surrounding the Charles Manson-directed murders. (In the movie, Sebring is a key character played by Emile Hirsch.) By Markham's side was his wife of 32 years, Cheryl — the daughter of Dan Genis, special effects guru behind Star Wars — who came of age during the Manson era.

Revisiting the weeks that followed the killings is both painful and cathartic for Markham, now 75 and fabulously wealthy thanks to founding four hair-care companies, including Pureology Serious Colour Care, which he sold to L'Oréal in 2007 for $280 million. (He pocketed more than $100 million on that deal alone.) Markham has never talked in detail about his entanglement in the infamous investigation that captured headlines worldwide and continues to fascinate new generations. His tale reveals his previously unknown role in the critical months after the murders, as law enforcement attempted to identify the killers and decipher their motives with no break in the case.

Markham was Paul Newman's
longtime haircutter.

Charles Manson, arrested in 1969.

Days after the murders, and at the behest of Sebring's father, Markham began living at the house where he had been a frequent guest: Sebring's Bavarian-style home, once owned by Jean Harlow and located on Easton Drive in Beverly Hills — just one mile away from the Polanski-Tate residence on Cielo Drive. "I'm living in Jay's house with raccoons on the roof — it would sound like somebody walking on the top of the house," he says. "I finally had to move out. I thought I was going to be next. They hadn't caught Manson. Nobody knew why it happened."

As Markham remembers, Tate's father, a colonel in Army intelligence, began working with federal agents on the investigation. The agents told Markham that they believed the killers were connected to the salon (murder victim Folger also had a connection to the hair enterprise given that she was an investor in Sebring International). The salon was bugged, but ultimately that line of inquiry lost steam. Once the Manson Family became suspects, however, about six months after the murders, the feds enlisted a willing Markham to set up a sting at his rented Brentwood home. He was to host a meeting between a woman and a man she had met at a bar, someone who had recounted to her at length how he had met Manson in jail. The former inmate was thought to have information pertaining to the cult leader's motive for the murders. But Markham doesn't believe any of the taped conversation from the sting was used in the trial that took place in 1970 and 1971. "This guy looked spooked, really scared," he says of the meeting.

Five decades later, Markham floats his own theory, one that deviates from the official "Helter Skelter" scenario put forth by Manson prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi: that the cult leader ordered the Tate murders in hopes that it would spark an apocalyptic race war as foretold to him in what he believed were coded lyrics on The Beatles' White Album.

Though Markham is reluctant to denigrate the memory of Sebring, who was his mentor and after whom he named his son, he claims that the late hairdresser knew Manson and suggests that the murders were the result of a drug deal gone bad — an account that aligns with a once-popular explanation that fell out of favor as the Helter Skelter narrative became dominant. Back in 1969, Sebring was nicknamed The Candyman and was said to have used his salon to peddle drugs to the stars.

"I don't want to get into the drugs, but I never bought into the race war theory. I believe Manson had gone up to the house" — Polanski was away shooting a movie — "and Manson wanted to sell cocaine and marijuana," he says. "He showed Jay and Wojciech the product. They were going to buy some of it, but the two of them beat him up at the gate. The next night, Manson sent the Family up [to kill them]." Markham adds, "I've lived with that for 50 years. I still believe that." He declines to elaborate further given that he is still in touch with Sebring's nephew Anthony DiMaria, who is planning a movie about the murders.

In Once Upon a Time, Manson appears before the killings at the Cielo Drive house. The film implies that Manson was looking for record producer Terry Melcher, the son of Doris Day, who with girlfriend Candice Bergen had moved out before the murders. (In real life, Manson, an aspiring musician, was introduced to Melcher, who declined to sign him, by The Beach Boys' Dennis Wilson.)

Once Upon a Time offers a revisionist history of the murders and introduces fictitious characters into the blood-soaked narrative, namely Leonardo DiCaprio's actor Rick Dalton and Brad Pitt's stunt double Cliff Booth. Margot Robbie plays Tate, while Polanski has a bit part, played by Rafal Zawierucha. Markham mostly approves of the film, but he bristles at the depiction of Sebring. "I thought Jay was marginalized, and that upset me," he says. "They portrayed him as this sort of houseboy. This was a very powerful man at the time."

Leonardo DiCaprio (left) and Brad Pitt
in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.

Peter Lawford (right) jokingly
cut Markham's hair circa the '70s.

In the years after the Manson murders, Markham forged his own path — one that diverged from his humble beginnings of charging $5 a haircut in Albuquerque. After winning the silver medal in the Hair Olympics, he had flown to Los Angeles in 1966 to learn Sebring's method of cutting and styling. (At the time, the celebrity hairstylist was romantically involved with Tate and living with her.) Markham describes Tate as a "really sweet lady," but says he never saw the actress with Polanski. "She was always without him," Markham says. "She seemed to like Jay a lot. They were always kissing. Lovey-dovey."

Markham continued to intersect with the Tate family while the Manson investigation played out. "When I took over the salon, Sharon's mother, Gwen, treated me like a son," he says. Markham dated Sharon's younger sister, Debra, who consulted on Tarantino's movie. "She looked just like Sharon. They were a real nice family."

In 1972, he founded Markham Products with backing from actor Peter Lawford, all the while cutting and styling for the likes of Newman ("my first, my favorite"), Robert Redford, Johnny Carson, Paul Anka, Joanne Woodward and Jacqueline Bisset. Newman was particularly loyal, allowing Markham to hang a framed letter in the salon in 1971: "He wrote, 'Dear Jim, just a note to let you know that I'm a Sebring fan and you're still running a first-class operation.' " Markham also taught a young Jon Peters the Sebring method. The hairdresser turned A Star Is Born producer took one of his classes in the early '70s.

While doing a house call at Denis' Modern Film Effects, a postproduction house that worked on Raiders of the Lost Ark and Apocalypse Now, Markham met Cheryl, then a receptionist. They married in 1982 and began running the businesses together. After selling Markham Products in 1989, Markham launched ABBA Pure and Natural Hair Care, one of the first vegan lines in the U.S., then sold it in 1997 for $20 million. With Pureology, a line created in 2001, Markham made his biggest contribution by developing the now-ubiquitous sulfate- and carcinogen-free shampoo. "The concept for Pureology started from a phone call," says Cheryl. "My best girlfriend said, 'I got diagnosed with ovarian cancer. My doctor gave me a list of don't-use ingredients. You've got to make me things that I can use.' " In 2011, Markham founded his final company, ColorProof Evolved Color Care. Perhaps in a nod to Once Upon a Time, salons that stock the ColorProof product line are being offered classes on the scissor-over-comb technique pioneered by Sebring and perfected by Markham.

Although he provided original hair salon items to Once Upon a Time's props department, Markham's input was otherwise limited. His offer to cut the hair of Damian Lewis, who plays former client and Sebring International investor McQueen, was rebuffed because Tarantino already had hired a hair team. "It looked like it was an '80s look," he says of Lewis' cut. "But otherwise, Damian looked and acted exactly like Steve McQueen."

Except for a handful of longtime, non-celebrity clients, Markham rarely cuts hair these days. Looking back to before the Manson murders, he waxes nostalgic. "It was the time of my life," he says. "But then it was really awful. The whole city was terrorized. It went from being loosey-goosey to very guarded overnight. They brought about a whole new era."

Markham (right) with celebrity
hairstylist Vidal Sassoon in 1968.

Jay Sebring Salons were located in West Hollywood,
New York and London, among other cities.

Not a review for "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood"

This is not a review for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.  I didn't see the movie.  While my small town (population 452) has a movie theater we never get movies on opening day.  It might be a few weeks before I get to see it.  Frankly, I am rather exhausted by all the hype that has gone on for months.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood was never intended to chronicle the so called Manson murders.  Instead  its intent was to capture a narrow time in the past, 1969, a nostalgia piece harking back to the Hollywood back lots of that time, so any comparison to the actual murders is moot.  The biggest draw for this movie is the fact that Quentin Tarantino conceived and directed it.

Despite all of the publicity which featured the casting info, ad nauseam, for Family members and victims if you go to this movie thinking it's a "Manson" movie, you are going to be sorely disappointed.  All that aside, just how well was it received and more important to Tarantino, what are the box office stats?

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has turned out to be Tarantino's all-time biggest opening of any of his films.  In it's first three days, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, it grossed $41.3M and came in second for the week behind Disney's The Lion King, $76.M in its second week.

Exit polls, I guess exit polls are not limited to politics, who knew, say that 47% of people went to see the movie because of the director and 37% went to see it for the cast.  Both percentages are much higher than the norm of 7% and 18%, respectively.  It's good to be Quentin Tarantino.

Reviews of the movie have averaged out to lukewarm.

Frankly, I find the entire experience baffling, and any attempt to laugh off the Manson murders as sitcom fodder embarrassing.  Rex Reed

Though Tarantino mixes fiction and historical fact cleverly and confidently, I'm not sure what he wanted to achieve with the mix this time, and I'm not sure if he knew either. Ben Sachs

For those well-versed in the writer-director's work, it's a credible and intriguing addition to his filmography. Yet at 2 hours and 41 minutes, it also feels too leisurely in connecting its threads. Brian Lowry

As one might expect from Mr. Tarantino's previous films, his new one is violent as well as tender, plus terrifically funny. Yet this virtuoso piece of storytelling also offers intricate instruction on the pervasiveness of violence in popular culture.  Joe Morganstern

Meandering but deliberate, gorgeous and garrulous, it is very much the writer-director doing what he does so well, but in very familiar fashion. Which brings up the possibility that in making a movie about movie making, his real subject here is himself. Matthew Lickona

In-depth, character-driven, ultra-violent, over-long, and near-perfect... all the movie sins Tarantino has been criticized for over the years coming to a head in the most wondrous and cheer-worthy payoff any film fan could want. Kevin A Ranson

Shallow, meandering and tedious with only sporadic jolts of guilty pleasure fun and wit. Star power and charisma are not enough to keep the film afloat. Did its editor fall asleep in the editing room? Avi Offer

So, what say you, our readers?  Did you like it?

New Trailer For Quentin Tarantino’s "Once Upon A Time In Hollywood"

"I've been working on this script for five years, as well as living in Los Angeles County most of my life, including in 1969, when I was 7 years old," [Tarantino] explained. "I'm very excited to tell this story of an LA and a Hollywood that don't exist anymore. And I couldn't be happier about the dynamic teaming of DiCaprio & Pitt as Rick & Cliff."

True crime fans may not want to get too invested in the idea of a film focused on the Manson family murders, however. Last month, producer David Heyman confirmed to Entertainment Weekly that the film is not about the bloodshed the cult became known for, explaining, "It's about the loss of innocence that came about in 1969 with the Manson family."

Cast Photos and Teaser Trailer for New Film

Thanks, AstroCreep!

Sneaking Into Sneakyville

A couple of intrepid souls sneaked into where the filming of Spahn Ranch will be for Tarantino's Once Upon A Time In Hollywood.  From the looks of things they have done a pretty good job of recreating the ranch.


They are building the sets at Corriganville Park in Simi Valley.  Corriganville was once a movie ranch, like Spahn and Iverson Ranches.  It closed in 1965 when Bob Hope purchased it.  The project Hope planned did not take off and he abandoned it a year later.  Corriganville is now a regional park.

The Boardwalk

A couple of the vehicles they have gotten for the filming

What would the film be without Dune Buggies?

Looks like they are going to make this area into the horse arena

An old school bus was acquired

George Spahn's house

A barn, couple of old cars and George's house in the distance

The boardwalk, old vehicles and the bus

The boardwalk, an old wagon like the one that was in front of the ranch and a trailer similar to the one that was parked next to George's house

.