From: Ajna-Luxi Lucidus-a-um (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Feb 23 2004 - 09:06:27 PST
"Odds are, Beausoleil was unfortunate enough to be mixed up with a
latent
psycopath (Manson) - which led to him being treated far more harshly
than he
would have been otherwise."
I don't know, in fact, in most of the interviews that I've seen with Charlie Manson, he seems far more cogent, sensible and intelligent than any of his sensationalist accusors. Apart from that there is no substantial evidence that he himself participated directly in any of the murders. Charlie may sometimes seem as contradictory as a Zen manuscript, particularly with his discussions of Abraxas, etc. but his indictment of the penal system
is pretty exacting and relevant. It seems that whatever the media or other interest groups may attribute to Manson or his involvement in the aborted idealism of the burgeoning aquarian age, he remains aloof as far as his own endorsements go. Apart from all of that anti-hero fascination, Charlie's underground prison recordings are extraordinary and pretty genuinely gnostic.
"...and believe me, if I started killing people... there'd be none of you left."
-charles manson
cian <email suppressed> wrote:
What Beausoleil's exact connection to the Manson family was - is pretty hard
to work out. The official story doesn't make a lot of sense, and consists of
a lot of conjecture, or evidence from a dubious source. Beausoleil has his
own version - which makes more sense, but is still dubious in places (one
gets the impression that he's perhaps massaged the truth in a few places, as
much for his own benefit, though overall it seems to hold). And then there's
the Manson myth - which again is mosty conjecture, myth and fantasy (Truman
Capote's book, for example, which seems to be more about Truman's person
fantasies, than what might have happened). Everyone has a different story
(including Kenneth Anger - who is probably full of shit) - and the truth is
probably more pathetic, tragic and stupid. It generally is. Out of all the
explainations I've ever seen for the Manson murders - Beausoleil's has
always seemed like the most psychologically plausible.
Odds are, Beausoleil was unfortunate enough to be mixed up with a latent
psycopath (Manson) - which led to him being treated far more harshly than he
would have been otherwise. What he did was pretty reprehensible, but not
(unfortunately) particularly uncommon. If there had been no Manson
connection, he probably would have been released. What he did is is just as
easily explained by him hanging out with motorcycle gangs, rather than the
influence of Manson. Its hard to believe that somebody as strong willed as
he is, would have fallen under the influence of somebody like Manson. He
doesn't fit the cult member profile. He's clearly sane (unlike the Manson
bunch), seems to have constructed a fairly decent way of life for himself
(impressive in the fairly awful Californian penal system). It was a nasty
period, and he was another casualty. He certainly can't be blamed for what
Manson did on his behalf.
Cian
-----Original Message-----
From: Experimental Film Discussion List
[mailto:email suppressed]On Behalf Of david tetzlaff
Sent: 23 February 2004 06:08
To: email suppressed
Subject: Bobby Lucifer
Jack asked:
> not sure what the Manson problem here is, i mean, there's links with
> the Beach Boys and the Beatles and Manson, does that effect your
> appreciation of Pet Sounds or the White Album?
No. Manson chose the Beatles and Dennis Wilson. Anger chose
Beausoleil. Makes a difference, no?
> Also, I'm not sure you can draw a line between "camp Magick" and
> "serious dark shit" which i'd suggests superimposes a christian
> duality of good / evil over something that would possibly be seen as
> beyond this.
Methinks a negative view of murderous cults hardly depends on
Christian morality. And basically, you echo my point, which is that
in most of Anger's work you CAN'T draw a line between "camp Magick"
and "dark shit", and so you could say it's 'beyond good vs. evil', or
that such simple distinctions won't work because a big part of the
art is the way Anger dances all over many of our received ideas about
that line. But this only holds as long as the work stays in the realm
of the imaginary, of representation, of performance. But when real
people are butchered, the line gets drawn, and if you CHOSE to
reference those actions in your work, you wind up standing on one
side or the other or getting cut in half by it. There's no more room
for dancing around it.
You could say that using Bobby B.'s score certainly fits Anger's
history of being a provacatuer, but I'd say, as Chuck noted, that
provocations need to reflect a certain social strategy lest they fall
into mere self-promotion. And since I can't imagine Anger really
thought a Manson angle was a good subtext for his kitschy Egyptian
theatrical, I have to conclude it was part of that egotistical
legend-building. And its kind of interesting that the man hasn't done
squat but live off his legend since.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
.