|
Post by robeiae on Feb 7, 2018 15:12:23 GMT -5
Speaking of Polanski: www.cnn.com/2018/02/07/entertainment/sharon-tate-hilary-duff-movie/index.htmlIt's been fifty years. Manson is now dead. The story is of interest to people; has been for a long time. It's centered on Hollywood, it's true crime to some extent. Doesn't strike me as much different than Hollywoodland and other films about historical events. The movie may suck, but I can't see how it's tasteless as a matter of course. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 7, 2018 15:39:02 GMT -5
No. I get why it's not something that someone from the Tate family may want to hear about or see, but as long as they're not trying to bash Tate, then it's not in bad taste.
I remember when Titanic came out, the few remaining survivors said they didn't want to see it. (I understand they've all passed now.) Who can blame them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 15:40:00 GMT -5
If it were 100 years, and all Tate's close relatives who actually knew and loved her were dead, I'd shrug. But I think it's tasteless that Sharon Tate has a living sister (one who owns the rights to images of her brutally murdered sister), and yet no one connected to the project contacted her. It might be fifty years ago, but Tate still has living loved ones. Her sister goes to every parole hearing of the remaining Manson gang to speak out against their release.
I know they make films and such of famous dead people who still have relatives living, and likely they sometimes do not consult them. But as a rule, those people are famous for something other than simply the brutal way they died. John F. Kennedy, for example -- he's not just famous because he was assassinated. He's famous because he was the president.
Sure, Tate was an actress, but her actual career didn't about to much as of the time she died -- she was ridiculously beautiful (far more so than Hilary Duff, IMO), but that was the main thing she was famous for, to the extent she was famous, until Manson and his gang chose her for a victim. She was no Marilyn Monroe or even a Hilary Duff, fame-wise -- no household name. What she was was fabulously gorgeous, rich, married to a famous director, and eight months pregnant -- then brutally slaughtered by members of perhaps the most notorious serial killer gang ever. If she hadn't been slaughtered, her career likely would have faded with her pretty face and everyone would have been saying "Sharon who? Oh, yeah, she was married to Polanski for a while, right?"
Yes, it's a story that is of interest to people for sure. But fifty years or no, I think it was tacky for them to make the film while her sister is still alive and without consulting her. If they had consulted the sister and she was good with it, I'd be okay with it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 15:45:56 GMT -5
Stories about a much broader event in living memory -- e.g., 9/11 -- that do not focus on individual victims that still have living family are another matter, IMO.
Vince's Titanic example falls into that category, or movies about, say, Pearl Harbor. There might be survivors of the actual event (which impacted thousands) at the time the movie was made, but if the story isn't actually about their specific loved ones, I don't think it's the same thing (though, like Vince, I don't blame them a bit for not wanting to see it. I will confess I do not ever want to watch a 9/11-themed movie, and I am merely a witness.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 7, 2018 15:45:57 GMT -5
You're saying the sister should have veto rights to films about Sharon Tate?
I get the emotional aspect of a film being made about a relative/friend/loved one, but such things happen all the time. I don't think relatives should have control over the depiction of the past, on film or anywhere else, fictionalized or not. Sharon Tate's murder was a tragedy, to be sure, but it's hardly the most tragic thing of all times, imo.
And her sister's comment about her owning the rights to Sharon Tate's image leaves a bit of a bad taste in my mouth, frankly. There's a bit of a "I deserve to get paid" there, I think.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 15:54:21 GMT -5
I'm actually not saying she should have a legal right to veto it (though, to note, since she owns rights to her sister's image, perhaps she does have some rights in that direction -- don't know what the film is like, and that's not my area of the law).
I'm saying it was tacky of them to make it without consulting her. The question was whether it was tacky, not whether she should have veto rights.
(Similarly, I might object to an argument made on this site as tasteless, and give reasons why -- that's not the same thing as refusing to allow someone to make the argument. As far as I can tell from the article, even Sharon's sister isn't actually trying to stop the film from coming out. She's just saying it's tasteless and noting that they didn't even bother to consult her.)
I must say -- this film is going to make money off the sensational murder of someone's beloved sister, and that doesn't leave any bad taste in your mouth, but what does leave a bad taste in your mouth is your interpretation of a remark by the sister that you construe to mean she perhaps would have the right to get paid (which is actually not what she said)?
Um, OK. Get back to me when someone makes a movie about your brutally slaughtered sibling without talking to you about it.
Also, what on earth does this mean --
To Sharon Tates's sister, I'm sure this WAS the "most tragic thing of all times." Her young, beloved, 8-month-pregnant sister was horribly and senselessly slaughtered. I'm sure that hit her far more closely, on a personal level, than any war or disaster that killed thousands of people she doesn't know. Sharon means nothing to you, but certainly she did to her sister. How are you ranking your "most tragic things of all times about which one has a right to be upset" list?
My dad's death hit me WAY harder than 9/11. To me, it was far more tragic. If one of my loved ones was brutally murdered, it would hit me harder than the holocaust.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 16:07:52 GMT -5
The fascination people have with Tate is not because she was more famous in life (seriously, if she'd slipped in a bathtub and died of a cracked skull, no one would know who she was today) but because she was gorgeous and 8 months pregnant. Several other people died in that house, including a celebrity hair-dresser and an heiress to the Folger coffee fortune, along with some less notable people. (One victim, Steve Parent, was a teenager.) Then there was the LaBianca couple a couple of nights later. They were all brutally slaughtered. But most people are pretty indifferent to them -- they're all strangers to us, and Tate was the pretty, pregnant one. No one wants to make a movie specifically about those other folks, unless it's a documentary about the Manson Family. But to their families, each of those victims was the big tragedy -- as, to Tate's sister, Sharon is to her. What's tacky, IMO, is the endless prurient obsession with poor, pretty, pregnant Sharon and her horrible death, and some strangers greedily seeking to capitalize on it, not the sister's grief and dislike of seeing her loved one (once again) exploited. ETA: Sharon's sister notes that the film invents stuff about her sister to make things all that much more juicy, e.g., that her sister talked about having premonitions about her being stabbed to death with her ex-boyfriend Jay Sebring (the celebrity hairdresser who was murdered). If it were my sister, that would bum me out, too. I'm trying to picture them making a movie about my beloved dad in which they invent him talking about having "premonitions" of his brain disintegrating in an incredibly brief time and...yeah, I can't even go there. It would break my damn heart and infuriate me. Fortunately, my dad's death was not notorious, so no one will be constantly exploiting it.)
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 7, 2018 16:46:16 GMT -5
Is the film about Tate, or about Manson?
It's not just that Tate was pretty and pregnant, it's that she was at the time the most well known victim. You're right, if she'd died in a car accident, we would't be talking about it today, but we still talk about Manson. As we do Dahmer, Bundy, Gacey and other killers. It might be a little sick, but there is a fascination with such things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 16:52:27 GMT -5
Actually, I do not think she was better known at the time than the Folger heiress or the celebrity hairdresser, both of whom were routine tabloid fodder at the time. She had a couple not very notable parts in some undistinguished movies. Her career was a shrug -- and according to the Helter Skelter book about the Manson murders (written by the prosecutor), from that point on, her career would probably be motherhood. She is certainly the best known today, though -- and I submit that's because her looks are so arresting (seriously, she was perfect), and because she was 8 months pregnant.
From the title, this is not about the Manson murders generally, but about Sharon in particular -- "The Haunting of Sharon Tate."
ETA:
I own Helter Skelter, which was written shortly after the murder trials (so without 50 years intervening to romanticize her). I'm "working" from home (in quotes because I have not been good today, and will pay for it tonight!) Here is what it says about Sharon:
We think of her as a bigger star by far than she was because of all the post-murder stuff. She wasn't even major tabloid fodder in her life because she apparently wasn't promiscuous or a party girl. She was another pretty (very, very pretty) starlet with mostly bit parts and a career that hadn't really taken off.
I too am fascinated with the Manson murders. But the Tate obsession -- yeah, I think it's a bit icky that she gets so much more play than the other victims.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Feb 7, 2018 16:57:36 GMT -5
I think it's probably fair to say it's a combination of her fame and her looks and pregnancy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 17:05:32 GMT -5
Again -- she was not particularly famous at the time. She is famous NOW. She was one of those people in a movie containing more famous stars, but most viewers don't even know her name. Her presence wouldn't sell a film. Her biggest role at the time she was killed was in a movie that was panned, and her performance dismissed.
But when she was murdered, her fame took off. The fame of the other victims did not, though the heiress and the hairdresser were as well-known as Sharon in 1969. I submit that's her beauty (and to a lesser extent, her pregnancy). It is difficult to look at her pictures and not look again. I say that as a straight female. Wow, was she lovely. She shines right through that 60s makeup and styling (which I don't care for much).
E.g., Jay Sebring: it was rumored that a movie studio once flew him to London to cut George Peppard's hair at a cost of $25,000 dollars (that's in 1960s dollars, mind you -- so we're talking the equivalent of well into 6 figures in today's dollars). He "was the leading men's hair stylist in the United States, and ...more than any other single individual, he was responsible for the revolution in male hair care." Besides Peppard, his customers included Sinatra, Paul Newman, and Steve McQueen. He owned a corporation, Sebring International. He was the Vidal Sassoon of the '60s.
So, he was kind of a big deal -- I'd say as much as a very minor actress who never quite broke through. But what he wasn't was beautiful and pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by mikey on Feb 7, 2018 17:28:04 GMT -5
I too am fascinated with the Manson murders. But the Tate obsession -- yeah, I think it's a bit icky that she gets so much more play than the other victims. I absolutely 100% agree with you Cass. I no more want to see this movie than I would want to see a movie about one of those people who jumped out of the twin towers that sad, sad day.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 17:37:42 GMT -5
I too am fascinated with the Manson murders. But the Tate obsession -- yeah, I think it's a bit icky that she gets so much more play than the other victims. I absolutely 100% agree with you Cass. I no more want to see this movie than I would want to see a movie about one of those people who jumped out of the twin towers that sad, sad day. Definitely how I feel. I am obviously interested enough in the Manson family murders to have read Helter Skelter and retained a lot of detail about it. But I don't want to see this movie, and I feel bad for her sister. (And I absolutely would not see a movie about dramatizing the live of one of the 9/11 victims unless their families authorized it.)* *The fact is, though, I can't watch anything about 9/11. I can and do read articles about it, but I can't see those images of the planes hitting the towers or the towers collapsing, etc., without reliving the day -- my heart actually starts to race and I get anxious. I can't imagine watching a fictional dramatization of it. And that was just from watching the events unfold from an office window. I can't imagine how the people who barely escaped from the building or the loved ones of those killed must feel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2018 18:08:32 GMT -5
Here, since Sharon is about to be exploited yet again, I will cite a really nice thing the author of Helter Skelter said about her:
When you consider just how bitchy Hollywood is, and just how beautiful Sharon was (jealousy can be a nasty thing, after all), and that the police were digging hard for motives among the victims' acquaintances until they discovered the real killers, that's really quite something. She must have been remarkably sweet for the police not to find a single acquaintance who would say anything catty or negative. It isn't just that she was murdered -- the police found plenty of people willing to trash the other victims in various ways. But no one would trash Sharon, even a little.
ETA:
I just hope that at the least, the makers of this film portray her that way and don't try to make her more "interesting." She wasn't troubled or promiscuous, she didn't have a dazzling career -- by all accounts, she was mostly just a sweet wholesome young woman who was thrilled to the moon about having her baby, and who also happened to be stunningly beautiful and had mostly small roles in a couple of mostly minor movies.
ETA:
Damn it, I have work to do and y'all have got me skimming Helter Skelter again. Another snippet -- she was a regular at a Big Sur resort, where she spent many weekends, alone and with friends, relaxing at the beach. Many who knew her there had no idea she was an actress. So, yeah, that's how much of a household name she was in 1969.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Feb 8, 2018 8:29:22 GMT -5
I really don't consider Tate to be all that beautiful. Sorry.
Now Natalie Wood...and her story continues to be in the news, as well (apparently, there's been some "developments" recently and Wagner's always-fishy story is getting questioned, yet again). And of course her story has gotten the film treatment.
Regardless, Tate was a victim of a satanic cult that committed mass murder. And still, it was fifty years ago. And she was the spouse of an up and coming director. And an actress who, yes, was considered beautiful by many people, and who had received a Golden Globe nomination.
All that adds up to a story, imo, one that is worthy of telling.
|
|