gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
672372 Posts in 27076 Topics by 3979 Members - Latest Member: sloopfan3 October 15, 2021, 04:23:36 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Down Print
Author Topic: 'CHAOS' The new Manson book  (Read 4741 times)
Tom
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 139



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: September 19, 2021, 06:50:14 PM »

Side question - when did it come to public knowledge that 'Never Learn Not To Love' was a rework of Manson's 'Cease to Exist'? Was it as late as March 1970 when 'Lie: the Love and Terror Cult' was released, and if so, how long did it take people to pick up on the connection?
Logged
Don Malcolm
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 978



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2021, 12:23:26 PM »

My recollections of the 1970-71 time frame--which are here to be corrected by those who've done a more complete dive into the many Manson source materials (I've ordered CHAOS and plan to work it into my reading shortly after it arrives)--was that the press in general really tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube for the band and Dennis after the Manson events broke wide. Their reviews of SUNFLOWER are glowing. They did not pick up and run with Dennis' earlier statements about his association with Manson--a few sensationalistic references, but these were kept on the margins.

But there was clearly something going on behind the scenes that Fred Vail bumped into, but may not have connected the dots at the time in terms of a "slient backlash" that involved the folks who could make or break an album commercially making sure that SUNFLOWER tanked.

Think of it as a tradeoff--you are cut loose in the industry to sink or swim based on how things play out, in exchange for not being dragged into an incredibly messy story about music biz excess and the type of FBI "sting operation" lawlessness built on destroying the political efficacy of the counterculture (which went way beyond destroying the credibility of rock stars: let's not forget their involvement in domestic political assassinations of key figures in dissent political groups, such as Fred Hampton).

Moving away from the hoary tip of the iceberg in the Manson situation, maybe we now can more clearly embrace the thinking in the Beach Boys' camp once Jack Rieley is on board, a recognition that the band had to mount an all-out counterassault on their past image AND more aggressively employ the SMiLE myth in order to dig themselves out of a hole that might otherwise have had no bottom. Adds another dimension as to why some were so adamant about resurrecting "Surf's Up." It helps to explain the rather pointed tone of VDP's quote about guaranteeing pre-sales by making "Surf's Up" the title of the LP.
Logged
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1968



View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 23, 2021, 09:06:31 PM »

I canít find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and itís not exactly an ďeasyĒ movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US Ö and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isnít it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2021, 09:07:36 PM by DonnyL » Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9641


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 24, 2021, 09:24:52 AM »

I canít find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and itís not exactly an ďeasyĒ movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US Ö and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isnít it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.

If you can find that, please post it - I had never heard of this angle. I just picked up the Criterion Collection 2-DVD set (with script in book form) this past weekend, and have to dig into it more. I've only seen the film on VHS copy, so I'm late to the game in digging deeper. But having read the history and commentaries on it for years, it seems like it was more of an inside-baseball thing with the studio that released it. Condensed version: The entire script was published in Esquire before the release, and Esquire raved about the film before anyone saw it. Numerous studios passed on buying it, until a younger executive gave it the green light and a budget. But the filming created something like 3 hours of a rough cut, that got edited down to just under 2. So again without doing s deep dive into the Criterion set and the commentary, I'm thinking when people read the script and rave review in Esquire, then saw the film's final cut, there may have been key scenes missing. Just a guess.

But ultimately the head of the studio hated the film, and it sounds like attempts were made to torpedo it from within. The Esquire advance release of the full script backfired in terms of marketing. And the studio itself sank it from within, it was barely in the theaters then pulled, and was unavailable in any form except maybe midnight movies at various small theaters on the cult circuit for many years.

I think the rush from studios to grab "road" film projects in the wake of Easy Rider was how the film finally found a studio in the first place, but there was only a 2-3 year window on that Easy Rider contact high (compare it to the rush from record labels to sign and sculpt any number of low-rent "Grunge" bands in the wake of Nirvana's success), and I think there was resentment from the Hollywood powers-that-be as a result. There had to be some reason why the head of the studio "hated" Two Lane Blacktop enough to tank it before it had a chance.

I don't see the Manson-Dennis connection being enough of a reason to tank the film, but if there are reports of that, I'd like to see them! It just sounds like Hollywood infighting and power-grabs rather than Dennis Wilson's supporting role being enough of a factor to throw out the entire film. After Easy Rider and all the copycats that followed, there were a lot of bad feelings in Hollywood's power circles, and I'm guessing that kind of thing played a bigger role.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
DonnyL
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1968



View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 24, 2021, 09:40:32 AM »

I canít find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and itís not exactly an ďeasyĒ movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US Ö and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isnít it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.

If you can find that, please post it - I had never heard of this angle. I just picked up the Criterion Collection 2-DVD set (with script in book form) this past weekend, and have to dig into it more. I've only seen the film on VHS copy, so I'm late to the game in digging deeper. But having read the history and commentaries on it for years, it seems like it was more of an inside-baseball thing with the studio that released it. Condensed version: The entire script was published in Esquire before the release, and Esquire raved about the film before anyone saw it. Numerous studios passed on buying it, until a younger executive gave it the green light and a budget. But the filming created something like 3 hours of a rough cut, that got edited down to just under 2. So again without doing s deep dive into the Criterion set and the commentary, I'm thinking when people read the script and rave review in Esquire, then saw the film's final cut, there may have been key scenes missing. Just a guess.

But ultimately the head of the studio hated the film, and it sounds like attempts were made to torpedo it from within. The Esquire advance release of the full script backfired in terms of marketing. And the studio itself sank it from within, it was barely in the theaters then pulled, and was unavailable in any form except maybe midnight movies at various small theaters on the cult circuit for many years.

I think the rush from studios to grab "road" film projects in the wake of Easy Rider was how the film finally found a studio in the first place, but there was only a 2-3 year window on that Easy Rider contact high (compare it to the rush from record labels to sign and sculpt any number of low-rent "Grunge" bands in the wake of Nirvana's success), and I think there was resentment from the Hollywood powers-that-be as a result. There had to be some reason why the head of the studio "hated" Two Lane Blacktop enough to tank it before it had a chance.

I don't see the Manson-Dennis connection being enough of a reason to tank the film, but if there are reports of that, I'd like to see them! It just sounds like Hollywood infighting and power-grabs rather than Dennis Wilson's supporting role being enough of a factor to throw out the entire film. After Easy Rider and all the copycats that followed, there were a lot of bad feelings in Hollywood's power circles, and I'm guessing that kind of thing played a bigger role.

Yes, those are the stories I'm referring to I believe. "Boycott" is probably the wrong word- but some people seemed to hate it so much, it was semi-not released originally?
Logged

guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9641


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 24, 2021, 09:45:43 AM »

My recollections of the 1970-71 time frame--which are here to be corrected by those who've done a more complete dive into the many Manson source materials (I've ordered CHAOS and plan to work it into my reading shortly after it arrives)--was that the press in general really tried to put the toothpaste back in the tube for the band and Dennis after the Manson events broke wide. Their reviews of SUNFLOWER are glowing. They did not pick up and run with Dennis' earlier statements about his association with Manson--a few sensationalistic references, but these were kept on the margins.

But there was clearly something going on behind the scenes that Fred Vail bumped into, but may not have connected the dots at the time in terms of a "slient backlash" that involved the folks who could make or break an album commercially making sure that SUNFLOWER tanked.

Think of it as a tradeoff--you are cut loose in the industry to sink or swim based on how things play out, in exchange for not being dragged into an incredibly messy story about music biz excess and the type of FBI "sting operation" lawlessness built on destroying the political efficacy of the counterculture (which went way beyond destroying the credibility of rock stars: let's not forget their involvement in domestic political assassinations of key figures in dissent political groups, such as Fred Hampton).

Moving away from the hoary tip of the iceberg in the Manson situation, maybe we now can more clearly embrace the thinking in the Beach Boys' camp once Jack Rieley is on board, a recognition that the band had to mount an all-out counterassault on their past image AND more aggressively employ the SMiLE myth in order to dig themselves out of a hole that might otherwise have had no bottom. Adds another dimension as to why some were so adamant about resurrecting "Surf's Up." It helps to explain the rather pointed tone of VDP's quote about guaranteeing pre-sales by making "Surf's Up" the title of the LP.

Very interesting points. I do agree that I haven't seen nor heard of many (if any) attempts to bury artists based on a Manson connection. Not saying it didn't happen, but it doesn't seem to have any proof behind it. Like I said earlier in this discussion, both Hollywood and the music business is exactly like the stock market: Actors, directors, musicians, screenwriters, and producers are ultimately viewed and used as commodities whose value rises and falls exactly like the stock market. These commodities are invested in and traded in order to do one thing: Make money for the investors. When something threatens that, and when a lot of money stands to be lost and unable to be recouped, there are damage control plans put into place to prevent that. Investors don't like losing money. And if the damage can't be controlled, the commodity (in terms of an actual human being) is thrown under the bus and cut loose, which then leads to more damage control to remove any associations from those who are still hot moneymaking commodities.

I just don't know of or can't think of anyone connected to Manson who was thrown under the bus. Terry Melcher continued to work for his mother Doris Day and made a lot of money doing so, then got back into making records and especially in the 80's helped the Beach Boys get back onto the charts several times. I don't see Dennis' association doing any damage in terms of the Beach Boys, they had already been thrown under the bus with Capitol after their contract was up, and they were able to get a deal on Warner/Reprise to continue making records and touring. Were they blackballed because of Manson? I don't see it. Someone still thought they were a commodity who could make money.

Go down the list of other actors and musicians who were in contact with Manson - Were any of them obviously thrown under the proverbial bus? Neil Young bought Manson a motorbike and had good things to say about Charlie's music, and Neil didn't suffer at all. Mama Cass was involved with many of the players, close friends with the murder victims, and at one point was threatened with charges by the LAPD...she got a network TV show and other solo starring vehicles right after the murders. No harm there in the associations.

Roman Polanski continued to make movies, and just several years after the trial he made Chinatown, which is one of the greatest films of all time. If the contents of those Sony Porta-Pak video reels in his attic at the murder house were ever made public, he'd have been sunk long before his similar activities came to light around 1977. But in the wake of Manson and the trials, he was still working in Hollywood and making acclaimed films, and making money for those bankrolling him (including Hugh Hefner).

I think if anything, attempts were made to shield or protect those commodities in the entertainment business from any negative backlash surrounding Manson. And that goes right up to the way Bugliosi planned the prosecution strategy and the witnesses for the prosecution. He made a case, now we know some was not factual, in order to secure a conviction without getting deep into the Manson universe of people and things which could potentially lose a lot of money for a lot of people, as well as possibly blow the lid off some nefarious if not criminal activity from government agencies.

It's an interesting exploration overall, that's what keeps me interested in reading and learning more, and I sure as hell don't think writing it off as conspiracy theory nonsense is serving any purpose for recording the proper and accurate history of the case unless writing it off as tinfoil hat bullshit is another attempt to whitewash and protect certain people and narratives.

Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
guitarfool2002
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9641


"Barba non facit aliam historici"


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: September 24, 2021, 09:59:55 AM »

I canít find it now, but I recall reading somewhere that there was some type of film industry boycott on Two-Lane Blacktop also. Though it came out in 1971, and itís not exactly an ďeasyĒ movie- but this is an interesting angle I truly never thought of. Maybe there was some type of disassociation of the group (and possibly particularly Dennis) with the industry following the Manson scene. This also seems to coincide with their absolute lowest point commercially in the US Ö and Murry selling the catalog in Nov 1969 too. Odd timing for this stuff, isnít it? I guess they really did need Jack Rieley to turn things around.

If you can find that, please post it - I had never heard of this angle. I just picked up the Criterion Collection 2-DVD set (with script in book form) this past weekend, and have to dig into it more. I've only seen the film on VHS copy, so I'm late to the game in digging deeper. But having read the history and commentaries on it for years, it seems like it was more of an inside-baseball thing with the studio that released it. Condensed version: The entire script was published in Esquire before the release, and Esquire raved about the film before anyone saw it. Numerous studios passed on buying it, until a younger executive gave it the green light and a budget. But the filming created something like 3 hours of a rough cut, that got edited down to just under 2. So again without doing s deep dive into the Criterion set and the commentary, I'm thinking when people read the script and rave review in Esquire, then saw the film's final cut, there may have been key scenes missing. Just a guess.

But ultimately the head of the studio hated the film, and it sounds like attempts were made to torpedo it from within. The Esquire advance release of the full script backfired in terms of marketing. And the studio itself sank it from within, it was barely in the theaters then pulled, and was unavailable in any form except maybe midnight movies at various small theaters on the cult circuit for many years.

I think the rush from studios to grab "road" film projects in the wake of Easy Rider was how the film finally found a studio in the first place, but there was only a 2-3 year window on that Easy Rider contact high (compare it to the rush from record labels to sign and sculpt any number of low-rent "Grunge" bands in the wake of Nirvana's success), and I think there was resentment from the Hollywood powers-that-be as a result. There had to be some reason why the head of the studio "hated" Two Lane Blacktop enough to tank it before it had a chance.

I don't see the Manson-Dennis connection being enough of a reason to tank the film, but if there are reports of that, I'd like to see them! It just sounds like Hollywood infighting and power-grabs rather than Dennis Wilson's supporting role being enough of a factor to throw out the entire film. After Easy Rider and all the copycats that followed, there were a lot of bad feelings in Hollywood's power circles, and I'm guessing that kind of thing played a bigger role.

Yes, those are the stories I'm referring to I believe. "Boycott" is probably the wrong word- but some people seemed to hate it so much, it was semi-not released originally?

Most of that hate for the film seems to have been coming from the head of Universal, which was the parent company of the group that gave it the green light originally. I don't know offhand why there was so much anger and resentment toward the film from such a big player at the studio, but it's not an uncommon story with both Hollywood studios and the music biz, where the caricature is a studio head pointing a finger at an actor he didn't like and saying "You'll never work in this town again!". Tying it into another film from this same era, look at the scene in Godfather where studio head Jack Woltz blows up on Tom Hagen at the dinner table over Johnny Fontaine "ruining" one of his best actresses who he invested a lot of money into to become a star. Woltz, of course, ended up with the head of his prized racehorse in his bed, and Fontaine got the role he wanted...and all of it was a thinly veiled reference to Sinatra being cast in From Here To Eternity which was his comeback role.

It could have been something that was pure inside baseball with the people involved, but yes the film was all but sunk and pulled immediately when it was released by the parent studio who released it. Some reports said there were not even advertisements for its opening, and that's almost an open case of the studio sabotaging it by not promoting it. I'm just not sure if a Manson connection had anything to do with why the head of Universal hated the film.

It's the difference between a parent company refusing to promote something and outwardly limiting its release, and theater owners (or music DJ's and program directors) refusing to play something. One comes from within, the other is the delivery system refusing to let the public have a chance to see or hear something. The Beach Boys during this era suffered the latter.
Logged

"All of us have the privilege of making music that helps and heals - to make music that makes people happier, stronger, and kinder. Don't forget: Music is God's voice." - Brian Wilson
gfx
Pages: 1 2 [3] Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 0.632 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!