The Other Side of Madness (1971) User Reviews

Strangely directed, but not totally bad

[Hessian499 · 6/10 · 22 September 2001]

Not to be confused with the much superior TV movie Helter Skelter made in 1976, The Helter Skelter Murders is an unusual film to say the least. With some footage shot at Spahn Ranch (where the Manson Family lived before their arrest) and Charles Manson himself singing his song "Mechanical Man" on the soundtrack, the movie has a bit of an authentic, albeit bizarre, feel to it. The first half of the film is a weird, disjointed mix of scenes, ranging from rock concert to urban riot, set against the backdrop of the court trial; this part of the movie is not particularly entertaining and is hard to follow at times. Later scenes, such as the one with an actress portraying Sharon Tate on a movie set, are better. The scene recreating the murders in August 1969 is brutal and difficult to watch but from a directorial standpoint is well done; the sequence of events also matches the factual accounts given about the crime, which makes it an even more powerful and disturbing.

Helter Skelter Murders is far from a classic; it is a strangely directed film that could have been made better. As it deals with a tragic event and an evil group of people, it is also not easy to watch at times. But anyone who has seen the later TV movie Helter Skelter should watch this movie, as you will see the differences in style and technique and also a different telling of the same event from 1969.

more of a documentary

[Leah-103 · 5/10 · 6 January 2007]

I am the "Smug Whitness" and wanted to tell all viewers that it was a great time doing this movie, meeting the Director from Los Angeles, and watching how it all comes together. I started as a secretary to Wade Williams who is the producer and prime financier, then found myself doing some acting that I had never done. Granted, I wasn't that good but the scenery at the rock concert is worth seeing. We filmed it in an old rock quarry outside of Kansas City and it was a whole day of drugs, wine and buses of people being brought in from the big park in KC called Loose Park. We had put out fliers all over ahead of time so there were plenty of hippies that showed up for the free food and fun !Later, watching the "dailies" to see how it all looked after the filming was interesting and educational. Some few months later, I moved to Hollywood and really wanted to feel a part of the movie business but then realized so do millions of others. But, I met my future husband of now 28 years who is the son of a TV producer who worked with Bob Barker on Truth or Consequences and later moved back to KC.

Worth a look, but very strange

[ceeszi · 6/10 · 10 March 2006]

This movie (aka The Other Side of Madness) is not to be confused with the television movie based on the Vincent Bugliosi book. This is a cheaply shot, crudely made documentary-like movie that was filmed while the Manson trial was taking place in Los Angeles. There are some weaknesses, but this is a fascinating movie for anyone who has an interest in the Manson story. First, the negatives:

First - for anyone who does not know the story of Charles Manson and his "Family", you may have no idea what is going on. You never hear the words "Manson" or "Tate". You do hear the words "Charlie" and you actually hear the voice of Charles Manson himself singing one of his own songs, "Mechanical Man". After hearing this, it is no wonder that Manson's recording career never took off.

Second - there is one long scene of a rock concert in the desert. It has absolutely nothing to do with the plot, except it puts the actors playing Tex Watson and Patricia Krenwinkle at the concert. The rock concert features some full frontal nudity, but mostly from skinny men and overweight women.

Third - there is little to no dialogue in the movie. The majority of the words you hear spoken are either off camera or look like they were dubbed in later. The whole movie is in black and white, except for one scene in color, where the actress who is playing Sharon Tate is being filmed in a "My Fair Lady"-type movie.

Fourth - the movie has no conclusion. While the movie shows the Tate murders, the movie ends with the killers entering the LaBianca home.

These are the negatives, including a cheesy "Keep your kids off drugs" warning that comes at the end of the movie (similar to "Reefer Madness"), but there is one huge positive. I have watched four movies about Manson (both "Helter Skelters" - original and remake, this movie, and Jim van Beber's sickening "The Manson Family"). This movie has probably the most frightening filming of the Tate murders of the four. The only drawback is the actress who plays Sharon Tate (Debbie Duff) can't act. She is beautiful, but looks confused instead of terrified. But the eerie black and white filming of the murders is very powerful.

Worth a look for anyone who is interested in this frightening case.

Unusually handled and factually ungoverned vivification of the Manson murders.

[EyeAskance · 14 August 2011]

This obscure bush-league production takes many liberties in its illustration of the Manson Family, and the events surrounding the most notorious killing spree in U. S. history. If you can overlook the weaving of facts with fabrications, then you might enjoy this film for its stylistic peculiarities.

With deliberately one-dimensional black and white filming, it presents itself in an austere naturalistic quality faintly similar in tinge to THE HONEYMOON KILLERS(1970) . The depicted crime scenarios are surprisingly discourteous, their chaos and brutality punctuated by the film's lengthy lead-in, which is rather reserved and undemonstrative in contrast.

I doubt many will defend THE HELTER SKELTER MURDERS as a critically "good" picture, but despite its many easily observable surface blemishes, the innards illustrate an intriguing art-house anti-Hollywoodism, awkward and inexpert though it may be. The anti-drug screen-crawl at the end was strange, added, I suspect, to deceptively ennoble this project with a stirring and purposeful nimbus. Surely this was criticized as ill-advisable and crassly exploitive, racing into production as a horrified nation reeled in the wake of the in-fact events.

Odd...but oddly coercive. 5/10.

A patchy but nonetheless intriguing depiction of the August 8th Manson family murders

[RomanJamesHoffman · 5/10 · 16 October 2012]

I first heard of 'The Helter Skelter Murders' (under its alternative title 'The Other Side of Madness') when reading about the 8/8/88 Satanic rally, organised by Zeena (daughter of Anton) LaVey and founder of the Werewolf Order Niclaus Schreck. During that rally, held on the anniversary of the Tate slayings, the movie was shown and when the depiction of the murders began the crowd actually cheered. Whilst certainly ghoulish, I was nonetheless intrigued and sought out the movie and soon saw why it was chosen: the film is a grimy, low-budget, quasi-documentary style exploitation movie shot mostly in black and white which gives it a creepy and authentic feel. The first half is a bizarre collection of scenes including a (pretty cool-looking) desert rock concert, life on Spahn ranch (where Manson and his family lived), court-room scenes, and, in the movie's only colour scene, a fairytale introduction to Sharon Tate. Actually, this first half is not particularly well-done as the aforementioned scenes don't gel together and, crucially, even though it was presumably made to cash-in on the notoriety of the Manson Murders, which were then very much in the news, apart from a few shots of vaguely Manson-looking guy and a recording of Manson's 'Mechanical Man' (not his best composition by a long shot) there is very little mention of Charlie and little-to-no development of the various members of his family who appear in the court-room scenes. However, it's with the shift to the second half that you really see the appeal to LaVey and Schreck as the whole remainder of the film is given over to a detailed, brutal, and drawn-out recollection of the Tate murders by one of the defendants. This section is quite well directed as it takes its time, building tension which is accentuated by the fact that we know what will happen but we don't know when the movie will show it (and how much it intends to show) and it certainly doesn't disappoint when it kicks off. It's unsettling to think that the scenes drew cheers from people and, for me, this knowledge added an uncomfortable post-script to an already uncomfortable viewing experience. All told, the movie is an interesting addition to the Manson mythology although just barely managing to raise itself above its limitations by the impact of the murder scene. Gruesome and sensationalist it may be, but then so were the murders it depicts.

Horrible re-telling of the Charles manson murders

[james362001 · 2/10 · 6 August 2002]

Horrible re-telling of the infamous Charles Manson murders in Beverly Hills, California. Made in a style that Charles Manson and the others would appreciate. I would also say this film was made as if through the eyes of Manson himself. However, if you are curious to see a chilling, gruesome dramatization of the murders (that in real-life included the pregnant actress, Sharon Tate , who was in the tv-series Beverly Hillbillies), this filming is perhaps too realistic. This film contains use of drugs, poppers, full frontal male and female nudity and sexual situations.

If you are looking for a serious, dramatic telling of the real-life story, beginning with the murders, the capture, and the ending of the final trial, then may I suggest "Helter Skelter" (1976). This was a television movie originally shown in two-parts, starring Steve Railsback as "Manson" and George DiCenzo as D.A. Vincent Bugliosi.

TIMELY EXPLOITATION AT THE TIME

[kirbylee70-599-526179 · 5/10 · 19 April 2021]

To enjoy and relate to exploitation films you have to have an understanding of what they are exactly. This genre of film as the name says exploits something. More often than not most exploitation films exploited nudity at a time when it wasn't so prevalent in films. These days you see it within 10 minutes of every made for HBO/Showtime series you find. But that wasn't always the case.

But exploitation films were also movies that were almost always made on a low budget with a tight time constraint and focused on whatever was hot at the moment. Thus we had racing films, biker films, horror films and more that were rushed into theaters to capitalize on current trends. And on occasion these films focused on major headlines. Like the film THE OTHER SIDE OF MADNESS.

THE OTHER SIDE OF MADNESS was the first film to capitalize on the Manson murders. A number followed like HELTER SKELTER and recently Tarantino's ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD. But this movie was the first. And unlike those this one chose not to use name actors and the format most films used. It was its own creation.

The film is almost like a documentary using actual new items at the time of the trial to tell the story, not using a narrative structure but combining bits and pieces of past and present at the time. It was made while the Tate/LaBianca trial was going on. The names of various people involve were left out to avoid litigation for the film's director and producer. The film moves back and forth from visits in the court room where the trial is taking place to the actions involved, using the court room scenes to set up what is to come.

Shot in black and white the film never offers the extreme gore than many exploitation films of the time did but does project and uneasy amount of violence in the brutal killing sequences. Like many horror films the actual penetrations of weapons are not displayed but can still be imagined in the useful camera techniques that are employed. The use of no name actors in the cast helps preserve that sense of dread rather than watching a well-known star in each role.

All in all the film isn't the most entertaining film to sit and watch but it does capture a moment in time when the world was fearful of the unknown, of that "hippie generation" that seemed too different for most. Being made at a time when mistrust and fear was high the film did good money at the box-office and played in grindhouses and drive-ins across the country.

This version of the film is being released by The Film Detective and they've done a great job of it here. To being with the film is offered for the first time in a 4k transfer from the original camera negative. They've also compiled a number of extras that make this one worth ordering if you're a fan of true crime or Manson films. These include a narration from producer Wade Williams, an original documentary THE OTHER SIDE OF MADNESS: WITH PRODUCER WADE WILLIAMS, a featurette entitled MECHANICAL MAN: WADE WILLIAMS MEETS MANSON, a 12 page collector's booklet with commentary from award-winning film director Alexander Tushinski, the original theatrical for both films the movie was released as (THE OTHER SIDE OF MADNESS and THE HELTER SKELTER MURDERS) and in the first releasing of this title are selections from the LP the Manson recorded including the songs "Mechanical Man" and "Garbage Dump".

As a curiosity piece this is one worth picking up. For fans of the genre it is worth picking up. For fans of exploitation it is worth picking up. And for those who remember the fear of that summer when it all took place, you might want to give this one a watch.

The WORST

[nununanmatt · 1/10 · 8 January 2023]

There are many bad Charles Manson movies, and this is easily the worst. Lazy, almost no dialoge, and disjointed images that have almost nothing to do with the event itself. Worst of all, it appears to be a vehicle for this terrible, dated psychedelic band that's in the movie for some reason. Probably the director's brother-in-law or something, just terrible. None of the actors look like the real people, I mean how tough is it to find a guy that looks like Charles Manson? I see them almost every day. I guess they're trying to go for some art school take on the Manson story, but it really fails miserably. This movie is begging for an MST3K take.

A strange trip...

[jcx238 · 8/10 · 16 July 2003]

As the title suggests, it focuses almost solely on the famous murders in the Tate house - interspersed with flashes of the preliminary court hearings and flash-backs to life on Spahn Ranch. These scenes at the ranch have an authentic kind of feel - due to a mixture of stuff (supposedly) being shot on the actual location and the film's own low-budgetness that works in it's favor... the actors all look and act like lost kids (although all are much better looking than the majority of the real Family members). The "documentary" footage the film purports to have seems isolated to one scene - a pretty good one, though: the hippie-rock-jam in the desert.. a real far-out scene, man... It's good and some of the Family actors wander in and out of it to connect it to the rest of the film. But that's it as far as documentary footage goes. The settings, however, have authenticity and a sense of place that give a good, if limited, glimpse into the L.A. of the time. The look of the film, in general, is really inspired - beautifully shot with many creative choices that, sometimes, get a little TOO arty... but, for such a seemingly low-budget movie - it does have a really polished look. (And a great soundtrack.. well scored and with good period-rock - including Manson's own recording of "Mechanical Man"...) It does, however, have some major flaws - the hardest to get past being the complete lack of characterizations... not one person has a personality. No one is developed - not even Charlie. This leaves us with a film we can only look at - there is no one to feel for - even the victims are only that: bodies that get victimized. In a way, it's interesting - we don't need or want to feel a human connection to these killers - but, by stripping all human-ness from everyone all we can do is watch. There's very little to FEEL, here - save a creepiness in the playing out of the murder scene. It is brutal and flatly played - and, maybe, that was part of the point in the film... it does have a strangely haunting quality to it. There's the real-ness of the settings and Family group, the disquieting night drives up the canyon - headlights on a dirt road - and the bleak, almost real-time playing out of the murders, themselves - that linger after it's over. Also, the unfamiliarity with any of the actors - none of whom seem to have done any thing other than this - give it an even creepier, too-real quality. There's a feeling that the filmmakers were trying to show a kind of "facts as they're known" at a time very close to the actual events - when not all the facts were really known. This adherence to what, supposedly, happened; combined with it's lack of characterization and lack of scope outside of just the night of the murders - leave the film somewhat one dimensional and, ultimately, drains it's emotional impact.

Is a lot more ambitious than given credit for.

[ian122591 · 8/10 · 19 February 2017]

This was an interesting sit through. It was the very first film to capitalize on the Manson Family murders and was actually being made WHILE the trial was still going on. Though it is surely an exploitation film, it's a lot tamer than you would expect. It isn't gory, and any sexual exploits were the depictions of hippies doing hippie things back in the late 60's.

Any exploitation director could've made the whole film about the murders with a lot of blood, women getting their clothes torn off a midst torture, and the killers acting maniacally for shock value but this film... took its time.

I'd say it's like if Terrence Malick tried to make Funny Games. The director took time to show the life of the Manson family, but didn't give them an identity or something to care about for them. The killers are given a perfect empty shell of character--they aren't even given names. Obviously the victims aren't named out of respect but the actual members of the Manson family, I believe, aren't given names because they're cold blooded murderers stripped of their humanity.

The black and white cinematography really did well to capture the mood, especially during the home invasion sequence. Frank Howard really knew how to use shadows to his advantage to make a dark and depressing event, and made the Manson Family members look menacing. It's really surprising that he never went on to do anything else because for someone obviously having no prior experience, he certainly did show a lot of competence and ambition.

I really have to hand it to Brian Klinknett as the lead killer for delivering a crazy and terrifying performance and it's also a shame that he didn't really go on to do anything else. When his character says "I am the Devil, coming to do the Devil's work", I genuinely believe what he is saying. Barely at all did I see an actor seeming like they're just reciting a line.

Speaking of great performers with lackluster careers, the music is amazing. Sean Bonniwell supplied songs from his band The Music Machine and wow, their psychedelic blues infused proto-punk is a hidden gem from the 60's and their song "Dark White" should have been a hit but in my research, their marketing was terrible and they broke up in 1969. So I'd definitely seek out some of their music and give it a listen.

All in all, it's a very rough film and you should know a bit of details about the Manson Family before watching it, but for a small, forgotten exploitation film, I think it's worth watching.

Terrific mix of art-house film and almost documentary - using real locations and stunning cinematography.

[info-105-331725 · 13 July 2017]

To me, "The Other Side of Madness" is an incredible film. Filmed just a little while after the portrayed events took place in reality, the film has an unique documentary value: Entire sequences are shot on location at Spahn Ranch, where the real life "Manson Family" used to live. We even see George Spahn (the owner) himself in a brief shot. Just a little while after the film was made, the ranch burned down in a wildfire, meaning that this is probably the only filmic recreation done in that real location - which is shown in great detail.

Shot and edited beautifully and artistically, the film works on multiple levels: Even if it were an entirely fictional story, it would still be a well-done, eery - almost David Lynchian - stylized portrayal of group dynamics and how a crime is committed. It is not an exploitative, gory film - unlike one might assume given its title and topic. The crime itself is shown in a very "matter of fact" way without resorting to unnatural filmic distortions (like sound-effects/strange lighting) which makes it appear very realistic and uneasy to watch, but the camera does not linger on the violence. Instead, the film draws you into its strange, but incredibly captivating, dark, almost 'dreamlike' atmosphere by creating a very tense mood throughout in its well composed black and white photography.

Director Frank Howard uses little dialogue. Instead, he mostly relies on music, visuals and monologues in the background to transport the mood. This approach works very well. Sequences like the killers driving up into the hills (as a slightly distorted monologue plays in the background) have an almost surreal, David Lynchian atmosphere. The use of music / sound design is quite inventive; the song "Mechanical Man" by Charles Manson - which is first heard when we see Manson lying in his prison cell, or much rather the shadow of his hand against a wall - becomes a kind of "leitmotif" as life on Spahn ranch is recollected during a flashback.

Generally, the narrative structure of the film gives it an almost abstract quality that challenges the viewer in a skillful way: Instead of the events being recollected one by one, we start with the accused in their jail cells after a prologue. Then, through testimonies at the trial, slowly the story/events starts to "emerge", and the audience has to piece them together as we see 'patches' of what happened. It is a rather risky approach, but pulled off very effectively, as it works well. In narrative terms, there is a fine line between being "abstract/challenging" and being "disjointed" - and this film pulls it off to be the former, keeping a stylistic and narrative unity. Scenes are connected through editing (matchcuts, interesting transitions) and sound effects, making it "flow". What could have been a cheap, quick, shocking film based on murders committed a short time before the film was released, was instead done as a challenging narrative that is, in my opinion, a fine piece of art as all filmmaking elements (acting/music/sound/cinematography/editing) flow together so well.

The cinematography is incredible. Shot mostly in black and white (with one sequence in color, in which we are shown the film star's 'world') it has beautifully composed shots. Before watching the film, I expected it to have a low budget "underground" style of the period, but I was wrong: Every shot appears well composed; in fact, I believe every shot would by itself, without context, already be a beautiful well-composed still image. That sounds like an exaggeration, but it's true: The way that light and shadow are used in combination with very original camera angles reminds me of artistic still photography in many instances. The editing is highly sophisticated, which is already obvious in the beginning: The panning camera match-cuts to pans over different surfaces, until we end with the protagonists. And similarly inventive edits continue throughout the film. Lighting and cinematography are top notch.

The acting is also very well done and appears realistic. Frank Howard avoids having the actors over-acting, instead, their held-back style gives their performances a tense, quasi documentary character. There is a big hippie concert towards the beginning that - in my opinion - summarizes the film's style well: The concert itself appears to be either a real event or an incredibly well staged recreation. But the cinematography does not make it look like an 'improvised' documentary, because every shot seems pre-planned and thoroughly composed like in a stylized narrative film. An intriguing mix.

All in all, I believe this to be a very underrated film that deserves to be re-discovered by new audiences.

The Manson Family

[Michael_Elliott · 27 July 2017]

The Other Side of Madness (1971)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

This here is a rather fascinating docu-drama about the Charles Manson murders. We see a trial going on where people are testifying about the "family" and then we see re-enactments of the events. The drugs and the sex parties are discussed but the main focus of the film happens at the end during the murder spree.

THE OTHER SIDE OF MADNESS isn't the greatest film ever made but for a low-budget exploitation movie it's pretty good or at least gets the job done. This was a rather interesting film in the fact that it was released while the media frenzy with the real case was going on. This film never names any of the characters in the film but it's rather obvious who this is about and I'm a little shocked that the filmmakers didn't find themselves getting sued.

Naturally, the main reason people are going to check this out is to see the infamous murders. The murders take place at the very end of the movie and I must say that I thought they were shown in a quite effective way. The film is certainly well-made considering its budget and I thought the murder scenes were rather effective. There's no graphic violence or gore and in fact there's really not much blood seen. The Tate murder is very much in the exploitation field but thankfully it never crosses the line.

With that said, there are some problems with the picture including the first twenty-minutes, which are rather boring. Some of the re-enactments just aren't overly interesting and the beginning of the film had a hard time holding my attention. I'm also a little shocked that the film was shot B&W considering this was well past its prime during this era. There are a couple songs on the soundtrack by Manson himself, which might be another thing that draws people to the movie.

THE OTHER SIDE OF MADNESS certainly isn't a masterpiece and it's not even a good movie but at the same time it has enough going for it to make it worth watching.

TRULY AWFUL!!!

[prometheus1816 · 13 February 2002]

As someone who has studied this case from beginning to end, this movie is completely flawed. It sticks only to the facts when it serves the purpose of being completely sensational. The beginning is a mix of jumbled scenes that seem to have no correlation to each other with the exception that it has the actor playing Charles Manson reiterating Manson's 'isms' to ad nauseum. "Cease to exist". "Death to the piggies". This type of garbage used along with Manson's own music makes this movie too disturbing for words. The depiction of the actress Sharon Tate, one of the most famous of the seven Tate-LaBianca victims, is depicted here as a screen goddess. The Waltz number in this movie is laughable, suggesting that due to her 'star-status' Sharon Tate deserved what she got living so high on the hog, as it were. That the victims lived high and that is what this movie does to the detriment of the memory of the victims: Sharon Tate, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Voytek Frykowski, Steven Parent, Leno LaBianca and Rosemary LaBianca. It makes the viewer who is not acquainted with the facts think that this is the truth of what happened, when it only sketches the truth with one outrage after another. The movie shows in graphic detail what was done at Miss Tate's home, taking almost a full half hour of the movie to do so. Almost the time it really took to commit five homocides then leave the scene of the crime. Mercifully it stops short of going into the murders of Leno and his wife, Rosemary. All one sees is a street sign that tells you it is the street where the LaBianca's lived and the murderers walking up the lawn to a house that bears again, only a vague representation of the house on Waverly Drive.

It is told in black and white for the most part which gives it a scary feeling when you watch it. The only time it adds colour is when we see the 'revered' Sharon Tate playing the part of an Ingrid Bergmanesque 'Anastasia' arriving at a grand ball where a handsome 'Prince Charming' leads her in the dance. This scene is used again when we are forced to see it intercut between the dead actress and the live 'Anastasia' dancing at the ball. Where this movie botches its facts it tries to cover with shock value nonsense. It has a scene where victim Steven Parent is stopped in his car before arriving at the gate, and there is an agonizing few moments in which we see the actor playing Tex Watson taunting the young man before he shoots him to death. Again, no facts and big on propaganda. So do I suggest you see this movie? No. If you can get the video or see the superior 1976 version with Steven Railsback as Manson and George DiCenzo as Prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi, I highly suggest you do. If only to get the real facts of the case, and to get the memory of this one out of your brain. Disturbing. Disgusting. Forgettable.

The Manson Murders...in the loosest sense

[vintagetbird · 11 December 2003]

I watched this production because I was watching every piece on the Manson murders I could find for research on a Discovery Channel doc I'm producing on the Manson family. It has been two days since I watch the DVD and I am still bored. I cannot imagine that a movie could be worse than this one. Words fail me. The best indication of the talent of the participants is to look at the other IMDb credits (or should I say "blames") of the cast and crew. Only cast member Duke Howze is listed as appearing in any other production...ever! The director/cinematographer/editor, Frank Howard, has no credits before or after this joke of a flick. No need to search further. This IS the all time celluloid turkey, without question.