It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

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 good 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.

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.

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.

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.