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.
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.