The Haunting of Sharon Tate and Handling Real Life Tragedy for Fiction

The Haunting of Sharon Tate and Handling Real Life Tragedy for Fiction: Why I'm Sitting This One Out. A Personal Opinion.

I will not be seeing The Haunting of Sharon Tate. I am not saying you shouldn't see it. By all means, see it if you want to. I feel very strongly against censorship in most circumstances (including this one). This is not a call for a boycott or an attempt to shame the people involved, who may have had the best of intentions. I'm simply saying that, after watching the trailer and clips and reading early reviews, I don't feel like I, personally, could sit though it.

There is a way to do fictional movies based upon real life tragedies. There is even a way to do fictional movies based upon real life tragedies while incorporating more fantastical or humorous elements. However, it's a difficult task, and I applaud anyone who can do it successfully.

I also realize that sometimes some movies, however well handled, will not be watchable to some. I, personally, have never been able to watch movies or read books that involve animals in peril or dying. This is a personal issue and in no way reflects the quality of much of that fiction. I wondered at first if something similar was the case here. Maybe  I have some unacknowledged personal reason for being so turned off by an adaptation of this particular tragedy. I have, admittedly, avoided for years the much lauded Jim Van Bebber movie, The Manson Family. However, I am looking forward to two other upcoming movies that concern the murders, which I discuss a little more below. I also count two other movies about real life serial killers, David Fincher's Zodiac and the low budget The Town That Dreaded Sundown (about the Texarkana Moonlight Murders), among my all time favorite films. So why does this particular movie seem so unappealing to me?

Maybe it's the tone of the marketing or the supernatural twist this particular adaptation takes that don't set well with me. Let's start with that.

With The Haunting of Sharon Tate, writer and director, Daniel Farrands attempts to tell the story of the murders of Tate and her unborn child, as well as Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Wojciech Frykowski, and Steven Parent by the Manson Family. (Note: I list every single name, because it's important to remember that these were all real people. Every single one of them had family, friends, and loved ones who were affected and devastated by their deaths. This is not a hangup with this particular movie, but I am often concerned that the individuality and humanity of victims get lost while we pay more attention to their seemingly larger-than-life murderers, not just in fictional adaptations, but also in day-to-day thought and discussion). The Haunting of Sharon Tate also attempts to add a supernatural element to the story, based upon an interview with Sharon Tate a year before her murder, where she claimed to have experienced nightmares which seemed to predict her death. Never mind that the veracity of this interview and Tate's quote are questionable, as they were published in the less-than-scientific Fate magazine a year after her death.

My problems also extend to the title of the film, which brings to mind glossy, mainstream hit horror films of varying quality from the past decade, including the Farrands-produced Haunting in Connecticut and the recent Netflix success, The Haunting of Hill House. From the reviews I have read, it seems that the bland, generic horror movie title apparently gives way to bland, generic horror movie scares. From what I have read and seen (in trailers and clips), the movie milks the horrific real-life events for jump scares and melodrama.

My final problem is probably the biggest one. It's one I can't talk myself out of or shrug off as bad marketing or salty reviewers. That problem is this: there is someone else who's opinions on the matter demand far more respect that my own, and this person has spoken out against the film as being distasteful. That person is Sharon Tate's sister, Debra, who has referred to the movie as "classless" and "tacky," adding that it's "total fabrication." Debra, it should be noted, is not completely against having her sister portrayed on film, as long as her story is handled with the respect it deserves. She supports the other two upcoming films portraying Sharon's last days, the Quentin Tarantino directed Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and the Kate Bosworth vehicle Tate. Debra's opinion, and the opinion of other people affected by the tragedy, matter probably more than anything else. It cannot be easy for any of the victims' loved ones approaching the 50th anniversary of the murders. I don't want to have any part in adding to their pain, and I can't fathom how any filmmaker could either.

In conclusion, I'd like to state once again that I haven't seen this movie, so I can't make a judgement on it's overall quality. I might be wrong about it. This is not a review or a call to arms; it's an attempt to explain why I won't be seeing it, while attempting to throw some light on the problems of adapting nonfiction tragedy to fictional film. I also want to note that I didn't make this decision lightly, and I am by no means against all true-crime adaptations. I'm not usually easily offended; I actually have a relatively low bar set for what constitutes good taste, as well as a dark sense of humor and a fascination with darker subject matter. It's this particular film that does not sit well with me, and if you disagree with my opinion, you're welcome to share (politely please). For now, however, I'll be waiting on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood and Tate before watching any of the new fictional accounts of these horrible murders.

The real life Sharon Tate