Exploring the exploitation of Sharon Tate’s death by the media as the 50h anniversary of the “Tate murders” approaches. Where is the line drawn between life and art?

If you’re a cinema lover like myself, you might have noticed that quite a number of actresses have recently stepped into the role of Sharon Tate. 2019 marks the 50th anniversary of what was dubbed the “Tate murders,” which claimed the lives of Sharon Tate and her unborn baby, Jay Sebring, Abigail Folger, Wojciech Frykowski, and Steven Parent, who are the most famous murder victims of the Manson Family due to Sharon Tate’s star power at the time. It’s important to list all five names, because the murders involved real people, not a Hollywood script. In fact, Steven Parent, who was visiting the caretaker of the property and was murdered first that night, is often written out of the narrative or grossly marginalized because he was not as famous in life as the four others who shared his brutal fate. But it’s 50 years later, and here we are, not just honoring and remembering the victims and their stories, but rolling out at least five new projects about the murders.

In a moment I’ll examine the upcoming films to discuss both the right and wrong ways to acknowledge and depict this real world tragedy on the big screen. Obviously with consent of living parties, there is nothing inherently wrong about documenting tragedies. As personal fan of true crime narratives, I won’t pretend that I’m not one of the people who doesn’t slow down and stare when there’s a car accident. But I’m also sure as hell not the person who whips out my camera and takes pictures of the scene. While I’m painfully aware of the sheer monstrosity of the real world, it can be a whole lot more settling to read fictionalized stories of crime and chaos. This isn’t so that the stories of real life victims should go unheard, but so that the victims involved in real life tragedies can be allotted the dignity of their secrets and self.

Murder robs someone of their life. When grisly stories gain traction, victims also lose their narrative. The dead are not here to speak and give consent. They are not able to approve of what is being shown, and they cannot confirm blurry details that are turned into “facts” to fit a story. In my opinion, documentary filmmaking and true crime writing are the most dignified ways to tell horrific stories when the parties involved are not alive to tell their own stories. Though it’s naive to assume that profits aren’t a motivating factor in production, it’s also essential to consider the aim of movies or books that convey real life tragedies. Is the goal to shock and sensationalize for profits? Or is it to reveal the truth and serve some kind of justice for the victims? One of the strongest indicators of whether a film revealing true crime is more artful or exploitative is the reactions and responses from the victim’s remaining friends and family. So with these thoughts in mind, it’s time to explore the films that are coming out this year and the different portrayals of Sharon Tate in them.

First let’s start with the film that exemplifies a shining example of art devoid of exploitation— a real rarity in the day and age where everything needs to be sensationalized. Led by Kate Bosworth taking on the titular role, Tate absolutely brings something tasteful to the table as it focuses solely on Sharon Tate’s life in its final few days without depicting her horrific death. In an Instagram caption about the film, which is directed by her husband Michael Polish, Bosworth wrote, “This movie will only celebrate her life. We will not violate her or exploit her death.” To add to the eloquence of Bosworth’s statement, Polish wrote on Instagram, “”As a father and a filmmaker, I am not interested in portraying violence on screen with this particular project,” adding that it no longer has a place in the Tate’s life. Unsurprisingly, this films marks the only project on the list that earned the unwavering support of Sharon Tate’s sister, Debra Tate, from the start. Debra Tate expressed her glowing support of the film, which finally allows her sister’s story to be told without exploitation. This is a feat that the other 2019 films likely cannot claim.

When it comes to deciding the case between art and exploitation in the upcoming films, the beginning and end of this list are both sharply defined. However, as is often the case, the films in between linger in a gray area. Since these films have not come out yet, it wouldn’t be fair to prematurely judge them too harshly. Instead let’s give the next three films a cursory examination before exploring a true case of cinematic exploitation.

Next on the chopping block is the Netflix crime series Mindhunters, which announced it will make Charles Manson a main fixture of season two. With a ways to go before its release, it’s unclear if this series will include Sharon Tate and focus on the murders or instead tell the story of Charles Manson and his deranged mind. Given the success of the series, I’m hopeful that it will be tasteful in regards to the victims. On a similar note, indie flick Charlie Says, which made the film festival rounds last year and earned mixed reviews, focuses not so much on the murders as on the man behind them. After watching the preview for this not-yet-released film, I do have some trepidation on whether or not it will try to sympathetically portray the Manson girls. However, it is important to remember that very close to nobody is entirely good or evil. As much as I loathe all the people involved in the Manson murders and hold firmly the conviction that they should never taste another day of freedom, they were people after all. Plus American Psycho director Mary Harron directed the film, and she has clearly demonstrated that she is quite skilled at capturing a true psychopath.

The most widely recognized project in the list is Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, the notoriously violent Quentin Taratino’s next feature length film in which Margot Robbie will portray the role of Sharon Tate. The story is a blend of truth and fiction that stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Bitt as fictional characters, depicting Los Angeles and “hippy Hollywood” in 1969 in the words of Tarantino. However, Manson, the Family, and Sharon Tate’s murder will also be featured in the film. Though Tarantino’s stylistic no holds barred depiction of violence might be a cause of worry when it comes to how tastefully Sharon Tate’s story is told, Debra Tate did express her gratitude towards Tarantino for explaining his vision and allowing her to read the script after her initial disapproval of the film. I appreciate Tarantino as an artist and creator. Though I am skeptical of this project, Debra Tate’s ultimate blessing might be a good case of it’s best not to judge something before actually seeing it. I have confidence in the film’s ability to avoid downright exploitation, since Tarantino doesn’t exactly need to exploit real life tragedies for profits when he’s already a very capable storyteller. Or perhaps this film will end up being a prime example of both art and exploitation existing in one product. We’ll just have to wait and see where the mixture of fact and fiction ultimately takes the audience.

The same cannot be said about the final Manson-related film of the year, The Haunting of Sharon Tate. Honestly I’m floored that a film like this was not only given the green light, but that a number of people got on board with the project. After watching the trailer and reading about the film, I’m thoroughly convinced that it has absolutely nothing positive to offer the legacy of Sharon Tate, who is portrayed by Hillary Duff in this extremely distasteful project. Look, I grew up watching Lizzie McGuire, I’m a huge fan of Younger, and I really want to support Hillary Duff. But I can’t understand why she agreed to star in and is fully supporting this film, which takes a real life tragedy and tries to amp up the “horror” vibes with what appears to be a paranormal presence. (I kid you not.) Portraying Sharon Tate in the final days of her life, the film is based off of a supposed premonition Sharon Tate allegedly told a magazine one year before her death, which Debra Tate labels “a total fabrication.” Debra Tate is openly critical of this film, which I honestly can’t see why anyone thought was a good idea to make. Debra Tate has referred to it as “classless,” “exploitative,” and “tasteless.” Sharon Tate clearly has no control over her narrative, and it’s downright criminal that the parties involved in this film are taking the liberty to portray her inner thoughts and ham up her very real tragedy for jump scares. It honestly says something really sad about society that this film was even made, but hopefully people will have the sense to boycott this clear flop.

I can’t even imagine how painful and quite frankly exhausting it must be for Sharon Tate’s remaining loved ones to constantly have to see her death reenacted, to have to consistently witness her beautiful live reduced to a single, bloody night. What draws me to Sharon Tate is not the nature of death, but the vast delicacy and beauty of her life. She appeared like a real life Botticelli, something almost too breathtaking to be real. The nature she conveyed was the epitome of love, something gentle and soft and simply mesmerizing. I painted a portrait of her to hang in my room so that I can remember just how delicate and pure human nature can be— not so that I can experience a moment of pain (which is a hallmark of my art) that usually comforts me due to the very heartbreak it reveals.

I understand that time removes us from events, shifts reality into distant memory and distant memory into history and history becomes something that is just played out on the screen or written about in a book. But the stories that we consume, the dirty details that we pour over in the dark of the night belonged to someone. And it doesn’t give us the right to exploit them, no matter the profit. At the end of the day, Sharon Tate was a beautiful soul who deserves to be remembered for her gentle nature. Remember her for who she was and not what happened to her. This is a lesson that is important to grasp in a fuller sense: people are a sum of their parts. Stop defining identities by singular, isolated moments. One thing is for sure, it does the world no favors to revisit this tragic tale to the point of glamorization.