MovieChat Forums > Helter Skelter (1976) Discussion > Poor Steve Railsback

Poor Steve Railsback

posted 13 years ago by boudica-of-inceni
20 replies | jump to latest

I really do like Steve Railsback and he did a great Manson. It is hard to believe how young he was when he did that and he is excellent and underrated like a lot of great actors. I hope it would not have been because he did so well as Manson that directors were afraid to have him in films. He has worked a lot, but he should be like a front runner type and leading male.

I think it was an early interview with Sharon Stone where she talked about how much she learned from him and how great he is to work with. I still think he'll have his day.

[–] PressedRat36 13 years ago

His "Ed Gein" is still one of the most bone-chilling films I've ever seen. A brilliant performance by, as you so adequately have pointed out, a highly underrated, overlooked American actor. Can never forget Duane Barry, either, from the two episodes of "The X Files."

[–] boudica-of-inceni 13 years ago

I have not seen that yet, but I bet he is good in it. He was 24 years old when he did Manson and it seems that I heard that because he was much younger than Manson, he had the beard because it hid his youth. I am not sure though, but Manson did not always were a beard during the trial. I was 2 when the murders where committed and then about in the first or second grade. My birthday is the last month of the year.

I hear Bill Mosley is suppose to be playing Manson. I think he is the only one who could really do justice to Steve's performance. He does bring a real professionalism to anything he is in. Very under-used and under-rated.

[–] ceebeegee 11 years ago

Duane Barry! Yes, he was terrific in that two-episode arc.

[–] snowleopard 13 years ago

If you haven't already, you should check out the movie the Stuntman, where he stars alongside Peter O'Toole. It's a terrific film, and Railsback does an excellent job.

[–] sage2112 8 years ago

I bought the stuntman with high hopes - man that movie is terrible.

[–] mrmathexpert4 8 years ago

I hate that movie. Terribly overrated.

[–] wallacesawyer 13 years ago

Aside from a few good films, he did appear in a lot of bad ones and bombs. LIFEFORCE was a good one, but it bombed.

http://www.freewebs.com/demonictoys/

[–] prettyD2368 12 years ago

How was Railsback not nominated for and Emmy for this movie!

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

LIFEFORCE ... hahaha, the only thing good about that movie that I can remember decades later was the naked women, well, topless anyway.

[–] AudioQuest 11 years ago

Having watching this movie many times and now having watched numerous Manson interviews on Youtube, my opinion on Railsbeck's performance has changed. He is good, but a little over-the-top on his portrayal. He comes off a little more whiney and less intelligent than Manson. Yes, Manson is a kook, but he's not stupid. The best I can describe it is: Railsbeck plays Manson like school kid who knows he has done something wrong and eggs on those accusing him to prove it.

I dislike the 2004 remake movie, but Jeremy Davies portrayal is closer to the real deal.

What's a knockout like you doing in a computer-generated gin joint like this?

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

" Railsbeck plays Manson like school kid who knows he has done something wrong and eggs on those accusing him to prove it."

I like the analogy....
Actually, Manson is smart, but all of his life, he was like the school kid who egged people on. Then, when he was blamed for these wrong doings, he'd always say it had nothing to do with him.
Personally, I think that Railsback did a fine job.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 7 years ago

Jeremy Davies was a little too enamoured of his subject quite honestly. He got to the point with it that when he auditioned for and got the role of Snow in Stephen Soderberg's "Solaris" (2002), Soderberg said that he kept channeling Manson. This was on the audio commentary on the dvd. Actually Railsback was closer to the original. Davies portrayed Manson like he was omnipotent. Railsback played him like the snot-nosed punk he was and is still. Manson isn't intelligent. You've bought into the hype. I've been with this case since 1976 and every time one of the killers comes up for parole, I and others write our letters expressing why they shouldn't be paroled. Manson is nothing but a thug. He thinks that if he hams it up, people will eventually say that he had nothing to do with the crimes. However, they fail to note that he knew the prior occupants of the Tate-Polanski house, and had known of the LaBianca's when attending a very loud and noisy party at Harold True's house at 3301 1/2 Waverly Drive. Leno LaBianca came down to the house to get them to knock it down. He was turned away at Cielo by Jay Sebring and Voytek Frykowski and by Rudi Altobelli. He was/is like a petulant child. Railsback got him down perfectly. Davies played him like this iconic "Hitlarian" like figure, only Manson is/has never been iconic. He's just a thug who wasn't intelligent enough to do things without a party.

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

Well said!
When i said Manson was smart, I was thinking in terms of his ability to con people. He obviously learned that in the streets and in prison. He has been locked up pretty much throughout his life.

" He's just a thug who wasn't intelligent enough to do things without a party."

So true. He needs his audience! He's a real con man with the right one. He had the perfect audience in San Francisco in the 60's.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 7 years ago

As for "con man" Manson, he wasn't even good at that. He took a bunch of disenfranchised people and taught them to kill and act aberrant to society's norms. Isn't that what was happening in the 60s already? It just so happens that he trained a bunch of people to kill people who did nothing else other than living their lives. Manson and the rest got lucky, that was all. They managed to carve out a place in history by virtue of the fact of who they picked: Namely Sharon Tate and the echelon she and Roman Polanski traveled in. Without Sharon, Roman and the Folger Coffee company, he'd have been nothing more than a thug with a syndicate. And not a very good one.

Seriously when you look at it Jim Jones killed more in Guyana than Manson did, but for some reason Manson has more "street cred" than Jones simply because of the mode of the murders as well as the people he killed. There's such an abstract mentality to what Jones did and the whole People's Temple "thing" that people can't actually grasp that, so they latch onto Manson because he's accessible. His brand of crazy is accessible. And what I meant about the "do things without a party" is that he was so noisy about what he did that it almost made him this celebrity murderer. He likes to say that he didn't do anything in terms of the actual killing, and there are a ton of people who think he should be released because he "didn't do anything". They forget that he personally shot Black Panther Bernard Crowe. He personally hacked off Gary Hinman's ear with a machete. He targeted the two homes he did because they shunned him. Junk yard dog becomes a bull in a China shop. Someone without an imagination.

[–] db20db (17235) 7 years ago

You make some good points here about how the crimes were perceived. That is why I mentioned the Jeffrey Mac Donald murders which were strangely linked to the Manson murders because of the foundation of his defense.

Yet, they weren't as newsworthy until years later when the mini-series, Fatal Vision, came to television.

I personally find those murders more reprehensible. MacDonald was a talented surgeon, a man supposedly dedicated to healing and saving lives, yet he butchered his own family, a pregnant wife and two helpless young daughters. It's really ironic that he would compare his behavior to savage, drug-crazed hippies.

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 7 years ago

As for MacDonald, he needs to sit down and take his lumps. He murdered his two little girls and his pregnant wife for no reason, really. The only reason that case is linked to Manson at all is because there was a magazine on the floor with an article on the case. "Acid is groovy kill the pigs" and the scrawling the word on the headboard in his wife's blood was disgusting.

I'd have to say though that the book made the case famous. The mini-series didn't. He thinks by virtue of his "magnificence" he should get out of prison. He's no Steve Avery or Brendan Dassey.

[–] NoOneOnEarth (38) 7 years ago

Exactly, he wasn't a smart guy. I'm pretty sure he had a low IQ and was a petty thug.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Manson's IQ might surprise you. Watch any of his interviews. Even with any of his nonsensical ramblings, there is an intelligence and unique mind at work.

[–] NoOneOnEarth (38) 7 years ago

I mean I believe he had literally a below average IQ, if I remember correctly. And any crazy person that babbles on and on all day will eventually say things that sound insightful.

[–] brux (14724) 7 years ago

I think you can qualify Manson as stupid. To pick some criminal and somehow impute that they are smart because they are notorious is foolish.