Sharon Tate, Historical Accuracy, And Hollywood

Hilary Duff in The Haunting of Sharon Tate. Image courtesy of Katrina Wan PR.

Katrina Wan PR

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the murder of actress Sharon Tate, and Hollywood has certainly set out to examine that with a trio of different titles examining the events of 1969. The first film to arrive is the independent horror feature, The Haunting of Sharon Tate, directed by Daniel Farrands. One of the more audacious takes on the Tate killings you'll see, there's an air of respectability within this pulpy, grindhouse take on Tate's life and demise. The Tate murder remains a topic as fresh today as it was fifty years ago, and with movies set to come out throughout the summer on the subject the question of authenticity versus entertainment crops up. Where is the line to be drawn between capturing an audiences' attention, telling them a story, while remaining respectful of the real figures at the center.

When the trailer for The Haunting of Sharon Tate debuted, social media was simultaneously confused and mystified. A fictional tale about the last three days in Tate's (played by Disney actress Hilary Duff) life? With Quentin Tarantino's more opulent Once Upon a Time in Hollywood in people's minds, uneven comparisons were made. The finished product is certainly fantastical in the sense that it takes a story with the real-life figures and creates something completely fictional, yet it's evident to see the passion on-display. Inspired by an actual interview Tate made about foreseeing her own demise, Farrands saw that as a chance to "focus on Sharon Tate as a human being." With that in mind he set out to tell a film that intentionally blurs the lines between fact and fiction, questioning the audiences' own perceptions of what a movie is supposed to do.

While speaking to actor Jonathan Bennett, who plays Jay Sebring in the film, he admits it's tough to "balance" the two as there's the need to be respectful and prevent claims of exploitation, but there's also a strong desire to tell an audience something to capture their attention. Farrands himself admits he never wanted to "make another movie that focused on, glorified, paid much attention to whatsoever to the Charles Manson family and Manson in particular;" if anything both he and Bennett say The Haunting of Sharon Tate "glorifies" the actress and those murdered, which is fascinating. Too often biopics, as they almost always are, fall into two categories: ones that either go too far in the need to portray everything in their lives or those that don't go far enough and end up sugarcoating in the process. 

For Farrands, even though there are references to the numerous elements in Tate's life at the time - from her dog, Dr. Sapirstein to including actual quotes spoken by the actress - the movie was always going to be a guessing game considering no one knows what truly happened in the three days leading up to Tate's demise. When asked about his feelings on the backlash surrounding the film, and his role as a male director helming a movie about an oft-exploited woman, Farrands is candid and calls the backlash "surprising." "I do think now because of the years that have gone by, the notoriety around this...it's become part of our social culture. It becomes a larger than life story" and that does bring up the question of when has enough time passed to examine something in a way that's not the standard biopic? Because The Haunting of Sharon Tate never sets out to become a biopic looking at Tate's life - it wears its fiction warm on its sleeve - is it already doomed to failure or are movie s that posit alternative theories just as valid?

What Farrands and Bennett both say when speaking about the film is that it's "cathartic." For Farrands it's a chance to "right wrongs," giving Tate the action and opportunity to change her destiny, even if it's on celluloid. And after watching the film it's hard to disagree. In a world where fantasy is meant to put a smile on our face, how is it not engaging and thrilling to finally see a movie wherein a real-life figure gets a chance to be the hero in their own story, regardless of what we know about the actual events? "It's like wish fulfillment, we wish for that," says Farrands and that's not inherently bad. 

With another two Manson/Tate-centric movies still to come, these questions will continue to come up. Watching these films becomes a lesson in how we approach movies. Are we meant to derive any entertainment from something we know to be inherently false? I'd say yes but it's all reliant on context. The Haunting of Sharon Tate falls more into the realm of historical fiction than anything passing for true. If anything, it forces us to look at what constitutes historical fiction in a filmic landscape continuing to question how real is too real.

The Haunting of Sharon Tate comes to theaters and VOD on April 5th.