The Missed Opportunity of MANSFIELD 66/67
In hope of drumming up some positive commentary for their upcoming film, the producers of MANSFIELD 66/67 contacted members of the hierarchy of the Church of Satan and gave us an opportunity to view it; sadly, all who watched found it disappointing. MANSFIELD 66/67 not only fails to provide a way to separate fact from the speculations presentedâmostly derived from misinformation and sometimes completely baselessâbut it also offers a very limited and shallow portrait of the people involved. The story of Anton LaVey and Jayne Mansfield is told essentially from a tabloid perspective meant to excite and titillate the uninformed, and does not move beyond that. While having John Waters, one of many talking heads, state that a pack of lies can be readily presented after oneâs death (hint, hint), and the opening text stating that this is not to be considered factual, that it actually is such a collection of distorted material makes finding any of the few nuggets of insight practically impossible for anyone not already well-informed on the subjects. I had members send me their reviews which were very frank as well as withering and scathing, but Iâm not going to quote from those. But I can assure you that this amateurish flick wonât appeal to people who value Anton LaVey based on his writings and philosophy. I found that the filmmakers set out to present both Mansfield and LaVey as camp and âcheesyââand as a fan of âbadâ films I understand that. But both Mansfield and LaVey were vivid individuals whose lives embraced much more. I did not know Jayne, but I did know Dr. LaVey well, so my personal knowledge and appreciation for his perspective is one enjoyed by few. He spoke of Jayne as a woman who was quite intelligent and deeply carnal. Her initial contact with Satanism as a means for self-publicity lead her to many philosophical discussions with LaVey as she felt his carnal philosophy enabled her to appreciate all aspects of her personality. She called Satanism âKhalil Gibran with ballsâ and enjoyed LaVey as a mentor who accepted her as-is, and not another opportunistic Svengali trying to shape her into some unreachable ideal. In 1966 through 1967, LaVey was becoming a writer and developing his philosophy as well as growing the Church of Satan. His early âdeviltryâ was meant as an attention-getter, but was also done tongue-in-cheek. He soon reached a point wherein he felt that the âstuffed rat and tombstoneâ approach was done and wanted his philosophy and organization to be taken seriously. The portrait in this film does an injustice to the man who wrote four booksâall of which remain in print and selling well 20 years after his demiseâand who founded a continually growing religion with worldwide adherents, offering a vital philosophy used by thousands of people to find satisfaction. Many of those interviewed clearly knew little about the subjects. John Waters, whose films and writings I admire, said the most insulting thing when he jokingly brought up the idea of goat sacrifices. Now, Satanists love a good joke, but since we were the victims of an actual âSatanic Panicâ wherein Christian evangelists successfully sold the media on the idea that there was a global network of âsatanic cultistsâ killing animals and babiesâsomething I spent many hours debunking in the late 80s and through the 90s in audio, print and video mediaâthatâs not something we Satanists find funny. Thus, another person glibly stating that ROSEMARYâS BABY launched a âsatanic panicâ in films cheapened the term used for something that we take seriouslyâduring this hysteria, there was even a bill floated in Congress to make Satanism illegal. That film and the novel from which it was expertly adapted by Polansky created a trend, but devil-themed films had been made before and have continued to be made, since Satan always sells. The referencing of THE BLACK CAT and EYE OF THE DEVIL were appropriate, but no worthwhile comments were made about these films, both of which were prior to ROSEMARYâS BABY and thus undercut that âsatanic panicâ comment. In fact, Ira Levin was sufficiently influenced by the press accounts of LaVey and the Church of Satan that he incorporated aspects from the articles he read in his book, and then had the publicists for both book and film contact LaVey to get his help in promoting them. The publicists created a press release wherein they suggested that LaVey possibly played âThe Devilâ in the film and asked him to go along with itâand he did. Some other points. In the Church of Satan we state âSatanism demands study, not worship.â Well, if that âSatanism Scholarâ had ever taken a class in the history and practices of Satanism from us, his segments in MANSFIELD 66/67 would have earned him a C-. Also, those inept choral and dance sequences were just disruptive and amateurish, and while some might find them to be amusing in their shoddiness, the comment they seem to make is that this is all the subjects of the film deserveâa sort of clunky, graceless âgreek chorus.â While Kenneth Anger was the only person to be interviewed who knew LaVeyâand they were friends for decadesâAnger has apparently become quite bitter since LaVeyâs passing as heâs often contacted not about his own body of films and writing, but about LaVey. His statement that the âChurch of Satan died with LaVeyâ is simply sour grapes on his part. Of course, this filmâs publicists wouldnât have contacted us if that were true, but with such a statement in the film, giving it any sort of support becomes a moot point, even if any of us did find it of overall valueâwhich we didnât. I enjoyed the brief footage of Tippi Hedren speaking about Togare as I hadnât seen that before, though Iâd heard that story directly from Anton LaVey. Iâm glad the filmmakers used bits of The Brother Buzz Show, which demonstrated that Togare was quite a sensation in San Francisco before LaVey founded the Church of Satan. Benza covered the point that curses are a psychological, not a supernatural, form of retaliation, and others supported that understanding which is a good point about how ritual magic is employed in the Church of Satanâfor psychological effect, not worship. But it struck me as strange that there was no mention of Diane Hegarty, who was LaVeyâs companion and mother of his second daughter. She was with him as the High Priestess of the Church of Satan and had to deal with Jayneâs intrusion into their lives. The poster for the film is retro-cute, but showing LaVey dancing with Jayne is indeed fantasy as LaVey himself never dancedâhe liked to watch ladies dance, but heâd rather be playing the music which moved them. Iâve gone on at length as I wanted to be clear regarding how this film struck me and why I do not offer any endorsement. My thoughts were shared with the filmmakers so they are well aware that their work was deeply disappointing to the members of the Church of Satan who took their time to watch it. And it seems that the folks who made this feel they are celebrating both LaVey and Mansfield in ways they find amusing or attractive and they hope others might share in that. But where Anton LaVey is concerned, for me this focused on a brief time in his life without offering any real insights into a very fascinating fellow who later accomplished a great deal, particularly in his championing of sexual freedom for all orientations and genders at a time when that was something frowned upon by almost all religionsâquite a rare and pioneering attitude for a man born in 1930. That, in addition to busty bombshells, LGTBQ members were embraced as equal in the Church of Satan from its beginning in 1966 is a point not dealt with in any meaningful way in the film.
So, I suggest that MANSFIELD 66/67 is worth avoiding if youâd have to pay for it in any way. Instead, enjoy the posterâthe sole aspect of this production with any charmsâand imagine your own biopic of the wild and fascinating time LaVey and Mansfieldâs lives intersected.
âMagus Peter H. Gilmore
