June 10, 2012
1. Both Charlie’s Angels and the Manson girls were guided by mysterious older men named—you know.
2. Charles Townsend, a.k.a. Charlie of Charlie’s Angels, was a de-facto pimp with an apparent harem of young women other than his trio of gun-wielding detectives; Charlie Manson, a.k.a. Jesus Christ, was a convicted pimp with a documented harem of young women other than his trio of knife-wielding assassins.
3. Charlie’s Angels were observed communicating with Charles Townsend via the telephone; Charlie Manson was said to communicate with his girls via telepathy.
4. In the field, as it were, Charlie’s Angels worked alongside Charles Townsend’s male proxy, an ostensible eunuch named Bosley; the Manson girls, in the field, worked alongside Manson’s male proxy, Tex Watson, who, though not a eunuch, strikingly favored the eunuchlike Mr. Spock.
5. Charlie’s Angels solved murders through connect-the-dots clues; the Manson girls left connect-the-dots clues at houses where they murdered all the occupants.
6. Charlie’s Angels were recruited from California law-enforcement agencies, where their capacity for violence was underestimated by clueless colleagues; the Manson girls were recruited from the California suburbs, where their capacity for violence was underestimated by clueless dates, classmates, friends, neighbors, and family members (not to be confused with Family members).
7. Charles Townsend on liberating the Angels from their previous jobs: “I took them away from all that”; Charlie Manson on liberating his girls from their previous lives: “I took them to my garbage dump and fed them and taught them that in love there’s no wrong.”
8. Charlie’s Angels pioneered the big-hair look, achieved with electric blow dryers; the Manson girls pioneered the no-hair look, achieved with electric clippers.
9. Manson instructed his girls to be “slippies,” not hippies, so that they could slip in and out of mainstream society; Charlie’s Angels were instructed to slip and in out of clandestine society while posing as prostitutes, models, dancers, and so on.
10. The Manson girls sometimes hooked up with faded rock stars, such as Dennis Wilson; Charlie’s Angels sometimes hooked up with faded guest stars, such as Fernando Lamas.
11. Charlie’s Angels never doubted that Charles Townsend was in the right when he unleashed them on suspected wrongdoers; the Manson girls never doubted that Manson was in the right when he unleashed them on unsuspecting jet setters.
12. Charlie’s Angels pursued lawbreakers on the streets of L.A. in product-placement Fords; the Manson girls fled from law officers on the outskirts of L.A. in Erwin Rommel-on-peyote dune buggies.
13. The theme song of Charlie’s Angels, written by Henry Mancini, played over a credits sequence that climaxed with an apocalyptic fireball; the theme song of the Manson girls, written by the Beatles, played in their heads as they attempted to induce the apocalypse.
14. Charlie’s Angels had a pet name for adversaries: turkey, as in “Freeze, turkey!”; the Manson girls had a pet name for adversaries: pig, as in “Death to pigs.”
15. No matter where Charlie’s Angels went in the course of busting strangers, they ultimately regrouped at the offices of Charles Townsend Associates; no matter where the Manson girls went in the course of killing strangers, they ultimately regrouped at Spahn Movie Ranch and, later, in jail.
16. Charlie’s Angel’s were frequently seen laughing after making an arrest; the Manson girls were frequently seen laughing after being arrested.
17. Everything said and done by the Manson girls during their trial was approved by Manson; everything said and done by Charlie’s Angels on their show was approved by Aaron Spelling.
18. Charlie’s Angels inspired a generation of American boys to lock themselves in their bathrooms; the Manson girls inspired a generation of American families to lock every door and window in the house.
19. Charlie’s Angels were denounced for undermining progressive values by pursed-lipped feminists; the Manson girls were denounced for personifying progressive values by tinfoil-hatted reactionaries.
20. Pictured below are two instances of a “gleam.” Is it only the professionalism, the superior grooming and lighting, of the first that makes it appear less demonic than the second? Does the first appear less demonic than the second? Really?