Charles Norman: Talking about Larry Norman and the Fallen Angel documentary

Friday 1st June 2012

Mike Rimmer interviewed CHARLES NORMAN back in 2010 about the controversial Fallen Angel documentary



Continued from page 1

Mike: The implication is that Larry stole Sarah from Randy.

Charles: That is conveyed in the movie, and a lot of people who see the movie come away with that idea - which I think was the filmmaker's intention. But when cornered and asked directly about it, they say, 'No, Larry didn't steal Randy's wife'. They'll both admit it. They've been asked publicly at question and answer sessions, why is that in the movie? Why does the movie imply that Larry stole Randy's wife? They'll both stand there, Randy and Di Sabatino, and say, 'The movie doesn't say that, it doesn't imply that at all'. So if that's the impression viewers get, the filmmaker certainly doesn't agree with that, so I don't know what to say. What is interesting, at the last screening in Nashville, Allen Fleming, the biographer, was there; someone had asked Randy Stonehill, 'How would you like a movie made about your life?' Stonehill said, 'I'm an open book. I don't mind if my flaws were exposed, that's fine.' A few minutes later Allen Fleming said, 'During this time the movie implies Larry was carrying on some kind of affair with Sarah, you were having affairs with three women'. Stonehill said, 'That's a little too much fellowship for me, pal! Heh heh heh!' He didn't want to talk about that. Larry wasn't having an affair with Sarah. Randy was in fact dallying with other people, but that's not talked about. They would rather accuse Larry based on no evidence.

Larry and Charles Norman
Larry and Charles Norman

Mike: Tell me a bit about your own life. You've had problems with drugs?

Charles: No.

Mike: Have you ever been in rehab?

Charles: No. Why? Is that a rumour going round?

Mike: Yes, it's alleged that you had problems with drugs and your brother paid for you to have rehab.

Charles: No, I never heard that one! That's a good one!

Mike: So that's not true at all?

Charles: Not true. I do like Blue Ribbon beer: that's about the hardest thing I ever ingested. I'm an ex-smoker. But as far as drugs: no.

Mike: Larry Norman is the father of Christian rock, which makes you the uncle of Christian rock.

Charles: Yeah, that was funny.

Mike: I've had Jennifer Wallace on [the Rimmerama radio programme] telling me she had a long relationship with Larry when he was touring. You were on the tour, so when did you first meet Jennifer Wallace?

Charles: Apparently I met her in Australia in 1985. I don't remember that, but I guess she had something to do with the tour. I met so many people - I was 20 years old, and I was meeting dozens, hundreds of people. What I do remember is that she has confused some dates, and changed her story around, when she talks about being with Larry. I spoke to her on the phone and she said that she became pregnant in England after a tour of Russia. There was one gig in Tallinn, Estonia: there wasn't a tour of Russia. I believe she was around there.

Showing page 2 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6


Reader Comments

Posted by Georgia in Connecticut @ 19:12 on Sep 5 2018

I'm sad to see "siblings" fighting, tattling, all that baby stuff. Artist get a bad rap for being self indulged for this very reason. I hope the person/peoples who made this film apologize to Larry's family and firstbto Jesus whose servant Larry was and purportedly they are. It's heartbreaking to see all this. What is grace in the face of all this?



Posted by StevenX in Pacific Beach @ 14:47 on May 18 2018

Wow. How often do you get the chance to stumble onto a cult page?



Posted by Ben Coonen in Huntington Beach, CA @ 05:06 on Aug 8 2017

I have yet to see the movie. I want to be thankful for each believer in Christ, including Larry Norman who has been such a blessing to me with his music and Randy Stonehill, also a wonderful testimony to God's grace through his life and music, and those also who put this film together.

Although, I will remain open to hear what ever is put out there, just having the term "Fallen Angel" connected to the title I have clear missgivings over. Fallen Angels would include Lucifer and those who followed him in rebellion against God. I don't believe there is redemption for them.

To link Larry Norman to such a status as that, I find highly suspect. I have read some of David DiSabatino's words. He suggests this movie is done for a just or noble cause.(

It's very hard for me to imagine that he knows for a fact that Larry Norman will not be redeemed. To color this "(so called) documentary in that language logically speaking would only be proper if it were accurate. If your motivation is that you are hard pressed to get the truth out, being inaccurate and being so flagrant by condemning in this manner baffles me, and casts doubt on the accuracy of the movie and the purity of his motives.

Is he making money off this documentary or are all the profits being donated?

If he has profited off of the movie than that would further raise my suspicions.



Posted by Mike Chivalette in Kansas @ 15:10 on Jul 27 2017

I grew up with the Jesus movement and first heard Larry Norman at Expo 72 in Dallas. I found his vinyl for $1.80 and trust me....the lyrics depict a person with a transformed life. God only knows the sins we hide from others but one thing is clear...those who made this documentary after his death are both cowardly and godless in their endeavor to promote their shameful ways. Matthew 18: 15-17 speaks clearly to this. God knew Larry's heart and I trust Larry knew Jesus as he proclaimed through his music.



Posted by Joe in Florida @ 16:06 on May 16 2017

The people that made this movie did it for no other reason than jealousy.

The truth is Larry Norman will probably go down as the most Famous and influential Christian Musician Ever.

The people on this documentary who are making claims that he committed "Sins" are laughable .. Jesus says he who is without Sin cast the first stone...so I guess they must be blameless in their own site but not Gods because Jealousy and slander are sins.

They go so far out of their way to throw stones at a Dead man all the while claiming it is for Christian purposes? Really... to do what? They are not fooling anyone.

It is clear they are so salty about the fact they never really gained the fame or had the impact on the world that Larry did. They have never let it go and harbor a really tremendous amount of jealousy.



Posted by Tim in Oklahoma @ 05:13 on Dec 24 2016

What was the purpose of the film? Revenge?

I find that when two people are telling two versions of the same story, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle or nowhere at all. That said, I have no allegiance to Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, or anybody else featured in the film. I listened to Randy Stonehill back in the day but didn't become familiar with Larry Norman until the mid to late 90's. So my question remains; what in the world was the purpose of this movie?

As I sat and watched the film, I was certainly disappointed (though not entirely shocked) at the stories of Larry's actions, but I had an absolute pit in my stomach over the fact that a guy like Randy Stonehill (along with some of the others) would agree to sit down like that and take shots at the guy in interviews. This wasn't a calling to account. This was just gossip and revenge. I don't get that at all. ???



Posted by Ian Steward in Weston Super Mare Uk @ 19:03 on Sep 28 2016

I am so grateful to Larry Norman for his music and giving up a career of millions for his faith. Whilst being on the same bill as Joplin, The Doors, Hendrix etc he could of ,like all rock stars gone down the road of sex, drugs n rock n roll and make lots of money and no one would of thought anything of it. But instead he sang about Christ with creative rock, blues,and acoustic rock with creative song writing, only to receive rejection from the church as they thought rock n roll n long hair was evil and rejection from the world as they thought it was to 'christian' although respecting his talents. What he achieved is incredible considering those times in the early 70's. I was 14 years old when my sister brought home In Another Land, there were no record shops where I lived in a country village with cows n fields, there was no Christian music much good or relevent to the times to listen to. I must of played The Rock that doesnt roll , And why dont you look into Jesus of the record they blow me away, with scorching Jon Linn solos. I now play Rock that Doesnt Roll in a band im in in a selection of blues rock songs we play. I say to the sad critics of Larry Norman, he reached thousands of people with the gospel through creative rock.blues and songwriting,on his own stepping out, more than you ever will, when all you can do is make a sad film to make a few bucks out of, when you could of put that money into a film to spread the gospel as Larry Norman did through his music. And just in case you hav'nt read the Bible, The Lord said, He who is without sin cast the first stone. Larry Norman, I salute you



Posted by weather in nashville @ 12:26 on May 14 2016

I remember about 1992, finding a vinyl of Only Visiting this Planet in a Goodwill store in Springfield Oregon. Took it home, first song...."sipping whiskey from a paper cup...." it was magic to my ears, being a dead head now born again since 87, wow! Finally some christian music that had the vibe I wanted.
Larry could have been a majorly huge secular success. He was at the right place at the right time, but chose to serve Jesus with his artistry. I also know the many ways the demons work, to smear people thru resources of notariety. In the end, it will all be revealed who is who.
BTW, Charlie doesn't need a DNA because the accusers are not God judge and jury. I can't understand why people would be so enfactuated about the life of another. Do they not have a life of their own to live? How do they make the time for all of that of the past?



Posted by Craig Blann in Fort Madison Iowa @ 21:48 on Jan 9 2016

Look...I was a Larry Norman fan but I trust Randy and his wife Sarah. Randy has a genuine faith and I saw him in Concert and his faith and Spirit agreed with mine. When I saw Larry in concert I felt he was negative and felt a bad spirit with him. Something just didn't add up with him... just like this interview with Charles. God is the final judge but I hope for Larry's sake his faith was real and not fake!



Posted by Jim Walsh in Chicago @ 14:12 on Sep 28 2014

Naming someone in your will (Daniel) when it is patently false makes no sense at all. I don't care what their (Larry and Charles) assertions are re: legal implications. Also, Charles' reluctance to submit to DNA testing due to liability is very suspect. If you love your brother and want to settle this once and for all, it isn't worth it for you to sacrifice your limited exposure for him? I would sure do that for my brother.



The opinions expressed in the Reader Comments are not necessarily those held by Cross Rhythms.

Add your comment

We welcome your opinions but libellous and abusive comments are not allowed.












We are committed to protecting your privacy. By clicking 'Send comment' you consent to Cross Rhythms storing and processing your personal data. For more information about how we care for your data please see our privacy policy.