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 4

Mike: You have the power to settle this.

Charles: No. An avuncular test is inconclusive. It's a no-win situation. Let's say I do have an avuncular test. All it can do is indicate that you might be related, or you might not be related. It's a very narrow pendulum: it doesn't swing yes or no, it just totters around 12 o'clock. If it says, 'Yeah, you're possibly related', the Wallaces can triumph. If it says, 'Probably not', they can say, 'It's just an avuncular test: it doesn't prove anything'. They'll keep on with their claims. How does it behove anyone to have an inconclusive test?

Mike: It must be very difficult for you. How do you feel about the film's lack of grace? Has it affected your views of your fellow Christians?

Charles: No. This is a tempest in a teapot. David Di Sabatino wants this film to be controversial. It's nothing, it's insignificant: he can barely get anybody to show up to the movie theatres. He in fact has to rent out the movie theatres to screen his own film. Hardly anybody sees it; half the people who do just laugh and say, 'What a bunch of garbage.' Some people are David Di Sabatino fans, and they totally love the movie. I don't think it's particularly well done: it doesn't have any dynamic. It's not a good story, it has no third act. When I saw it, I laughed out loud several times. There were some pretty funny parts: 'Wow, they missed the mark on that one'. It doesn't make me doubt my fellow Christians. I'm disappointed in Sabatino. He has money and ability and editing facilities to make good art, and he's not - he's just wallowing in the gutter.

Mike: The Bible tells us not to gossip. Are we gossipping?

Charles: We're speaking out. The person who's gossiping is Randy Stonehill, and Sabatino, a couple other people in the film. They're the ones who are gossiping. Is it bad for us to reply? The Bible says we should turn our other cheek, but it also says we should rush to the aid of a brother who's being attacked. I think that's what we're doing here. I don't think we're gossiping. We're not compelled to turn the other cheek, because it's not us being attacked, it's someone else. We're allowed to discuss that, and defend him.

Mike: The layout of Allen Flemming's website is very similar to LarryNorman.com.

Charles: The layout is the same, because it's the exact same HTML template. Allen thought it would be funny if the first page is a mock-up of Sabatino's website, and the rest is the same artwork, same JPEGs, from Larry Norman's site.

Mike: The one thing that makes me uneasy is that the site gets into personal attacks on Sabatino. It's not turning the other cheek as Larry and the family have done over the years.

Charles: Is he being attacked? Doesn't it just say a list of things he's done? He's called and threatened members of my family, or emailed threats to us. I linked to some postings of correspondence he's had with other people. I don't know that we're attacking him, or that Flemming is attacking him. I'll have to re-look at the site. But I don't care: I think it's fine to attack him. He's attacking us.

Mike: But that makes you as bad as him.

Charles: It doesn't make me, it makes the website as bad as him. I'll have to look at the page: I don't know where he's attacked. Flemming writes the stuff, I supply the information. I'm working with Allen on this website. And I don't mind attacking Sabatino. He's done nothing the last two years except attack my family. I don't know why my family is fair game. He keeps on talking about the Norman family. It's actually me that he has a problem with. Who's my family? He doesn't even know my family, but he's attacking us, calling us all liars. That was OK: we were quiet over two years, since Larry died, and enough is enough. He's not going away, he just keeps on insulting, calling us liars and all sorts of things. Maybe this website will get him to stop. It's getting tiring now after two years of attacks.

Mike: Someone in the chat room says you don't want to take the DNA test because you're Larry's son.

Charles: Yeah, that's another rumour. I don't know if Sabatino started it, but he's certainly been perpetuating it. Sabatino has been telling people in private quite a while that I'm actually Larry's son, I'm not his brother. He just said that on a radio show. I brought it up on a radio interview; Sabatino was being interviewed and I called in and said, 'What about this rumour you're talking about? You're telling people I'm Larry's son.' He said, 'I never said that publicly!' I said, 'You said it privately'. So I got him to admit he's been saying. I provided my birth certificate to Flemming. He made a scan of it, put it on the website. Sabatino, instead of saying, 'Maybe I was wrong', he says, 'It's fake! That's not a real birth certificate!' I don't know what to do short of meeting him at the county clerk's office in Santa Clara, California where I was born and have a clerk hand over an authenticated birth certificate. If anyone would like to verify that I am indeed Larry's brother, I'll drive down to California if anyone wants to meet me at the county clerk's office, we'll get an authorised copy of the birth certificate. You can see my parents listed plainly as Joe and Margaret Norman.

Showing page 5 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.