110 replies to this topic

[mewsical]

I choose NOT to and for a very good reason.
Nobody ever let Oliver Stone off the hook by blaming his producers so why should Tom DiCillo get that courtesy.

The Doors (as producers) are culpable it's true as they knew better and should have spoken out at an early stage but the lure of what this film could bring in terms of sales to the back catalogue and influx of new converts seems to have outwieghed any standing up for Historical accuracy.

Tom DiCillo put his name on the film in big letters, Tom DiCillo wrote the narrative which was utter pigswill and Tom DiCillo was responsible for the finished project.

So far you have blamed Johnny Depp, the husbands of two women who sat behind you at the showing you attended and now Dick Wolf.

Your blinkered view seems a bit strange....has Tom got one of your relatives hidden in his basement as hostage?    

Oliver Stone was one of the producers, as well as Bill Graham (yeah, that Bill Graham), and you took pot shots at Bill at your own peril!  Dead and gone now, so go nuts.  

I didn't blame the WYS editors, I thought they did a pretty good job considering how little time they had to work with.  

Yes, I do think blame should be apportioned to the producers - Jeff Jampol, Paul Jankowsky, Dick Wolf, etc.  

Tom did NOT start this project from scratch.  There was a prior director, and I believe he is also one of the producers, on the movie.  He had to leave the project to get back to teaching at Stanford.  They were running waaaaaay behind the schedule, and Tom had to come in and try and wrestle things into some sort of shape, and then go out and promote the thing.  Maybe, if he had been the initial director, things might have gone in a slightly different direction.  

No, no relatives in the basement with Tom - he's off shooting a new film, isn't he? - but perhaps because I've lived so long in Hollywood, I've listened to this sort of dissection of movies for many years.  Ultimately, it's a done deal.  You can't undo it.  It seems to me that there is about a 50-50 split from the fan-base as to the ultimate value of the thing, but to constantly drub on Tom as if he went and stuck a weapon in the faces of the Producers, and told them they were going to go his way or the highway is never the way it works in movie-making.  You just hope that the producer and director don't end up suing each other or the director asks to have his name taken off the movie because the producers messed with the film so much the director no longer recognizes his work.

I've mentioned this elsewhere, but once again Randy Johnson, who wrote the original script for the Oliver Stone movie, sued through the Writers' Guild, because his work was butchered by Olly to a point where it was no longer the script he wrote.  He also wanted to present a different Jim Morrison, but Stone insisted on the dark side - to the detriment of the truth - and if that's what the public wants, it's unfortunate, but it's also a fact.

[mewsical]

What I am going to continue to tell you is that Tom does not bear all the blame for this movie, everyone involved does, and blame is to be apportioned accordingly.  The producers hired Tom to do this movie, not the other way around.  Therefore, he is employed by them to bring their vision of the movie to life.  Maybe they're on the same page, maybe they aren't.  Either way, Tom had to work within the construct of what the producers had in mind.  In the case of this documentary,
I believe - and I seem to recall this from sources - that this had been in production for a couple of years before they switched directors.  Also, the budget was stretched very thin at that point.  Tom certainly didn't make pots o' loot.

Like I said before, Jim the drunken rock star is what the public expects to see, and that's what they're getting.  Until there is a public outcry - "We want the decent, upstanding poet guy!" - all you're ever going to get is the drunk.  When folks can go to Paris in July and December, and stay away from alcohol, instead going to the grave and kneeling reverentially, praying for his soul, we'll have a sea-change.  I am not holding my breath.  

In entertainment, you give the public what it wants, not what you want, and especially with this subject matter.

Interesting last sentence there in your post.  Many a true word is spoken in jest.

[mewsical]

What I am going to continue to tell you is that Tom does not bear all the blame for this movie, everyone involved does, and blame is to be apportioned accordingly.
Well get on with it Sally....I will take Tom DiCillo and you can look after the other guys  

Tom certainly didn't make pots o' loot for this.
Every cloud has a silver lining

So now you are telling us he was forced to portray Morrison as an attention seeking drunk because of public expectation. He had wanted to tell the true story of The Doors but we the public would not allow that as we wanted drunken debauchery and drummers breaking out in rashes.

Not much of a film maker is he if he listens to the public.
The Doors should have gotten an actual film director instead of a weak weasly wanabee who pandered to the public....

Personally I was not seeking Saint Jim Morrison the erudite poet simply the truth about my favourite band and it's lead singer.
Yes he was an alcoholic and not that nice a person sometimes but the shallow inadequate that Tom DiCillo was publically forced to portray along with his non existent Doors Historical research was unfair coming from 'E! True Hollywood Story' let alone the official Doors documentary.
All I expected was a semblance of truth some decent research and a film that did not give one vertigo wondering why the footage was so badly edited.

In entertainment, you give the public what it wants, not what you want, and especially with this subject matter.
Thankfully the vast majority of proper documentary film makers do not adhere to this code and actually make films that educate and are well researched and presented.
Sadly we got an idiot that sucked up to the public.

Let's just assume, arguendo, as they say in law, that Tom had written the original script, profound and thoughtful, portraying Jim as this misunderstood genius with the soul of a poet, kind to his mother and father, a humanitarian who escorted little old ladies across the street, etc. , and Tom went with this script, to try and get some lolly to make said movie.  Once potential producers had stopped snorting with laughter, he would have been escorted out by security and branded as a possible madman.  

Most documentary film makers, with the exception of the celebrated Ken Burns, struggle manfully against collapsing budgets, difficult distributors, etc.  It's a woefully-underfunded area of filmmaking, and my hat (the red one) is off to those who get things done, while struggling against mighty odds.  Documentaries are not usually made with entertainment in mind, but to provide information or illumination about the subject matter.  We don't know how good or bad the research was because we rely on the the film-makers to inform us.  

This film was risky material to begin with, and the producers sought to control it from inception, to fit in with what they thought the public wanted to see as well as their own vision, and a "get Olly!" mentality from at least one of them.  Tom came in late in the game, and managed to bring the film in.  It's been nominated for an Emmy, and, btw, Tom is not credited.   Only the producers.  That should tell you a great deal about who has the real power here.

[gotothelight]

True enough Dianne and that's the choice of everyone who watches or listens or reads.
Why is it important?
Why is it important to read a book twice or listen to an album more than once or go to an art gallery repeatedly and look at a painting or read a poem often rather than simply read it and forget.
Simply to appreciate it. Art is important like that surely?
How many times have I listened to The Doors   God knows.
Why do I do it as I have heard them and remember what they sound like?
If the film was a great documentary that gave the band the due they deserve would we not expect to watch it again.
My point is simply that to really appreciate anything good or bad one must look more than once or listen with more than a cursory ear.
Looking with a superficial eye is fine if that's all you seek but we come to this forum as fans with more than a superficial eye and ear and listen and look repeatedly at this band we admire and speak often about them and repeat what we say many times over the years in different forms.
Why should this film not be scrutinised in this way.
Of course Densmore and company could not give a rats ass whether we like stuff as long as we give them our money. But I do not really care that much either what he or any of his colleagues think, as I don't come here for them. I enjoy the cut and thrust with the walking wallets rather than the objects of our affections.
Give me the company of a couple of Doors fans in a bar any day to the company of that trio and their hangers on.
And that's why it is important to gain knowledge and express opinion. Being a Doors fan no different from any other walk of life. We are the personification of Morrison's Feast Of Friends surely as we are drawn to this place out of our affection for four musicians who have not played together since 1970.
Allowing the film to just pass into some obscurity without discussing it in the same way we would discuss The Doors first album does a disservice to the art behind The Doors.
Of course the Doors would prefer we just bought the DVD rather than actually express a thought especially one that exposed the flaws in the finished product.
Why should this film not be scrutinised by Doors fans and looked at in minutiae in the same way many other Doors related art is looked at.
The appreciation of the art is what allows us to mingle here and find common ground when we are a disparate group of people.
That appreciation does not always mean that we should look upon it favourably.
Negative appreciation can be as important as positive appreciation.
If not what is the point of places such as this.


No worries Sacha That's why we are here surely.
Don't feel you have to come up with negative stuff   Maybe you will like it.
Some of my best friends did just that.
That's the point of the thread to gather both points of view and argue the toss both ways.
I argue a lot with Doors fans as I enjoy the debate and hopefully plenty more will join in.
Passion for something is indeed a fine virtue.
One of my passions is music. I enjoy it and will talk about it any time.
The Doors are my favourite band so it's something I like talking about debating and arguing about.
Hopefully the thead will grow as more people watch the film. Either just once like Dianne or repeatedly.
It's all good!

I understand what you're saying Alex... but frankly.. I only had to watch the documentary once to know it was bad. Does it deserve discussion? Absolutely.. but that doesn't mean I want to sit through it again. I don't for a second think the film should just pass into obscurity, but I also don't think it should go down in Doors history as anything more than a poorly researched, agenda-slanted attempt at making more money through sensationalism.

[darkstar]

There is a scene in the Stone film that shows the characters of Jim & Pam in a hotel room.  An argument between the two characters starts just after the Jim character says the line. "Y'see -- I lied to you. I really love Fame."

Interesting because as we know Di Cillo offered the same scenerio in WYS.

1991 Shooting Script For "The Doors" - A film by Oliver Stone
http://sfy.ru/?script=doors_1991

[Helen]

Oops - see below

[Helen]

1) Factual errors & poor research:

The Doors hired 'professional drinkers' to keep Morrison on track?
Bit disrespectful to guys like Bob Neuwirth who was a bit more than some piss head who sold his time to look after alcoholics.

We then move on to WFTS the bands 3rd LP. The band realises that Jim is becoming difficult.
Celebration is canned and the band fill out the album with unused songs from the first album.
No they did not.
They rerecorded two songs from the original demo and the rest was either new stuff or taken from Jim's many journals.
The unused songs from the debut were Moonlight Drive and Indian Summer neither appears on WFTS.
HILY is suggested by Jac Holzman's 10 year old son Adam and Jac has to persuade the band to record the song as they think it too old.

The story about how LMF developed as a hit was not quite true either and these little inaccuracies really spoil the film.

The History of the band is ignored or trivialised in favour of highlighting a Morrison drinking binge for example the important early days of 1966 which was the Doors most defining year is reduced to a few remarks about The Fog and The Whisky and the fact Holzman turned up and signed them.

The first royalty cheque is mentioned which although of interest was not as important as some aspects of the story and seems like a sop to Ray manzarek who made a big deal out of it in his book and on his website.

Morrison Hotel barely rates a mention, other than it went Gold in two days, as we are running short of time so we move on to LAW the centre piece of which is some fixation with Mr Mojo Risin being an anagram of something or other.
Why this is such a big deal is never explained.

"As of this date none of thier songs has been used in a car commercial"
True but they did do one for a tyre

Here is a question and anwer thing from Tom Dicillos blog. I've underlined the bit of interest. I can think of better ways of researching than asking fans on blogs!

Cyn (Jul 29th, 2009 at 9:52 pm)

Spent a lot of time with Pamela Courson and a circle of "groupies" (Zappa's GTOs included) with whom she was acquainted back in my college days, and I've always wanted this story to be told with real compassion and "authenticity." I'm looking forward to this! It'll be slightly painful, but…it sounds like the real deal. Thank you.

Tom (Jul 30th, 2009 at 2:21 pm)

Hey Cyn,
Nice to hear from you. I did try to tell this story as authentically as I could, with regard to everyone–not just Jim. I know Jim's relationship with Pam was complex. I know there is a whole film to be made just on the two of them.
But, I tried to capture something truthful about them. It is tricky because both of them have entered the realm of myth at this point. I've discovered some people prefer to wander that fantasy land.
I'm much more interested in them both as real human beings.
Again, the film's main focus is on the band and their music so veering too far away from that into the day to day workings of Jim and Pam's relationship would have thrown things off balance.
Quick question: there is some debate on the exact date Jim left LA to join Pam in Paris. Do you know anything about this?
best,
Tom

[Helen]

2) Misrepresentations of Jim Morrison

From an interview with Tom DiCillo
Q. Right, right. You mentioned in the narration that the solitary writing life didn't have the same kick as being onstage.

A. It was an addiction, I mean, and how could it not be? You know, you get that kind of adulation from the world, and his was different, because he wasn't a teeny-bopper. It was a whole different persona, one that people have emulated to this day.


Once again for someone not wanting to go down the road of speculation he sure is speculating here. How do we know Morrison was addicted to fame? He certainly spent time wandering the writers path and grew bored with being a Door soon enough. Of course the fame would appeal to a young man in the 60s but there is no evidence to suggest Morrison was addicted to it. The evidence I have seen this last 40 years suggests the opposite to me.
A ridiculous comment from a ridiculous man who according to him, Morrison never expected fame nor craved it but was born for it and was addicted to it.
As you said Tom it was a complex idea and a rather speculative one as well.
So it's lucky you did not want to go down the road of speculation isn't it.

Also from the same blog as my last post:

Mario (Jan 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 am)

Tom, you said something in one of your interviews, "Jim was a boy" (or something to that effect). I think that simple observation has been lost in the celebrity machine. I doubt many of us would want our 20's examined under an electron microscope, I know I sure wouldn't.

Never mind the critics dude.

"Take a walk with me and everything will turn out fine"

[/size][size="3"]Tom (Jan 26th, 2009 at 10:53 pm)

Hey Mario,
I didn't realize the truth of what I'd said about Jim until you just pointed it out.
We all forget he was only 27 when he moved on. Subtract 5 and he was only 22 when the Doors blew open.
It was his boyish innocence that made a real impression on me in looking at all this footage. He was like a 12 year old; an eternal juvenile delinquent.
Now, that's something i can personally relate to.
Thanks for the support.
Let's see what happens with this thing.
best, Tom

http://www.tomdicillo.com/blog/?p=143

[mewsical]

Jim left for Paris on or about March 17, 1971.  Pam left on February 14, 1971.  If he left in mid-April, as the film states, then they couldn't have taken their month in Morocco, visited Corsica, etc.  I did take that up with Tom and he merely said he would check with Anne, who allegedly has all the passports, visas, etc.  They did not change the date.  He also told me that Ray, John, Robby, and Old Uncle Tom Cobley and all confirmed the April date.  Hogwash.

[hollifer]

Also from the same blog as my last post:

Mario (Jan 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 am)

Tom, you said something in one of your interviews, "Jim was a boy" (or something to that effect). I think that simple observation has been lost in the celebrity machine. I doubt many of us would want our 20's examined under an electron microscope, I know I sure wouldn't.

Never mind the critics dude.

"Take a walk with me and everything will turn out fine"

[/size][size="3"]Tom (Jan 26th, 2009 at 10:53 pm)

Hey Mario,
I didn't realize the truth of what I'd said about Jim until you just pointed it out.
We all forget he was only 27 when he moved on. Subtract 5 and he was only 22 when the Doors blew open.
It was his boyish innocence that made a real impression on me in looking at all this footage. He was like a 12 year old; an eternal juvenile delinquent.
Now, that's something i can personally relate to.
Thanks for the support.
Let's see what happens with this thing.
best, Tom

http://www.tomdicillo.com/blog/?p=143

i think jim was interested in fame, but not addicted. interested more the psychological effects that fame has on him and fans, rather than the greedy, self-indulged aspect. he was interested in sociology, after all. i'm currently reading 'the lizard king was here' about his high-school days. there are quotes from classmates referencing jim's desire to be famous.

i can see the jim as 'eternal juvenile delinquent' view. i think many forget how very young he was when the doors hit it big, and when he died. he was still growing-up, IMO, like many in their 20s. he reminds me sooo much of my ex-boyfriend, so that's one way in which i'm basing my opinion.

[Helen]

Mario (Jan 22nd, 2009 at 9:15 am)

Hey Mario,
I didn't realize the truth of what I'd said about Jim until you just pointed it out.
We all forget he was only 27 when he moved on. Subtract 5 and he was only 22 when the Doors blew open.
It was his boyish innocence that made a real impression on me in looking at all this footage. He was like a 12 year old; an eternal juvenile delinquent.
Now, that's something i can personally relate to.
Thanks for the support.
Let's see what happens with this thing.
best, Tom

http://www.tomdicillo.com/blog/?p=143

I would never have described JM as a 12 year old (except when he was of course!) He always seemed to me in many ways older than his years.

[mewsical]

Exactly ....... wanting to be famous and enjoying the celebrity fame brings and being addicted to fame are totally different things.
One is a very natural thing to do when presented with the attention fame brings.
Pretty much everybody here would have such a reaction.
Being addicted to fame as DiCillo argues throughout his silly film implies a craving for attention and that the craver is shallow and needy and some kind of emotional inadequate.

What you say is a very natural thing to do for someone , as you point out, so yound, whilst DiCillo paints a very different picture even going as far to imply that Morrison was drunk in Paris because he missed the attention fame brought him.
I don't claim to know what was going on in his mind but from what I have read researching Doors History it would seem that Morrison far from being addicted to fame found it a hinderance to realising his dream of being a writer and rebelled against it.

He seems to have gotten easily bored with the trappings of fame or why else would he seek a refuge like the seedy Room #32 in his Green Hotel.

As Sara points out this seems to be another section of the Oliver Stone film storyboard that DiCillo has stolen.
I am surprised that Dog did not make an appearance.


You make a good point Sally. If Morrison met Herve Muller on Friday May 7th 1971 in Paris then it would not have given them much time for a N African/Spain trip.
Also in early May Jim supposedly sat in with an American band called The Clinic in Paris.
It would seem rather a mad rush to get all that into a period of 3 weeks.
Seems iffy to me but could be easily confirmed by a look at his passport which surely would have a stamp on it.

Well, that's what was supposed to happen, but I don't know if they could get Depp back in to redo that portion of the narration.  There are people who knew Jim at the time who are adamant that he left in mid-March - and they're not the producers of the movie.  Does Lisciandro make any note of it in his writings anywhere?  Pam most definitely left on Valentine's Day, with the sole purpose of obtaining a residence, etc.  It would NOT have taken her 2 months to do that - in fact, probably took her about three weeks, after which she notified Jim to arrive, and he did.  They were at the Georges V, which Jim didn't like, and Pam probably wanted his input and assistance.  It wasn't like he went there and moved into No. 17 right away.  

Jac notes that on March 3, he saw Jim at the Elektra party, and they went out for dinner afterwards.  Jac also notes that he saw Jim for the last time on that date.  If Jim had stayed on in LA after March 17, he would have seen Jac, and certainly people from the label across the street.  There were no more sightings.  To all intents and purposes, Jim was gone as of mid-March.  That was why he was interested in coming to the party - to say goodbye.

[hollifer]

To all intents and purposes, Jim was gone as of mid-March.  That was why he was interested in coming to the party - to say goodbye.

whenever i hear/read about jim's last days in LA, making the rounds to say good-bye, i think about how strange the universe works, and that jim's untimely death was just meant to be. he was kind of given a gift to spend valuable time with those he cared about and who cared about him, something that wouldn't have happened if he was just taking a week long trip somewhere.