Courant News
Rodger Catlin's TV Eye - What's On Television
January 14 2010

When New Haven Busted the Doors
By Rodger Catlin

On hand to chat up a new Doors biofilm, "When You're Strange: A Film About the Doors" premiering on PBS' "American Masters" this spring, drummer John Densmore recalled one of the band's most notorious gigs, playing the old New Haven Coliseum in 1967, where the show ended in an abrupt onstage arrest of lead singer Jim Morrison.

"Jim was backstage with some fan, and a cop thought he was someone from the audience and maced him," Densmore told critics at the winter press tour Wednesday. "And we go on stage, and in the middle of 'Back Door Man,' we're doing this blues vamp, and he reiterates the story, kind of really drawing it out. And all the police are standing down in front of us, and he's saying, 'This little blue man in his little blue cap sprayed me.' And these police that were supposed to be protecting us from the big crowd started turning around and then ran up and arrested Jim."

"That was the end of the show, let me tell you. Except Ray grabbed the mic and said, 'Everybody go to the police station!' Densmore said. "So then I realized, 'Yeah, this is a dangerous band.'

The incident led to the line "Blood on the streets in the town of New Haven" in the subsequent track, "Peace Frog."

"When You're Strange: A Film About the Doors" premieres May 26 on "American Masters"

http://blogs.courant.com/roger_catlin_tv....d-the-door.html

WETA channel 26 (Public Television Washington DC)

American Masters

American Masters is an ongoing series of award-winning primetime specials examining the lives, works, and creative processes of our most outstanding cultural artists.

List Of Upcoming WETA Programs Can Be Found At This Link:

http://www.weta.org/tv/programsatoz/program/6038#upcoming

PBS hasn't published an exact time for WYS yet, I checked when I first published the info in The Doors Examiner. I know in Chicago area the show is usually on at 9 PM central time. The Sam Cooke thing looks interesting.

I think PBS only advertises a monthly schedule on their website. Like you, I looked around to see if I could locate a listing for May 26th but I didn't find anything.

I find it interesting that this film is now showing on PBS just 3 days after the 41st anniverary of all four members of the Doors appearing on PBS tv. Remember the Critique show, May 23 1969?

That's pretty interesting.

The release dates of the soundtrack & theatrical release of WYS have been announced. An update at The Doors Examiner The article also includes the just released cover art.

Pop Culture Zoo

When You’re Strange: A Film About The Doors’ On PBS – American Masters In May

By Anne Moore
Published February 22, 2010

In May, American Masters, the Emmy Award winning PBS series will feature When You’re Strange: A Film About The Doors. The documentary, about one of the most influential and fascinating bands of the early rock era, was written and directed by Tom DiCillo and is narrated by Johnny Depp. The film follows The Doors, Jim Morrison-lead singer, Ray Manzarek-keyboards, Robby Krieger-guitar and John Densmore-drums from their beginning in 1965 through the rest of the riotous 60’s until Morrison’s death in July, 1971.

DiCillo had the unique opportunity of access to a massive amount of mostly unseen archival footage and tapes. Not many groups from that era had a film crew shooting their concert tours, recording sessions, rehearsals and even back stage adventures. Of course, it helped that both Morrison and Manzarek were graduates of UCLA’s film school and hired some of their former classmates for the production team.

As Johnny Depp so succinctly states in the film’s press release, “When You’re Strange is a meticulously crafted, exhilarating ode to one of music’s greatest ensembles. Watching the hypnotic, hitherto unreleased footage of Jim, John, Ray, and Robby, I felt like I experienced it all through their eyes. Here, Jim has been resurrected to remind us that he is, to this very day, one of the most significant frontmen/poets/shaman to ever grace a stage while the band behind him kept the music alive, adding fuel to an already raging ride into history. As a rock ‘n’ roll documentary, or any kind of documentary for that matter, it simply doesn’t get any better than this. What an honor to have been involved. I am as proud of this as anything I have ever done.”

When You’re Strange will first be released theatrically in a limited run on April 9, 2010.

The following partial interview, from the Television Critics Association PBS session, is with Doors’ drummer John Densmore, along with manager/producer Jeff Jampol and producer Dick Wolf. (Yes, the same –producer/creator of the successful Law and Order franchise.)

QUESTION: For the producers, the version of the movie that played at Sundance [Film Festival] last year had director Tom DiCillo doing the voiceover. Is the actual text of the narration different now with Johnny Depp doing it?

DICK WOLF: It’s essentially the same text. It was edited and massaged and changed, and I can tell you that, in a strange way, Johnny made such a contribution to the film by, not only the performance, but just the ethos that he brings to the project by being a part of it. But he made one astounding change in the script, which I think resonates throughout the entire film. If you remember Tom’s voiceover, which was very good, but he kept referring to all the band members by their last names. Johnny switched it and personalized it by using their first names, and for a very minor change, it was a magnificent shift in the emphasis of the film from being a true documentary, and one step removed, to personalized and empathetic. And that’s something you can’t buy.

QUESTION: And otherwise structurally, is it the same movie exactly?

WOLF: Structurally — not exactly. I mean, that was a fine rough cut. There is constant tweaking that goes on until they pry the film away and it has to be locked. Yes, there were tweaks, twitches, shavings, lengthening, things like that. It’s essentially the same film, but the voiceover, as I said, is another character to me in the movie.

QUESTION: A question for Dick about the source of the footage. I think, Doors’ fans are familiar with a lot of it. Was there a quest here to find new material?

WOLF: Actually, most of it is not out there. John, you should jump in here because I’ll probably get part of this incorrectly. But the reason that there is the footage that exists is that it was one of Jim’s classmates at UCLA that was traveling with you guys for an extended period?

JOHN DENSMORE: A lot of the footage I’ve seen, but I don’t know what it is about the way it’s assembled with this and the narration. There’s some more depth to the whole story for me, and maybe Jeff can elaborate about the Highway footage. [NOTE: The film was officially called HWY.]

JEFF JAMPOL: Remember, Ray and Jim Morrison met in film school at UCLA. Ray got his master’s in film, and Jim got his bachelor’s in film, and they had a couple of classmates — Paul Ferrara and Frank Lisciandro, and they were all very interested in film. So when The Doors went on their first tour, they took Frank and Paul with them to film the whole tour and to film things offstage and in between. So we have this beautiful, visual documentation of that time in ‘67, ‘68 and ‘69, when most bands of that era, there’s very little documentation about.

DENSMORE: Actually, excuse me for interrupting, when we played The [Hollywood] Bowl, Harrison Ford was a grip on our crew. (Laughter.)

JAMPOL: We shot the Hollywood Bowl show in 1968. Jim was very interested in getting back into the film world, both as a director and as an actor, and he had written a script called The Hitchhiker. So they decided to make a film of The Hitchhiker, which was going to be Jim’s artistic piece and also serve to show what he was looking for and what he was into. So these guys went out and, on really the best equipment and 35-millimeter film, shot a film called HWY and that film has never been released. It was shown at a film festival for two days, once, in 1969, and that was it.

The Doors were also working on a documentary called Feast of Friends, and there are some bootleg copies of edits and film pieces, but it’s never been fully put together. So on this project we spent the first year and a half transferring. We had thousands of reels of film and video in The Doors archives, and we had to transfer them all, and it took about a year and a half to do, just to get it transferred. Then we had to start going through it and cataloging it and categorizing it. So I think when you say most of the film has been seen, I think that’s a true statement. I think most of it has been seen, but there’s pieces and clips and parts that have never been seen. With the HWY footage, we’ve had several people come up to us and ask, “Where did you get all those vintage cars?” (Laughter.)

WOLF: That was one of the biggest problems at Sundance. A distributor marched out 10 minutes into the film, outraged because, he said, “These are reenactments. That’s not Jim Morrison in the opening,” …the picture with the beard. There is not one foot of film in this picture that was not shot between 1965 and ‘71. And it was very confusing. It was one of the things that there were endless discussions on, “How do we educate the people that that is really Jim Morrison and it was shot then?” Because nobody’s seen that film.

DENSMORE: Personally, I like the confusion. (Laughter.) It’s an example of the depth that Tom DiCillo added to footage. I’ve seen HWY, obviously. Maybe the public hasn’t. But here you have Jim driving in a car — it’s the HWY footage — [he] turns the radio on, and the disc jockey says, “Jim Morrison has just died.” I find that interesting, those opposites, putting the film together that way. Pretty great.

JAMPOL: And we also made a conscious decision together with Tom not to use any talking-head interviews, no new footage in this movie, the entire thing, front to back. Because, for me we’re close to it, but you get pulled into this era; and all of a sudden, you’re there, and the magic comes alive.

QUESTION: For John, when you mention Jim, does it sometimes really almost seem like yesterday that you guys were all together, or does it seem like just long ago and far away at this point?

DENSMORE: It’s some kind of beautiful dream I had, and now here it is right there on the screen again.

QUESTION: Is it easy to watch or hard to watch sometimes?

DENSMORE: Well, I’ve seen it a zillion times and given notes, but in the first few screenings… Jim sitting on the Santa Monica Pier laughing reminded me of the early days when we were hanging out with no money. And there’s a sweetness to that.

http://popculturezoo.com/archives/5411

American Masters

April 9th, 2010

When You're Strange, a film about The Doors
About The Film

“The story of The Doors is one of the most compelling in the history of American rock music; three hugely talented musicians and a lead singer whose commitment to artistic freedom was so intense he rocketed them to a success that always hovered on the edge of chaos. As an independent filmmaker this sensibility affected me greatly.”
– Tom DiCillo, director and writer, When You’re Strange


The creative chemistry of four brilliant artists – drummer John Densmore, guitarist Robby Krieger, keyboardist Ray Manzarek and singer Jim Morrison – made The Doors one of America’s most iconic and influential, theatrical and mysterious, thrilling and sometime frightening rock bands. Narrated by Johnny Depp, American Masters: When You’re Strange is the first feature documentary about The Doors, premiering nationally Wednesday, May 12, 2010 at 9 p.m. (ET) on PBS (check local listings). The film tells their story using only original footage – much of it previously unseen – shot between their formation in 1965 and Morrison’s death in 1971. “From the outset I decided to use only original footage of this astonishing band,” says Tom DiCillo, director and writer of When You’re Strange. “To me, there is nothing more powerful and riveting that seeing Robby Krieger, Ray Manzarek, John Densmore and Jim Morrison leap into life on the screen.”

The program chronicles the creation of The Doors six landmark studio albums and follows the band from the corridors of UCLA’s film school, where Manzarek and Morrison originally met, onto the stages of their electrifying sold-out performances – giving time and attention to every one of their groundbreaking, chart topping songs.

Currently in its 24th season, American Masters is a production of THIRTEEN in association with WNET.ORG – one of America’s most prolific and respected public media providers.

“We’re very excited to bring the story of The Doors to public television, says Susan Lacy, series creator and executive producer of American Masters, a seven-time winner of the Emmy Award for Outstanding Primetime Non-Fiction Series. “Like the times in which they performed, The Doors were unpredictable and emotionally charged. Their music, songs such as ‘Break on Through’ and ‘Light My Fire’ have stood the test of time, grabbing generation after generation of contemporary music lovers.”

“Tom DiCillo’s When You’re Strange is a meticulously crafted, exhilarating ode to one of music’s greatest ensembles, The Doors,” says Johnny Depp. “Watching the hypnotic, hitherto, unreleased footage of Jim, John, Ray and Robby, I felt like I experienced it all through their eyes. Here, Jim has been resurrected to remind us that he is to this very day, one of the most significant frontmen/poets/shaman to ever grace a stage while the band behind him kept the music alive, adding fuel to an already raging ride into history. As a rock n’ roll documentary, or any kind of documentary for that matter, it simply doesn’t get any better than this. What an honor to have been involved. I am as proud of this as anything I have ever done.”

The rare cinéma vérité of When You’re Strange allows an intimate view into The Doors musical collaboration and their offstage lives – lives that reflected and defined the psychedelic times in the exciting but turbulent, changing but conflict-ridden America of the Viet Nam War era. The Doors were fiercely anti-establishment, anti-convention and pushed the proverbial envelope whenever possible – with their language, with their blatant sexuality, with their impulsive displays and, of course, with their music.

Jim Morrison’s haunting poetry and Ray Manzarek’s remarkable flights on the keyboard, backed by Densmore’s jazz beats and Krieiger’s intense guitar, created something that had never been heard before. The Doors achieved meteoric status as they soared to stardom but the excesses of their lead singer, Jim Morrison, resulted in an equally deep and abrupt crash. Dead at age 27, every question about the truths and myths of the times, about art and addiction, about authority and defiance – about alienation – were embodied in his persona.

“They say if you remember the 60s you weren’t there,” says producer Dick Wolf. “I can state definitively that one of the things I do remember is buying The Doors first album the day it came out and then listening to it about ten or twelve times in a row. Both sides. Every song. I’ve been a fan ever since. This movie is the story of the band but it is also an insight into a moment in time that will never be repeated. Jim Morrison was the best and worst of all of us who ever felt we could change the world if only people over thirty would listen.”

American Masters: When You’re Strange is directed and written by Tom DiCillo and produced by John Beug, Jeff Jampol, Peter Jankowski and Dick Wolf. Johnny Depp narrates. Susan Lacy is the series creator and executive producer of American Masters.

American Masters is made possible by the support of the National Endowment for the Arts and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional funding for American Masters is provided by Rosalind P. Walter, The Blanche & Irving Laurie Foundation, Jack Rudin, Elizabeth Rosenthal in memory of Rolf W. Rosenthal, The André and Elizabeth Kertész Foundation, Michael & Helen Schaffer Foundation, and public television viewers.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/ep...e-strange/1543/

LOCAL LISTINGS TV SCHEDULE PAGE

Find out what's on your local PBS station by entering your ZIP code:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/schedule/

Did you see The Doors Examiner review? Pretty good, if I do say so myself!

Nice review, Jim. I have not seen the movie yet but I will when it airs on PBS.

The PBS air date has changed from May 26 to May 12 at 9:00pm.

Thank you Sara, glad you liked the review. I think it had a couple good lines in it.

Jim

This comes out on DVD in about 3 weeks time. Is there any new info on what (if any) special features the disc will include? I presume the talking heads will be included but is there a commentary planned and any footage included that was not in the film.
Hopefully The Doors themselves may have gotten off their asses from their busy schedule of living off the money a dead bloke brings in and contributed something meaningful.......but then we saw what interest they had when the Tribute to Jim Morrison DVD was released 20 years on by Eagle.....who can forget their insightful contribution to that disc ..... yeah me neither!
I am not a fan of the film true but that does not mean I won't be watching it once or twice as soon as I get my hands on a copy.

Good question, Alex. I have been on the look out for any media attention shown to the dvd release and have found only a sentence or too that holds no depth as to the contents of the dvd. With just a few short weeks until release, I'm sure more information is on the horizon.

Although Amazon has the release date listed as May 18, 2010, I don't believe that is the correct date. It is probably much later. Jeff said over on the Lizard Lounge that the date given by Amazon is "WAY incorrect," but he didn't give any clarification. He may not know the exact date yet as they are still trying to get the film released in more theatres. It's possible that how the film does in theatres will determine when it is released on DVD.

Aside from the talking heads, I'm not aware of what features will be on the DVD, but I'm hoping that since the film was so short, 87 minutes, there will be some footage that didn't make it into the final cut. They may have wanted to keep the film short to give them a better chance of getting a distribution deal for theatres.

Cheers mate....did not know that....pity as I wanted to get a copy and use the pause rewind function on it.
I was very dissapointed in the length of the finished article but considering how poor the narrative was I imagine thats another reason.
There must be tons of footage lying around but of course it depends on how good it is as whether it is DVD material.
Personally I would have preffered a TV doc split into several parts and about 4 hours long.
Obviously with someone at the helm who knew what the hell they were talking about.....instead we got Tom

A mini-series would be amazing. Mainstream television might not go for it, but I could see something like that on public television. 87 minutes just isn't enough time to tell The Doors' story with any kind of depth or significant insight.

The DVD will be released on June 29 according to this article.
http://www.examiner.com/x-30199-Rock-Music...-to-be-released

The Music Fix (UK)
29 April 2010 18:17
Steven Burnett

Johnny Depp Opens the Doors of Perception

Following a prestigious festival run, WHEN YOU’RE STRANGE: A FILM ABOUT THE DOORS will receive a UK cinematic release on July 2nd 2010. The crowd-pleasing documentary has been featured at the Sundance, Berlin, Deauville and San Sebastian Film Festivals and most recently played to sold-out shows at the Santa Barbara Film Festival.

Produced by Wolf Films/Strange Pictures, in association with Rhino Entertainment, and released by Abramorama, the 90-minute film is the first feature documentary about The Doors.

“They say if you remember the ‘60s you weren’t there,” said producer Dick Wolf. “I can state definitively that one of the things I do remember is buying THE DOORS first album the day it came out and then listening to it about ten or twelve times in a row. Both sides. Every song. I’ve been a fan ever since. This movie is the story of the band but it is also an insight into a moment in time that will never be repeated.”

WHEN YOU’RE STRANGE uncovers historic and previously unseen footage of the illustrious rock quartet and provides new insight into the revolutionary impact of its music and legacy. Directed by award-winning writer/director Tom DiCillo and narrated by Johnny Depp, the film is a riveting account of the band’s history.

Said Depp, “Watching the hypnotic, hitherto unreleased footage of Jim, John, Ray and Robby, I felt like I experienced it all through their eyes. As a rock n’ roll documentary, or any kind of documentary for that matter, it simply doesn’t get any better than this. What an honor to have been involved. I am as proud of this as anything I have ever done.”


Track Listing (all poems read by Johnny Depp)
1. Poem: “Cinema”
2. Poem: “The Spirit Of Music”
3. “Moonlight Drive” – The Doors
4. Poem: “The Doors Of Perception”
5. “Break On Through (To The Other Side)” (Live – Isle Of Wight 1970) – The Doors
6. Poem: “A Visitation Of Energy”
7. “Light My Fire” (Live – The Ed Sullivan Show 1967) – The Doors
8. “To Really Be A Superstar” – Jim Morrison (Interview)
9. “Five To One” – The Doors
10. Poem: “Wasting The Dawn”
11. “When The Music’s Over” (Live – Danish TV 1968) – The Doors
12. a) “The Four Of Us Are Musicians” – Jim Morrison (Interview)
“I’d Like Them To Listen” – Ray Manzarek (Interview)
c) “Rock & Roll And Jazz” – John Densmore (Interview)
d) “Our Music Is Symbolic” – Robby Krieger (Interview)
13. “Hello, I Love You” – The Doors
14. “Dead Serious” – Jim Morrison (Interview)
15. “People Are Strange” – The Doors
16. Poem: “Inside The Dream”
17. “Soul Kitchen” – The Doors
18. Poem: “We Have Been Metamorphosized”
19. Poem: “Touch Scares”
20. “Touch Me” – The Doors
21. Poem: “Naked We Come”
22. Poem: “O Great Creator Of Being”
23. “The End” – The Doors
24. Poem: “The Girl Of The Ghetto”
25. “L.A. Woman” – The Doors
26. Poem: “Crossroads”
27. “Roadhouse Blues” (Live – New York 1970) – The Doors
28. Poem: “Ensenada”
29. “Riders On The Storm” – The Doors
30. Poem: “As I Look Back”
31. “The Crystal Ship” – The Doors
32. Poem: “Goodbye America”

http://www.themusicfix.co.uk/content/news-...perception.html

I love how jim steals his own car at the beginning...

I thought the murder of the driver was pretty gruesome... .

When Your Strange
Aired on PBS May 12 2010

My Review May 13 2010

The film footage was spectacular and it was a pleasure seeing clips of “Hwy” and “Feast Of Friends” in such clarity. Johnny Depps’ narration was adequate considering the script he was given to read. His monotone delivery mimicked the overtones of the film.

STOP HERE AS THERE ARE SPOILERS AHEAD - IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FILM DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER

As many other reviewers have mentioned, the film clips were out of sequence and for this error there is no excuse. When a veteran film maker such as Tom DiCillo is handed original film and in addition been given an all access pass to The Doors archives, I would have expected more professionalism. In fact, there is a lot of film footage that does exist that was not used in this documentary. For one the 1967 performance of The Doors on American Bandstand, Murray the K and the CBC filming of “The End.” Instead and for example for coverage of the year 1967 the viewer sees film from a 1968 performance in London.

In all of the sequences where Jim’s film “Hwy” is included there is no narrative to explain exactly what “Hwy” meant to Jim Morrison. The “HWY” film in and of itself was an unfinished work and was based on Jim’s screenplay, “The Hitchhiker.” Jim was hoping to gain financial backing to finish the film. He was also working on a screenplay with Michael McClure at the time but these facts were never mentioned in the documentary. Although, a few lines from Jim’s interview with Howard Smith (1969) was used in this film, all references to the making of “Hwy” or Jim’s involvement with the McClure screenplay were left out.

The documentary relies too much on stock footage intermingled with film taken by The Doors camera crew during the tour of 1968. The Doors for all intent and purpose have always been labeled as the alternative band to the hippy movement but it is stock footage of the hippies that occupy the film as filler through out.

Making a point to inform the viewer that LSD was used as a tool by not only Jim Morrison but by the other band members as well in the early years of 1965 there is no mention that at that time LSD was legal in the United States.

It is suggested that Jim was living on “someone’s” rooftop writing songs to a concert in his head. Why wasn’t Dennis Jacobs’ name included in the description?

The inclusion of scenes of the band rehearsing in a beach house was adequate but unfortunately these scenes were spliced in with other years in the bands history.

The viewer learns that Robby Krieger is the author of Light My Fire but the film footage is not of 1966 but once again, the 1968 London performance.

There is a bit of confusion as the narration describes The Doors stint at the London Fog which leads to a “talent booker” for the Whisky falling for Morrison. The talent booker talks to the management at the Whisky begging him into hiring them as house band for the club. There is no mention of Ronnie Harran’s name or her story as to how she got the band the gig.

After the 1st album is released it is mentioned that each of the songs is credited equally to all four members of the group. There is no indication as to why the songs are credited that way when it is customary for each writer to get individual credit. The Doors were different than other groups of the time but there is no explanation as to why.

Within the 1967 scenes we see more of “HWY.” This time the clip covers Jim pulling into a gas station in Joshua Tree. The original soundtrack is cut and overdubbed with different music. Right after this scene we see Jim drive on down the road as Jim Ladd of KLOS explains that Jim’s death is shrouded in mystery and rumors of Jim faking his death as reported sightings of him have been made. This narrative is straight out of No One Here Gets Out Alive.

The film switches over to show Jim being interviewed where he is talking about the feeling of Doors music being a heavy, gloomy feeling, not completely relaxed of one not quite at home. During this interview, Jim is explaining Doors music in general where in the interview he goes on to say, I would like to do one that is a total expression of joy, the film maker makes the cut so the viewer thinks Jim is talking about his own death.

The documentary rolls on and the narration gives the explanation of Doors music in general from the perspective of the surviving Doors as shadowy dreams, mystery and use of a carnival type atmosphere. It is at this point the viewer is introduced to the album Strange Days (1967). Carnival scenes and animals are inserted as filler here and there is no explanation as to why the cover of Strange Days includes the carnival figures other than the symbolic nature. It has however been explained in interviews over the years that Jim did not want the 2nd album to feature his face on the cover, put a flower on it or something.

The narration further suggests that Ray Manzarek sees the audience believing that Jim is a Shaman leading his followers. Please. In Lizzie James Interview with Jim Morrison in 1968 Jim completely discards this notion saying, “I'm not sure it's salvation that people are after, or want me to lead them to. The shaman is a healer – like a witch-doctor. I don't see people turning to me for that. I don't see myself as a savior.”

The viewer is now approaching the time frame of the Waiting For The Sun lp. Love Me Two Times is heard on the soundtrack at this point and reference is made that its Morrison’s bandmates that keep him together on stage bringing him back to earth when he stumbles.

At this point the 1968 London Press Conference is shown with a snippet of an answer that Jim gave to an unknown question, the music cannot help but reflect what is swirling around it.

The narration at this point also includes one of Jim’s answers from the 1969 Howard Smith interview, “….I’ve noticed that when people are joking their usually dead serious and when their dead serious it’s usually means exactly what you say and it’s opposite.” There is no question to support the answer so the film maker uses the quote out of context.

The film maker will also do this later on the documentary once again using a snippet of an answer from Morrison but offering no lead in explanation of the statement, “Can you imagine doing that? Posing for a picture. Can you imagine? And you know, really looking in the camera and posing. It’s insane.”

This is the quote in it’s original context:

Howard: Back at the beginning of The Doors you seem to be model of the year. You couldn’t pick up a fashion magazine or some magazine without those sultry pictures.

Jim: Sulky too.

Howard: Sulky?

Jim: Well you know…..I was so…..in vogue.

Howard: What did it mean to you at that time?

Jim: I must have been out of my mind. To do….can you imagine? Can you imagine doing that?

Howard: No, that’s hwy I’m asking you.

Jim: Posing for a picture. Can you imagine? And you know, really looking in the camera and posing. It’s insane. I must have been out of my mind. If I had the whole thing to do over again…..I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t do it.

Howard: What did you think during that time?

Jim: I thought I knew what I was doing. I thought I knew what I was doing. And the whole thing about a photograph is once it’s done you can’t destroy it. It’s there forever. So can you imagine when I’m 80 years old and I have to look at myself posing for those pictures. It’s to late. This guys trying to put me on a bummer man.

Jim: (Pause) That’s alright Howard go ahead.

Howard: Un, also back in the beginning there was also all this talk about your sex appeal. About how all women of different ages…..I wrote that in the Voice way before…..you know, pretty early.

Jim: That’s another thing see….talk gets around crazy talk like that and what happens, you know? (pause) That’s a difficult burden to bear. It is…cause we all know no one is any sexier than anyone else, right? Everyone’s got the same equipment unless biologically you got mixed up or something. We’re all about the same. (phone rings)

Howard: (sarcastically) Yeah well there you were with the leather pants….

Jim: (raises voice) Yeah and it’s guys like you man….it’s the reporters…it’s the press, people like that that create this insanity. That make up this stuff and then people start believing it.

Howard: You weren’t consciously playing that?

Jim: Hell no.

Howard: And you didn’t dig it?

Jim: (pause) Well I must admit that there were occasions when uh….having a reputation like that did help me out in some tight situations. Plus I got to meet a lot of groovy ladies that uh…otherwise you know…they probably wouldn’t have noticed me. So in that respect it was all to the good.”

In all fairness, the three surviving Doors enabled DiCillo to write his script for this documentary. It is unfortunate that DiCillo did not give Jim the courtesy to explain himself in his own words. There is certain plenty of audio out there to warrant inclusion in this film but it was used only in partial form to suit the images on the screen. On other hand, the three surviving Doors give their explanations nearly 40 years after the actual events have happened, which is certainly acceptable but Jim should have been given the same opportunity.

We see Jim at the Singer Bowl concert and the narration advises the viewer that Jim was either mingling with his fan base or he needed the attention from the fan base and actively seeked it. In my opinion, by seeing Jim mingling with the fans he is showing them he just another human being looking for conversation and he’s not trying to prove anything but maybe discard the “myth” that has been attached to him.

The viewer at this point is still learning about the “Waiting For The Sun” lp. The narration claims that producer Paul Rothchild refuses to include “Celebration of the Lizard” in its entirety on the album. Instead he takes songs left off the 1st album to complete this recording. There is no mention of Jim’s disappointment instead we learn of “Hello I Love You” reaching #1 status on Billboard and the fact that the fan base propelled the album to #1 as well.

We are treated to film scenes of the recording of “Wild Child” which introduces the viewer to the making of the “Soft Parade” lp. The narration tells us that the writing credits for this album are split between the lyric’s composers but there is no explanation as to why this change happened after previous albums all credited The Doors as a group.

It is also at this point in the documentary that we learn of Jim’s drinking and drug taking reaching a peak in the band’s history. We see another clip of Jim’s “HWY” film and more clips of hippies inter spliced. For painting such a dark period in the history of the band I question why the film maker would chose to show hippies.

At this point the band mates begin to splinter because of Jim’s drinking and drug abuse. Within the context of this film, the other three band members do not partake in such a lifestyle as Jim has chosen for himself. The narration offers insight, “Ray originally thought that LSD was the key to enlightenment but a series of bad trips sends him into a different direction turning towards meditation along with John Densmore and Robby Krieger.”

This is a revelation in terms of Ray’s LSD experiences of the time and somewhat confusing as we all know that Ray as been advocating the use of LSD over many decades right up to and including interviews granted in 2010. He goes so far as to encourage fans to partake in this mind altering substance but he himself knows better and has learned his lesson many, many years ago.

Due to 100’s of takes in the studio under Rothchilds insistence, the Soft Parade takes 11 months before it is pressed and stocked in record stores. There is no mention of the extensive horn and string sections that have been added to the final product.

It is during the Soft Parade sessions that the viewer learns of John Densmore’s headaches and break out rashes due to the stress of making the album and complicated by the circumstances surrounding Jim’s behavior at the time. John walks out of the studio and returns the next day to finish the recordings. Jim is described as the Elephant in room of which people ignore. They must not have ignored him completely because it is obvious his actions had a profound effect on the group as a whole. The narrator suggests that the band members confronted Jim about his drinking and drug taking and Jim agreed to straighten up. Jim sobriety only lasted about a week. The narrator goes on to say sometimes the drinking helps Jim and sometimes it doesn’t…..What? The drinking helps him, how?

Because the film is out of sequence at this point there is no mention of “Light My Fire” being sold for a commercial and the fall out thereafter.

In addition, there is no explanation offered as to why Jim Morrison is drinking so heavily and any opinion as to why he has cut himself away from the band.

The viewer is now hurled back to 1967 in New Haven and witnesses Jim’s arrest. Although there are a few photos in existence that show Jim after he was maced backstage, the viewer does not see any of those. The 20 second footage of the arrest made on stage is overdubbed and we hear the song “Sunday Trucker” as a faint soundtrack.

The narration switches to include an important point although late in the film and out of sequence but nonetheless important telling us the audiences at this point have come to see a spectacle and are not there to listen to the words and music. It is suggested that Jim has morphed himself into his stage persona in his personal life. Once again no details are given as to how the script writer knows this event for a fact.

Jumping ahead to late 1968 and the Soft Parade album, we learn that Jim wants to quit the band. In fact, according to reliable sources this event took place after the Hollywood Bowl concert in July of 1968. Ray talks Jim into giving the band another 6 months. If this part of the bands history was left in correct sequence the viewer would learn of the LMF commercial, the Living Theatre performances, the rehearsals for Morrison Hotel which includes Jim rap leading up and the inclusion of the infamous Miami concert.

We are treated to a few seconds of a card game between the band members which occurred in a Holiday Inn in 1967 where Jim says something… maybe I don’t like where this is going. The card game scene is included in a video called The Best of The Doors and Jim’s words are taken out of context for inclusion in this scene.

Once again there is no explanation or opinion as to why Jim wants to leave the band.

It is also mentioned by the narrator that Jim picked his own clothes and did not have a publicist…um, interesting, as I recall a lady named Diane Gardner was Jim’s publicist.

Pamela wants Jim to concentrate on his poetry and forget music at this point. It is a fact that Jim used to confide in Pamela his inner most problems and she did talk him into seeing a psychiatrist of which there are claims he attended one appointment. This is complete irrelevant without any explanation of why Jim was so disappointed during this period of time that his behavior warranted a trip to a shrink.

The narrator tells us that Ray has given a name to Jim’s other half, the person he becomes when he drinks too much, “Jimbo.” Oliver Stone showed a lot of that “Jimbo” character in his film and even capitalized on it to which he has received harsh criticism over the years. It is hard to understand why this film, a documentary hailed as the anti-Oliver Stone film would emphasize Jim’s alter ego, “Jimbo.”

The viewer now witnesses Jimbo driving his car around in circles in the desert.

It is now revealed by the narrator that several drinkers have been hired to look after Jim, not bodyguards or people who are hired to keep Jim out of trouble but drinkers to look after him. Of course, Jim casts them aside and drinks more than they do.

The narrator goes on to tell the viewer about Janis Joplin breaking a bottle over Jim’s head at a party when in fact this happened outside of Barney’s Beanery. We also learn that Jim’s mother comes to a Doors DC show but Jim refuses to see her, which is true but the film is approaching 1969 not 1967. The European tour is briefly discussed and it is this point in time we learn of LMF being sold to commercial at a loss to the band of $75,000.

The band is still splintering further and further away from each other which raises questions but offers no other explanation than it is because of Jim’s drinking and drug taking. The band members have confronted Jim but it doesn’t work and at this point they do not know how to help him other than to keep him on stage and performing.

We are now at the Miami fiasco. The scenes depicted at this point in the film are slow and once again give no real explanations with the exception of the court documentation and the Decency Rally footage the viewer does not learn anything that has not already been told that includes the Oliver Stone version.

From the film’s point of view after the Miami incident is capitalized relations within the band are shown at all time low. Intermingled within the narration are extensive scenes of Vietnam, the violence in America that includes handgun ownership, The Mason Family and political assassinations are brought to light with preexisting stock footage.

We learn of the Doors last show in New Orleans in December of 1970 as the final performance with Morrison. The narrator tells us that Jim simply sat down on the stage and stopped singing it was at this point Manzarek says he saw all of Jim’s spirit leaving his body. There is no mention of Jim bashing the mic stand into the stage until it splinters or his total disgust with being a performer.

From this point forward there is a race towards the bottom. As the film picks up speed the Isle Of Wight festival, the making of Morrison Hotel and LA Woman are compacted into a mere 15 minutes. The narrator does mention that during the sessions for LA Woman, which according to the narrator was completed in a week and half that Jim was using cocaine at this time. What happened to Manzarek’s continued rants that The Doors were not a white power band as Oliver Stone suggested?

During the soundtrack we hear “Riders On The Storm” set to stock footage of Vietnam. At one point you see a helicopter being thrown off the side of a Navy ship this would happen 4 years after Riders On The Storm in 1975.

DiCillo also includes a frame of Jim diving off a rock into the Kern river, naked…I guess this was a shot that he had to include if only to draw a certain type of audience into seeing the film as the scene has no motive to be included in the documentary at all other than for effect.

When the scene comes to where Jim is found dead in Paris there are no alternatives to the official story it is with these passing frames that the documentary draws to a close leaving the viewer with a lot of unanswered questions “You can’t burn out if your not on fire.”

This was a great movie that was made as a tribute to the survival of the 3 remaining Doors as it shows the trials and tribulations they went through in trying to cope with an alcoholic of which by their own admission there was no hope in finding a cure for him. On the other hand, the film lacks any real narrative by excluding Jim’s thoughts in his own words. Jim Morrison was a young man when he died. Fame came early for him and he took the brunt of the adulation from fans. This is well documented through several sources but you never hear in this film Jim’s own words to counter any accusations. Jim’s interviews certainly do exist and could have been included but unfortunately only snippets of his statements were used and all of those were taken out of context.

I am of the continuing opinion that the only film makers who are able to make a Doors documentary are those who were there on the outside looking in, Frank, Bill, Babe, Rich, Paul and Vince. Give these people the financing to do a documentary as they are the people most qualified to tell the definitive story of the Doors. There is no better evidence of this fact than to listen to the radio show, “Three Hours For Magic” (1981).

END.

I thought it was generally a worthy effort. I was somewhat dissapointed that a few facts were glossed over and no mention was made that the clips were taken from HWY and Feast Of Friends or any mention of the people who originally filmed it,Ferrara,Hill,Lisciandro.

I also thought the continuity of the film was a bit out of sync. I found Depp's narration good but the writing a might iffy. I believe almost any one of us here could have wrote a better narration.

All in all it was enjoyable,the clips of HWY were great and really popped off the screen. I enjoyed many of the unseen parts of HWY shown. Though I did find the "radio announcer" over dub a bit kitschy.

If anyone of influence happens to read this I have wanted a better print of HWY for years. Give me HWY and Feast of Friends on a DVD and I would run to buy it.

So much of the narration did not fit the actual clips. I'M curious where that "Miami footage" was really from???

All in all it could/should steer some new fans to the band. A non Doorsy friend watched it and said she thought " Jim was disturbed." Sadly "Jimbo" was presented more than the actual Jim. Educated poets that are soft spoken and thoughtful never seems to sell books,films,records... .

A fair summation of what I remember seeing last October Sara.
I am hoping soon to get hold of a copy of the PBS film so I can re-evaluate my thoughts using pause/rewind facilities.
So there was a naked Jim in the film
I cannot say either I or the two long time Doors fans I was with noticed that which begs the question what purpose it served other than for the director to be able to boast about it to the media.
A sensationalist selling point.
Will the DVD cover boast 'includes Nude Morrison'.
I have met a lot of Doors fans this last 10 years and most of them are intelligent music fans who I would be happy to sit and chew the fat about music with any time......I have also met my fair share of freaks and the worst are the Morrison groupies who worship him as some kind of God......
Ray is one and it seems DiCillo is too.
I remember that freak on the LL who bought Bobby Kleins naked picture of Jim and Pam and who never shut up about it for months offering sneak peeks to his select circle of other freaks.
Thankfully I did not include myself in that company having never had the desire to see Jim's butt or knob.
But DiCillo strikes me as that type. A would be groupie who tries to impress his new circle of friends and would snigger to himself when editing the footage to include Jim's butt.
Which is why his narrative stunk the cinema out last October.

And yes Sara it was interesting why Dennis Jakobs was not mentioned ....Jim's best friend from UCLA without any argument or doubt and likely one of or perhaps THE inventor of The Doors as a name for a band....maybe Manzo had a hand in that as he notoriously dislikes any of Jim's friends.
DiCillo does play fast and loose with facts and interesting avenues were never explored in the headlong rush to Miami and the sensation seekers eye to a DVD......as shown by the complete lack of understanding of Jim's relations with Doors fans you mention in the Singer Bowl section......
this man so 'sought attention' he used to phone Doors fans at home and chat with them when he was sitting in The Doors office and the famous story of the Japanese fan who Jim shared poetry with and intended to meet once The Doors got to Japan. Read Deanna Michaelson '24 Hours For Magic’ for how Jim was a nice human being or the tale of the guy he met outside the Miami trial and sat eating a burger with talking about Pink Floyd.
This was Jim Morrison....not some sad drunk craving attention but just a guy who lived in the limelight and enjoyed talking to people who liked poetry, film and music.
DiCillo you are truly an idiot.......and talking of attention seekers your blog eclipses any of that Jim did mate
Reading what you said Sara reminded me of a comment I made last October to Mark and Cowboy after the movie when we were sat having a drink. The film reminded me of Dark Star the utterly abysmal book from 1991 written by Dylan Jones who was trying to jump on the Stone bandwagon.
A book that used all the right clichés and platitudes to describe the phenomenon but understood non of the characters who made up the experience. Hey Tom you aren't Dylan Jones by any chance?


I agree with you Michael HWY/FOF one DVD 'I'd buy that for a dollar'

It's true mate it is worthwhile as any Doors doc is to me and a must see for Doors fans and will indeed bring a few newcomers to the fold. The footage was indeed great to see but the narrative was very poor and that for me is what the film was supposed to be about surely. As you said too much Jimbo not enough Doors.
But then WYS was never a documentary about The Doors simply another film about Jim and as you point out 'Jimbo' always sells a shitload more books and videos.
Look no further than the shameful exploitation of Jim's 65th birthday by two of this crew for an example of that. A piss plaque celebrating the mad loon thought more important than a celebration of the life and work of the poet. At least Bongo kept a bit of dignity with his poetry reading.

Wonder what The Three Amigos will use to leech from Morrison's bones next year....dread to think

Nice to see two Doors fans I have the greatest respect for see the same film I did.

It's worth noting that according to Frank Lisciandro, Morrison considered HWY a finished product and he was indeed proud of it. Admittedly though it was meant to be a calling card for both his acting and film making talents.

Frank Liscinadro considering "HWY" a finished project supercedes anything I have read on the subject.

Thank you for the information.

Just watched the whole thing again thanks to one of our kind members here and cannot believe how utterly bad DiCillos narrative actually is.
This man is a fucking idiot and should not have been let near this subject.
I have a few pages of notes I made as I watched thanks to pause/rewind facility and will go over them and add some comment here once I put them together.
I just wanted to come to this thread and reiterate what an utter and total fucking idiot Tom DiCillo is and mention that he does not have a fucking clue what he is talking about before I come back and comment.

My review of the PBS showing of WYS.



When You’re Strange A film About Jim Morrison directed by AN Idiot

It’s 5 or so minutes into the film before ‘The Doors’ are even mentioned which matters when the film is less than 90 minutes in length. This would be fine if those minutes were taken up with background to the players and some idea of how and why the band became The Doors.
Sadly it is not and just some rather pathetic montage of Jim listening to his own death via HWY footage, the film running backwards and some political bullshit similar to that which Granada mistakenly produced in their 1968 Doors documentary.
‘The 60s began with a shot’ not where I lived mate!

We are told Jim had a friend called Ray at UCLA and made a film that got a D.
Now this is about 6 minutes into the film and the first of a series of major errors of judgment, blunders mistakes or whatever you want to call them.

Oliver Stone was heavily criticised by Manzarek and company for including a sequence where he recreates Jim’s student film and intersperses Nazi imagery.
Now I paraphrase here but Ray screamed in his whiny voice that ‘Jim was not a Nazi’ or something of the sort.
DiCillo tells us via Johnny Depp that
‘Jim made one film at UCLA. It earned him a D’.
Then proceeds to show several images to punctuate this statement.
They consist of Lizard, sex and lo and behold Hitler.
Specially when the film did actually have a Nazi element. But it's not OK for Stone but OK for Tom...I call that hypocrisy….I dunno ‘bout you?

"It sure looked like Jim's film to me," says top Hollywood talent agent and TFT alumnus John Ptak '67, who was a classmate of Morrison's." What you see on the screen is pretty much the way I remember the movie. It was very German, and there was a girl with very little on dancing on a television set." Blackburn remembers the film in strikingly similar terms: "The centerpiece was a young woman doing a striptease on top of a TV set that had footage of a Nazi rally playing on it." Which is pretty much what Stone depicts.


Next we see how The Doors formed or would have if the film had been in the hands of someone who knew what the fuck they were doing. The band Depp was talking about could have been The Monkees for all I knew.
Ray invites someone from his meditation class who brings along his friend.

Second major blunder.
‘Robby Krieger played with ONE band with Densmore when they were at High School’ Tom/Johnny tells us.
Not true at all and a decent bit of research would have corrected that error.
Tom supposedly read Densmore’s ROTS. Which bit? The back cover?
Try reading page 30/31 and you will see the real story as opposed to your made up bullshit.

We learn that the FIRST song Robby wrote was LMF but even that is not strictly true.
...."So I went home and wrote ‘Light My Fire’ and 'Love Me Two Times'. These are the first two songs I ever wrote....took about an hour'.....

Also the idea that the bands FIRST gig was The London Fog is not true either as they played a few gigs in 1965 and an outdoor gig in 1966 before they got the Fog gig.
Their first ‘meaningful’ gig perhaps. First gig NO.
Once again bad research.

The 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.
And BTW Tom The End was NOT a song about Jim Morrison’s high school girlfriend.
The opening sequence of the song had it’s roots in the Venice Pier rendition Jim did for The Doors and was indeed a goodbye song to his ex Mary but by the time they got to The Whisky moment it had developed a tad further than that.

The story about how LMF developed as a hit was not quite true either and these little inaccuracies really spoil the film. It’s fine if you are trying to tell a bunch of beer swilling idiots out to watch a late night music documentary but you were supposed to be talking to a Doors audience so have the decency to attempt to inform them rather than insult their intelligence.

Another major area of discontent for me was the Doors conquering of New York in 1966/67.
The first month long sojourn at Ondine in 1966 was crucial to The Doors and included their official signing to Elektra.
How was New York presented?
‘Holzman sends The Doors to New York City. They are an immediate hit. Andy Warhol becomes infatuated, particularly with Morrison’
Fuck me I think there was bit more to it than that mate.

The first royalty cheque is mentioned which I was glad of as that was important…….I am being sarcastic here just in case you missed that.

‘The Metamorphis is complete’….what the fuck does that mean?
One of many dumbass soundbites peppered throughout the film that sound 'cool' but fail to explain anything about the band and why it became The Doors.

The Doors record their second album and we learn that ‘the organ features a hint of the carnival both childlike and darkly disturbing . It’s no accident that the 2nd album features circus performers on it’s cover’.
Cue circus and carnival footage. But it was an accident as Jim had hated the first cover and said put dogs on the new cover. When asked why he said tongue firmly in cheek it spells God backwards. It’s better than having our fucking faces on it.
Another faux pas!

‘Most of the attention goes to Jim’…. ‘Jim relishes the attention. He seems to have been born instantly ready for fame’….so why pray did he stand with his back to the audience in the early part of The Doors career and was so shy as we learned from Johnny a few minutes back? And if that was so what was the point of 'The Metamorphis is complete’. Why would he need to metamorphosise if he was already born for fame. This makes no sense at all and just done to sound cool once again.

DiCillo seems to have a fixation with Jim’s leather pants which as we all know were not that big a deal to The Doors story.
A disturbing turn comes with the Singer Bowl section. We learn that Jim started the riot and see scenes of violence to accentuate the idea.

We then move on to WFTS the bands 3rd LP. The band realises that Jim is becoming difficult. Poor loves. 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.

At the halfway point the narrative is inconsequential and insipid barely deserving of the greatest rock band on Earth.

We learn that in 1969 Jim moves from drugs to booze…..no he did not he was a near alcoholic before he met the band and was getting pissed at gigs in 1967. The Action House the shortest ever Doors gig when a drunken Jim was helped off stage after a couple of minutes.

Suddenly from left field we hear that ‘His FIRST on stage arrest had come early in New Haven’
Where was his second one then Tom. Remind us?

Then we get another major howler. After relating the mace story TomJohn tells us that ‘ In the middle of the FIRST song he stops and tells the audience what just happened’.
No he didn’t.
Looking at the New Haven set list I would imagine him about 30 minutes into the set before he intersperses his little blue man rap into the 5th song WTMO.
More piss poor research from DiCillo.

The out of synch feel of both the narrative and footage makes the viewer a bit dizzy and is a very poor indictment of DiCillo the film maker.

Miami gets 10 minutes. I thought it got longer first time round but it’s about 10 minutes.
One eighth of the film which added to 5 meaningless minutes at the start is not great.

The relationship with The Doors becomes strained during the Soft Parade sessions. Once again it's all seemingly down to Jim Morrison.

Violence becomes somehow relevant to the Doors and associated with the band ....we see Vietnam and riots.
Then we get to the IOW in 1970 and see more violent scenes although this is nothing to do with The Doors. The fans objected to the IOW charging for admission and pulled down the fence in protest. It was not some kind of British Altamont caused by some reaction to Jim Morrison.

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.
We learn a few things about LAW such as that to keep Morrison interested Botnick brought in Jerry Scheff Elvis bass player. Now I did not know that Jim was uninterested in the LAW album.

"We brought in Jerry Scheff AND Marc Benno."
Ray Manzarek 1972.
WE.....Sort of contradicts Tom here.

"So anyway we’ll be ourselves for better or worse.”
Jim Morrison on LAW 1971

“I went to some of the rehearsals I was a little hippie at that point wearing a headband. Jim was nice to me, he’d say ‘Hi, how are you doing?’ One day he showed up late and he gave each of the guys in the band a dollar because he was late.”
Adam Holzman son of Jac, Head of Elektra Records.
Seems to contradict the sense Jim needed Elvis mates keep his interest up......Like Stone was accused of DiCillo never really shows the humorous side of Jim Morrison in this film.


We further learn that ‘The band want LHM to be the first single but Robby resists thinking his own song too commercial for The Doors. His choice is ROTS’.
That’s a pile of bollocks because the band wanted to release The Changeling as a single and Holzman spent a couple of weeks changing their mind in favour of the radio friendly LHM.

“Jac listened to the whole album and then said ‘Love Her Madly’ was a Top 5 record and ‘Riders On The Storm’ will get more FM play than any Doors LP cut and song by song he ran down exactly what happened. The Doors said ‘wait a minute we think ‘The Changeling’ is the single. ‘That’s what we want out because that’s the most credible musically’. Jac looked at them as if they were nuts and said ‘it’s not a hit. “Love Her Madly” is a hit’. And they said ‘No’ and the meeting ended without him swaying them at all. It took about two weeks to get them to go with the obvious hit.”
Bill Siddons Doors manager from ‘Follow The Music’.

Then we got Vietnam footage…..WTF did Vietnam have to do with the LA Woman album?

‘It takes just over a week to record the entire album’ like fuck it does.

Then we get to Paris and learn some other shit about how Jim talked to John and was thinking of coming home and wanted to do another album. Which is not exactly how the conversation went and slightly distorts how Densmore tells it.

Then Jim dies and we see some footage of this and that while Johnny wraps it up.

But of course one more disturbing moment awaits.

The naked Jim footage which I missed first time round, I am glad to say, is from the home movie footage from I think 1968. When he dives in it’s 1968 when he comes out it's 1970 and he has acquired trousers and a beard and some dignity.
And for me this should not have been used.
It strips away another level of that very dignity after the hatchet job of the last 70 odd minutes.

‘Oh look a nudie Jim’

.....put there by a freak of a Morrison groupie to appease and draw in other freak Morrison groupies.

For me it was cruel and unnecessary to include that pointless second of footage.

So overall. Some nice footage but a complete pile of shit of a narrative.
Lacking any decent level of research and read as if Depp was reading his wife’s shopping list.

DiCillo did a piss poor job of telling the story of the worlds greatest rock band but probably appeased a few fans of Jim’s leather pants. Ray liked it.

Full of hypocrisy and inaccuracy a chimp could have done a better job of writing the script.

Once again Jim Morrison shamefully shoulders the blame for all The Doors ills and is a convenient scapegoat being dead.

Just another Morrison movie no better or worse than Oliver Stones movie but lacking the dignity of the 1991 effort as that was made to make money.
What exactly was this made for gentlemen?

My original thoughts on my first view of the film October 2009.
When You’re Strange: London Premiere 2009

Alex, you take better notes than I do. I can understand your point. It was a nice to see "HWY" and "Feast of Friends" and the outtakes for both of those films, but as you said the script wasn't without its serious faults. Taking the time to research a subject with the ablility and professionalism to write an accurate narration would have produced a much better result. Unfortunately, DiCillo failed on both of these elementary procedures.

I did not use all of my notes as your review covers a few of my points rather well.

It's my opinion that the best point made about the film by anyone so far is the above one from yourself.
Between us we nailed this fool and his film I just get a bit more angrier sometimes.
I edited it and fine tuned it a bit this morning after watching it a bit more and included a few quotes I think relevant that do not make the film.
The coloured quotes are not from DiCillos film..

The same charges that were made about Stone's movie can be made here. It concentrates on the drunk Jimbo side of Morrison has an obsession with drugs and never engages the human being much at all.
The funny Jim barely, if at all, makes an appearance and the film concentrates too much on Morrison at the expense of the actual band.
It follows the Stone script pretty much too the letter. An example being New York where Stone introduces Andy Warhol at a party. But there is a point to Warhol in the Stone movie in that it is a cipher for Morrison's fall to The Dark Side.....Warhol his Darth Vader moment.
I see no point at all in the documentary for encapsulating a very important phase of the bands career which the two stints at Ondine in 66 and 67 and later the Scene gigs were with a sentence about Andy Warhol.
It dismisses a crucial period of the band to utter trivia giving an impression they turned up in NYC did Ed Sullivan a year after recording an album and became famous. Garbage writing.

People who subscribe to DiCillo and his film need to perhaps look at it again with better eyes (and ears) next time round because if Oliver Stone was guilty of so many crimes with his Hollywood effort then what about this guy who simply does a remake with less nudity.

Except for Jim of course who after having his character dishonoured by his so called friends and seeing his words used to make points they were not spoken to make is finally stripped bare of all dignity in one useless second of footage that I am sure he never intended would be for public consumption.

Jim Morrison left his fans with a lot of coherent, articulate and intelligent audio footage in which he covers much of what makes up this film.
Sadly as you say he was not accorded the same courtesy the rest of the band were and allowed to contribute to the film instead was simply used as a tool to tell a fraudulent tale from a bunch of fraudulent people after a buck. It's a film that made me think but sadly for DiCillo I thought a bit deeper than he wanted me to with this trash.

He didn’t even want to know about the Maharishi’s meditation. He said, “Oh, that’s a cliché.” I said, “Wait a minute: How do John and Robby enter the band?” You see Jim and Ray on the beach, and then all of the sudden there’s a band! There’s a guitarist and a drummer playing. I said, “My God, you’ve got to have the whole Maharishi thing. It’s a spiritual quest.” He said, “It’s a cliché.” What are you talking about? It’s been going on for 5,000 years! Young men have been seeking spiritual answers to life forever in this mantra or meditation. We’re a continuation of a line. It’s not a cliche; it’s classic, man.
He just didn’t get it. He didn’t get the spirituality of The Doors. And he put some strange episodes in the desert. [Laughs] I almost died, man, when he gave Jim the line, “Have no fear — I will be with you ‘til the end of time.” I said, “No, no, no — that’s Jesus’s line. Jesus said that! You can’t put those words in Jim Morrison’s mouth! He didn’t say that!” And I don’t know, maybe he couldn’t tell the difference? He was so enamored of Jim. Anyway, certainly When You’re Strange is the antidote to that Oliver Stone fiasco.
MovieLine Interview Ray Manzarek on Stone 08 Apr 2010.

A perfect example of Ray and his double standards. Stone did mention the meditation thing in his film and DiCillo hardly bangs on about it in his. So where was the 'spiritual quest' in DiCillos that is lacking in Stones? Tom's film barely mentions how the band form any more than Olly's and they just seem to appear in both films with barely an explanation.
But of course one was a profit driven Hollywood movie and the other an Official documentary.
Interesting!

QUOTE (darkstar @ May 13 2010, 10:03 AM) *
It is unfortunate that DiCillo did not give Jim the courtesy to explain himself in his own words. There is certain plenty of audio out there to warrant inclusion in this film but it was used only in partial form to suit the images on the screen. On other hand, the three surviving Doors give their explanations nearly 40 years after the actual events have happened, which is certainly acceptable but Jim should have been given the same opportunity.

I may be the only Doors fans who still has not had the opportunity to see the film, but am hoping to very soon. It's a bit difficult to try and comment on something I haven't seen myself, although I think you made an excellent point Sara. There is so much wonderful audio footage out there of Jim himself.. in the words that Alex used.. "articulate and coherent".... that show his intelligence and sense of humor. He explains his thoughts well, and in his own voice, we get a real sense of who he was... not who he was turned into. If a filmmaker wanted to portray the "real" Jim (the antithesis of Oliver Stone's Jim...).. those audios would be a priceless tool in which to do so. From what I've been reading, it doesn't sound like Tom DiCillo used the full resources available.. and that's a shame.
I'll post more once I've actually seen the film of course, but for now.. thanks too everyone who's taken the time to post their thoughts about it.

Been mulling over what I have been watching this weekend and here is another point worth considering.
From the very mouth of the only Door not allowed a proper voice in the film.

"The Lords appease us with images. They give us books, concerts, galleries, shows, cinemas. Especially the cinemas. Through art they confuse us and blind us to our enslavement. Art adorns our prison walls, keeps us silent and diverted and indifferent."

That pretty much sums up DiCillos pile of rubbish.
Perception as Jim learned in UCLA is everything. 'History' simply 'truth' told from the perspective of the one telling it.

In WYS we have 'History' told from the perspective of The Three Amigos......NOT from Jim Morrison who unfairly is the object of The Three Amigos so called view.
Like pretty much everything that has appeared Doors wise in the last 30 years we have been subtly conditioned to the crazy whacked out psycho Morrison whose antics destroyed the band called The Doors.
(Of course there is an element of truth in this as Morrison was hardly a monk.)
But there is a lot of money to be made from that image.
And I can name three people who have profited handsomely from exactly that.

The Lords have secret entrances, and they know disguises. But they give themselves away in minor ways. Too much glint of light in the eye. A wrong gesture. Too long and curious a glance.

WYS is touted as the anti Stone film and by association anti all the crap we have seen in the media, read in books and seen on the screen. In other words the anti Lords view. This film is presented as a new perspective giving insights into the true Morrison and the real Doors.
But as I have pointed out here as with Perception it is never quite as simple as that.

For instance Stone was criticised harshly for not showing the funny Jim or the smiling Jim or the human Jim but when DiCillo has a chance to show a more caring Jim walking among, talking with and smiling in the company of Doors fans what does he do?

Fear the Lords who are secret among us
The Lords are w/in us
Born of sloth & cowardice

He distorts this rather pleasing image of Jim Morrison by having Johnny Depp twist what we were seeing into Jim 'seeking' attention and 'needing' the adulation of the fans as if he was somehow mentally disturbed, sad and desperately in need of some strangers hand.

One Oliver Stone moment from a film riddled with them.

You might argue that this Patton fucker from Stockton does bang on a lot about WYS does he have some kind of secret agenda or maybe Tom DiCillo spilt his pint once in a pub. But that simply deflects from the criticism by demonising the one doing the critique. Which is a familiar trick in The Doors world we all occupy.

I have no secret agendas and could not care less about Tom DiCillo who I never even heard of until WYS.
I bang on about this because it is important. The rose tinted view that WYS represents comes from the shiny shiny of the footage and deflects from the rather disturbing content of the narrative. And it should be questioned.

Jim Morrison had a lot of faults and deserves criticism for many of them but the hatchet job of WYS places the blame squarely at the feet of Jim Morrison......or Jimbo as DiCillo delightfully refers to him half way through this tripe.....who is denied a chance to answer for himself and simply used to sell a message that has become fraudulent over the last decade as we begin to get a glimpse of his three partners and the part they played in the bands downfall.

But who created 'Jimbo'? Was it an out of control Morrison who under the influence of all that was wrong about The Doors became his own nemesis or was it the other three Doors who used Morrison's darker side to deflect the attention of their own part in the eventual downfall of America's greatest group.
Was 'Jimbo' a real entity or an excuse used to conceal something less than salubrious about the three living Doors?

It takes large murder to turn rocks in the shade
and expose strange worms beneath. The lives of
our discontented madmen are revealed.

Perception is indeed everything and WYS wants us to perceive Morrison as some kind of tyrannical ogre who held sway over the three timid souls in the band who just wanted to play music.

Of course they also wanted to make a shitload of money which was not high on the ogres list of things to do and were not that particular how they did it.
Nothing too wrong with that as being rich is better than being poor.
But the ogre for all his faults believed in the art he was part of and this brought him to conflict with his timid partners who we are told would break out in rashes and were simple folk who sought bliss through enlightenment rather than got pissed took a crate load of drugs and went mental.


Cinema has evolved in two paths. One is spectacle. Like the phantasmagoria, its goal is the creation of a total substitute sensory world. The other is peep show, which claims for its realm both the erotic and the untampered observance of real life, and imitates the keyhole or voyeur's window without need of color, noise, grandeur.

In other words the same tale that Stone told and the same tale NOHGOA told and the same tale pretty much everybody else has profited by since the late 70s.
But not all. We were given an antidote to that view by people who are sneered at by Ray Manzarek who was one of the evil Jimbo’s victims.
Jim Morrison’s friends like to tell a different story. They don’t deny the crazy muthafucka story but they do attest to the fact that was not all there was.

They still stand
and in
their silent rooms still wander

the souls of the dead,
who keep their watch
on the living.

WYS seems not to have cared about their story much and simply travelled down that well trodden lucrative lucre laden path …………… ‘lucre’…… ‘shameful gain’ ……profit at the reputation of a dead man who can no longer answer his critics because his critics are his former ‘friends’ and they control not only the mind of those who worship at his temple but his very words themselves which they can use whenever they like to promote whatever they want.
Who knows maybe the souls of the dead do indeed watch. I wonder sometimes what one in particular would make of the last couple of decades.

Fall down.
Strange gods arrive in fast enemy poses.
Their shirts are soft marrying
cloth and hair together.
All along their arms ornaments
conceal veins bluer than blood
pretending welcome.

WYS is a film that Doors fans should ponder long and hard upon.
If Oliver Stone was deserving of your scrutiny and as a result your contempt then this man too should be treated in no less a manner and be equally examined and judged by that analysis.

Surreptitiously
They smile
Inviting-Smiling

Indeed “Fear The Lords who are secret among us”….. the hard part is figuring exactly who the fuck they are and what exactly they have planned for us.

now, isn't that fragrant
Sir, isn't that knowing
w/a wayward careless
backward glance

made me think they are trying to prepetuate the myth he's still alive and living under the assumed identity of the man he rolled...did jim barbeque then eat his victim

"The film tells the story of the band using only the real footage of The Doors.
For this offense I accept full responsibility. I felt there was more benefit in letting the images speak for themselves."
Tom DiCillo blog 27 Dec 2008

But of course this fraudulent fool does nothing of the sort and simply trawls the same avenues that Stone does or Stephen Davis does putting his own spin on what we see or hear.
For example.....


Let's look at The Singer Bowl segment of the film.

Just before we get there we hear that ......
"Jim takes control of his own image He picks out his own clothes from the conch belt to the leather trousers Seemingly designed to accentuate his crotch"
cue footage of Jim having his knob felt by a fan whilst sitting in The Doors limo.....

“He understood exactly how to make it all work for him As if to protect himself he made it seem as if it didn’t matter”
This is hardly letting the footage speak for itself as how exactly did DiCillo know Jim was protecting himself by making it all seem not to matter?

As Jim wanders among the Singer Bowl fans DiCillo tells us.....
‘It’s hard to tell if he is simply mingling with his fans or if he is drawing something crucial from them as if he needs their attention to survive."

No it isn’t you fool he is simply mingling with his fans.

But then Tom has a reason for this comment which is part of his Doors = violence theme that pops up from time to time during this whole film.

He expands on his violence and Doors theme by elucidating on the reasons behind the Singer Bowl riot as he explains that ……
‘the Singer Bowl crowd is already worked up….Morrison stokes them further’….'and then 'someone throws a chair’…….
then he recounts that a photographer saw
‘Jim look directly at a young girl and grab his crotch her boyfriend picks up a chair’….according to the photographer Jeff Silverman "it was the FIRST chair to be thrown."

In other words Jim was so needy he needed to provoke a riot at the Singer Bowl to make his evening complete.
Read page 212 of Follow The Music for the complete Silverman tale. Jim is indeed rather insulting to the Hispanic girl and her very large boyfriend did indeed hurl a chair but How Silverman could have known that was the first is not explained and Silverman makes no mention of it being the first chair thrown when he recounts the tale for the Official Elektra History FTM.

Tom omits to mention why the audience was already in a high state of unrest even when the Who were on stage as the rotating stage had failed and a part of the audience could not see the bands and was rather pissed.
Ellen Sander (a soon to be missus of Jac) reported a good proportion of the audience couldn’t see and they were furious.
This was followed by an hour delay before The Doors get to take the stage due in part because the Who had insisted that none of The Doors equipment be on the stage and obstruct their performance and also due in part to the fact that The Who damaged some of the waiting Doors equipment during their instrument wrecking My Generation finale which resulted in repairs being needed and more delay.

Add to the mix the police presence that was hardly helping the situation with a disgruntled and sweaty audience and as a result there are many ways of looking at the Singer Bowl riot rather than just Jim Morrison started it all.
Yes it's true that Morrison used to read books on the behaviour of crowds and many times did deliberately try to exert a control over his audience. Pushing thier buttons.
But this film seeks to go further and associate The Doors with violence which is as stupid as trying to associate this band with hippies. There was a dark element to The Doors but by veering off on this violence tangent DiCillo loses sight of the real heart of The Doors which is their art.
He spends too much time looking for the sensational iconic Doors (which of course did exist) and completely misses the point that this band changed the world of music forever.
The same mistake Granada TV made in 1968 and the same mistake Oliver Stone made in 1991.
Of course this would mean a film that could not draw in the gawkers and would only appeal to Doors fans and DiCillo lacked the courage to stand up and make THAT film instead just doing the same as everybody else..

Pete Townshend who leans heavily toward DiCillo argument said he was "fascinated and appalled" by Jim Morrisons behaviour that night and later immortalised the events in his song Sally Simpson which became part of Tommy.
He claimed that Morrison deliberately set out to create a riot but the elements for such a riot were well in advance before Morrison took the stage.
Whilst it’s true Jim did provoke the crowd but the crowd was probably well on the way to a riot anyway.

“As soon as The Doors appeared, they were greeted with a thunderous assault of screaming fans and segments of the crowd began rushing the stage. A column of policemen were stationed at the front of the platform to curtail this onrush of people, while Morrison fiercely jostled his way through them to face the crowd. The chaos escalated continuously during the performance, with fights erupting throughout the Singer Bowl. Morrison sang with a very precise and articulate emphasis on the lyrics, and actually appeared to be substantially more sober than the crowd he was facing.”
Greg Shaw Doors On The Road

"A good portion of the audience still couldn't see and they were furious. Crowds stormed the front of the stage and were turned back by the police. Some were trying to scale the stage and others cheered them on. Morrison spun around and ground the songs out halfheartedly, ad libbing, improvising, doing an ominous dance. Hysteria was building. Morrison shrieked, moaned, gyrated, and minced to the edge of the stage, hovering. Hands reached out and grabbed him and the cops had to pry them away. The camera crew ducked a piece of broken chair which came flying onto the stage. Morrison caught it and heaved it back into the crowd. The Doors were hardly visible from any angle because there were about twenty cops onstage."
Ellen Sander, Trips, New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1973

So that is NOT letting the images speak for themselves at all and DiCillo puts his own spin on events that had several reasons for occurring and could be explicated differently depending on your viewpoint.
But DiCillo was making a point about Violence and The Doors so he could not allow the footage to speak for itself and used the opportunity to expand on one of his themes of the documentary.


Morrison himself once said that 'Music inflames temperament' and this can be analysed in several ways. He may have been saying that music forms character in a person or gives them a personal strength of mind or a sense of spirit.
He may have just been saying it makes you bloody angry.
Music does indeed do all of this as anyone who has ever been to a rock concert will attest. Music did a lot to form the character of many of us here and is still forming that character of many youngsters who call themselves Doors fans.
It's a part of life and why I get annoyed by people like Tom DiCillo who claim one thing and do another when trying to explain music in general and my favourite band in particular.
Yes it's true that with this band it's hard to find complete agreement even between us the fans.
But his fraudulent piece of pseudo psychoanalysis of The Doors masquerading as the near definitive History of possibly the most interesting and intelligent rock band ever one of the worst examples of the phenomena.
The anti Stone movie we are told but it’s nothing of the sort.
Simply someone making a buck from a rather controversial subject and adding his own spin to the huge mix of spin already available.
No worse than many but certainly no better.
Judged harsher by me because of the background to the film rather than the film itself.


We can get an idea ourselves of the cut of Tom DiCillo film maker who wanted to let The Doors speak for themselves from his own blog.

"I read the entire transcript of the Miami trial where Jim was charged with felony for “exposing” himself. The testimony reads like a scene out of Kafka written by the Marx Bros." blog 27 Dec 2008
A pretty useful tool when wishing to tell the real Doors story......sarcasm again.

He claims from the same blog that he "read every book and magazine article written about The Doors and found only in the rarest circumstances did any two people agree about anything."
Tried to do that myself mate and it's taken more than 30 years to really get near to it and I still find myself discovering new stuff all the time. And EVERY was a bit of a boast wasn't it mate?
Have you read Mike Jahn's book which gives an incredible feel of what The Doors were like in concert in 1968 or Stumbling Into Neon which is one of the few books to examine Jim as an artist rather than an icon....did you read Max Bell's excellent dozen or so page NME tribute to the band in 1981? I could go on.

DiCillo once again in his December 27th blog reveals that during his many meetings about WYS....

"Jeff Jampol, The Doors manager, co-ordinated all of these meetings. Some of this water runs deep with tricky currents; it clearly revealed Jampol’s extreme skill in navigation. He also provided some real insight into the band that helped form the film."

Jeff Jampol could not provide real insight into The Doors if you tied him to a chair and threatened to blow his nuts off with a shotgun.
And this statement for me the most telling of all that somehow the BRAND manager gave the film maker some kind of understanding of my favourite band.
Pretty much sums up WYS and the fraudulent nature of the film maker and his 'I wanted the footage to speak for itself' mantra to the media.

Seems no one cares to debate the merits of Tom DiCillo and his fraudulent film here.
Especially after it's just been shown on TV over in the States and as result is now easily available to anyone with a computer.
I bet if we were having a go at Oliver Stone there would be plenty of takers.

Interesting that, as many Doors fans kiss the guys ass a lot but don't seem to be able to articulate a cogent argument in his favour on a message forum when his work is analysed and found wanting.

This piece of crap deserves a decent debate here but seemingly you guys are all too busy.
Must be hectic in the world of Doors ass licking at the moment.

I used to think Doors fans were smart....that's another illusion that has been shattered in the last few years

I was watching this ill informed garbage again this week and noticed something I missed.
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 drunks.
Did this fucking moron do ANY research into the subject or did he just let a chimp rewrite NOHGOA for him.
Every time I look at this film I see how insulting it is to my favourite band.
This should have been so good....if only they had let the chimp direct it maybe it would not have been so bad.....probably would have been better researched anyway

I think I read somewhere that it was ultimately Johnny Depp who wrote the final narration, so perhaps we're busy kicking the wrong ass here.

God Almighty Sally you DiCillo butt crawlers are getting desperate now are you not
So Johnny Depp wrote the pile of ill informed horseshit that passed for the narration to The Doors Official Documentary.
I nearly choked laffing when I logged in and saw that one. If Shirley Bassey was rumoured to have written Oliver Stones script for his 1991 movie. Would that now excuse Stone for his crimes?

I would love to debate the merits of this film with DiCillo supporters but you all seem to have found some other pressing matter to attend to which is a shame as it deserves to be discussed on the forum of one of the people who sponsored this pile of crap..

If what you say was true a fucking half drunk monkey on crack would pass for a better film director than DiCillo.
Only a total imbecile would do such a thing.
DiCillo wrote this garbage.....he says so often enough.......the idea that a director of a film would scrap his own narrative in favour of one written by a bloke brought in at the last minute to narrate it so utterly and totally ridiculous to be unworthy of an intelligent person even using it as an excuse.
DiCillo was supposed to have read every Doors book ever written and every magazine article. He spoke to people who knew Jim. So then he handed over the backbone of the project to some bloke who turned up after the film was made and allowed him to rewrite the whole script.

DiCillo must be really shitting himself now that his garbage film has been put under the microscope in the way Stone's was. He must have thought a bit of nice footage would be enough for Doors fans to spend the next decade kissing his ass. He must think we are a bunch of dumbasses.
Sorry Tom but some of us are a bit less easy to fool.

I make no bones....I was expecting a great documentary from this knobhead....I was expecting The Doors story from The Doors.
When Jim first reported from Sundance I began to feel uneasy.....I was uneasy before I went into the cinema last October and bloody angry when I came out. After getting my copy of the PBS broadcast and watching it a couple of times I was bloody angrier. This film gets worse with every viewing.
Now the idea seems to be being planted that it was all Johnny Depps fault .....I wonder where this is gonna go.....DiCillo blames Depp in an interview and claims his original script was better?
Johhny was the hired help, you do not allow the hired help to oversee the project.
Depp may well have come in with something cheesy like 'You can't burn out if you're not on fire' which was a particular bit that made me want to throw up, but to pass the buck to him for the entire sorry ass commentary is laughable.
Perhaps it is for the best that DiCillo supporters do not debate anything about the film here as you would get slaughtered.

There you go Sally.....less than 30 second search on internet and I found this

The Doors documentary, "When You're Strange," was recently revived when the narration was given to an enthusiastic Johnny Depp to deliver. The doc's director, Tom DiCillo, ("Delirious," "Johnny Suede") gave the original narration. It may seem insignificant, but Johnny made some tonal changes including using first names, where DiCillo's prior narration, which was universally described as disastrous, distantly referred to the subject's as Morrison, Manzarek, etc.
"When You're Strange," The Doors, Johnny Depp and Tom DiCillo.
By Brandon Kim on 02/24/2010 Independant ear.

I agree with JDs using first names....the idea that the original script was even worse than the pile of garbage I was privy to in London makes my heart go out to the poor souls who had to put up with it.
But trying to blame Johnny for the finished product is rather sinister.....I wonder where this is coming from Sally what you read and where ultimately it is leading.
Stone got hammered by Doors fans but had the guts to answer his critics without trying to blame someone else. I see that little snippet of information you posted in post #35 as very sinister indeed.
A bit more on this......

Tom DiCillo and Doors Drummer John Densmore: Edward Douglas at Sundance film festival
for ComingSoon.net:

CS: They've had this footage for forty years, so why did it take so long to make a movie out of it?

DiCillo: In their guts, everyone involved, from the producers to The Doors themselves, knew that the essence of The Doors is very tricky, and they wanted to do something that really captured it. A couple of attempts were made, and the footage, I have to tell you, was not the most developed. They didn't shoot long scenes. It's like home movies, it's like snapshots. And so, not too much that gets you from A to B, so I had to use the footage, write a narration and come up with a concept that gets you from A to B. Now the film isn't strictly linear, which is nice. I take an element, I take a theme, I approach it. That gets me through a year-and-a-half, and then they back up a little bit, take another theme, then come around and go forward a little bit more. It has its own rhythm.

DiCillo: Yes, I read their books and read just about everything written about The Doors.

CS: Before we wrap-up, who is doing the narration in this? Someone who saw it asked me to ask about it.

DiCillo: At the moment, it's me. Yes, and mainly, to be completely honest with you, it was a functional thing. When I was writing this, I'd be standing in the editing room, I'd write some lines the night before, bring them in, we'd try to find some footage. I'd rewrite the lines and instead of bringing in an actor for two minutes every day, I basically just stood there with a microphone and did it. For the moment, it's me.
Densmore: Let me say that whatever happens, whether it remains to be Tom or someone else, the writing, which is him, is great.

Also it says 'written and directed by Tom Dicillo' in rather big letters at the start of the movie does it not?

With all due respect, Alex, I think this is a big fuss about nothing. I am not 'crawling up' anyone's ass. I got to know Tom a bit when he was out here starting work on the film, and he's a likeable guy and I like Tom's directorial work overall - perhaps the Doors movie fell somewhat short in your estimation, and it's certainly a departure from his usual oeuvre. He had to step in and take over a film that was already in the works, with existing footage and a direction. He was NOT making a film for extreme fans or insiders - that has yet to be done. Whether that sort of film is likely to appeal to the general public, I have no idea. You might be interested to know that I did have some issues with the film, and I actually addressed Tom in private about that. I have yet to see, in all the public ranting and raving, whether he made the small correction that I requested or whether it got by you as well. He certainly respectfully noted he would address this detail with Anne and we left it at that.

I didn't like the cartoon that Oliver made either, but I certainly don't want to spend my entire life dissecting the Doors and all their works, but I also respect the right of others to do so without name-calling.

Woah woah woah a bit there tiger!!!
Who is an extreme fan? for that matter what IS an extreme fan?
I am a Doors fan and discuss them anywhere Doors discussion is allowed.
Perhaps I was a bit harsh bracketing you as a butt crawler but you do seem to spend a lot of time here sticking up for him as a person and not discussing the actual film.
And it's funny how it's a big fuss about nothing here but did not seem that way when you and Tom's fan club were discussing it on the LL and sticking it to the dissenters like Blue Sunday. I would have loved to have got in on that discussion.

It certainly is not a big fuss about nothing for Doors fans to analyse the official Doors documentary and why should it be. It's highly insulting of you to dismiss it as such.
What should Doors fans discuss...Jim's pyjamas?

Stone's movie was analysed for the last 20 years and still is. Why should this clown get off so easy?
Once again we see the excuses as he had to step in at short notice and blah blah blah......if it was that short notice how on earth did he manage to read all The Doors books and all the magazine articles as well as edit and write the film then promote the bloody thing?
He must have had a decent amount of time to do it and he certainly had plenty of time to refine his narrative after Sundance. Such excuses are laughable.
And you make it sound as if he was forced at gunpoint to make this film.........he spent enough time blogging about it so if he was short of time maybe he should have used that blog time for the benefit of the bloody film instead of sucking up to fans.

Who exactly WAS he making this film for? You seem to be saying it was meant for the 'Stone' audience but all the media surrounding it said it was the 'Real Doors Story'.
I saw that exact phrase used many times.
Who would you tell the real Doors story to?
I would imagine only Doors fans would be that interested.
The Doors themselves including Ray, who we know can be fussy, endorsed it as exactly that.
Then you say you are not sure if the film will appeal to the general public.
I am confused because from what you say I can't figure out exactly what audience you are saying this film was made for.

And....why is it 'ranting and raving' when the film is criticised......I made a point of analysing the film quite closely here and do not rant and rave simply observe and critique.
The fact I call the director a 'fucking idiot' is here nor there as Stone gets that so why should DiCillo be immune. At least I justify what I say here.

If someone says the film is great is that 'ranting and raving'.... of course not.....so why should it be 'ranting and raving' if the film is dissected and found to be a pile of poop?

Whether DiCillo is nice to furry animals or not interests me not one jot as I do not seek to be any of these peoples friends.

I am a Doors fan....not a 'hardcore' Doors fan or a 'real' Doors fan or a Doors 'purist' and certainly no extremist Doors fan.

A Doors fan.

And the only way you will know if the small correction that you requested got by me is if I find out what it was and can answer your question. Hell I have watched it three times right through and about a dozen times focussing on short sections. I do not remember it frame for frame I am sure there are one or two bits I have missed as yet and will probably notice when I watch it again.

Once again your posts here make excuses for the director and do not make any attempt to discuss the merits or not of the film. And it seems by your reckoning this forum should just shut down as discussion about The Doors is just................ a fuss about nothing.

It was actually a mistake in the famous narration at the end of the film and addressed a pretty important fact (if you're a bit more than just a 'casual' fan), i.e. when Jim actually left for Paris.

If you think about how many "Doors fans" there are, and certainly the definition of a "Doors fan" is a whole other debate, though certainly connected with this subject, would you want to throw a fairly large gob of money just to make a film that meets their exacting standards? There wouldn't be enough of them to cover your below the line costs for producing the film.

As you have often pointed out, these days the Doors appear to be more about the rake-off factor of their work, and I don't believe that involving the Doors' themselves as producers was likely to result in the sort of work that would be more exhaustively in-depth than WYS.

It's been noted elsewhere that it's likely the film was made more to attract new fans than to make the old fans happy, and I think that's pretty true. On that level, it succeeds, if it leads these new fans into investigating things a little more closely than even WYS. And then, 10 years from now, some bright bulb will make that movie.

Yes I did notice that but the date has been so in dispute in so many different books I have (not being in any way one of your 'insiders') not a clue which one is the real one anyway and unless anyone has a copy of his ticket I would hardly base anything on what a Door said as definitive. 15th is the date I would think it was but have no evidence to base that on. I would call that 'fact' rather relevant true but hardly of major importance if it was a day out especially as no one seems to know when it happened anyway. If the film maker got it wrong he is in good company there.


Who actually are they. And it would not cost that much to tell The Doors story in an intelligent and articulate manner. I could have easily done a better job than DiCillo, narrative wise, given the time he had in telling the story and I know lots of others could too. I for one as one of these fundamental loonies that pass for Doors fans don't have that exacting standards.
Just do some decent research, tell the truth instead of making shit up, if you add your own slant be sure to be able to justify it in later discussion, don't insult my intelligence.
Hardly a lot to ask is it?



WYS wasn't in depth. WYS was ill informed rubbish. It was passed off as The Doors documentary and I saw many times the words 'definitive' and 'real' used. We as Doors fans have been talking about this for years now.
The level of disappointment in the finished article expounded by the very fact the Doors were involved so heavily.


This the most interesting bit for me.

But the Stone movie did that in Spades and was condemned by Doors fans for 20 years. This was supposed to be the anti Stone movie that told the real Doors story and not at all what you just said.
Were new fans not being attracted by the shoe? I thought the film was meant to be for Doors fans.
Not people who might wish to become Doors fans.

This is a fundamental change to the way the movie was presented before it saw a cinema.
Back then it was going to tell the truth....the real story.....now it seems it was just as I said the Stone movie remake without the nudity, Billy Idol and the swearing.

Stone's movie 'led new fans into investigating things a little more closely' I know that for a fact as I have met many of them who have told me exactly that personally and on the net......but you dismiss it as a cartoon.

But this tripe is beyond critique it seems ....'it's what it is' it's defence. But thats no way good enough.
The failings of this film deserve to be made public and discussed in the same way the cartoon was.

The idea that some 'bright bulb' will make the movie in 10 years is ridiculous.
All the elements for THAT movie were in place for this movie. Instead we got as fool and his fraudulent film.

Regardless of the avarice of The Doors the director of this film is the one who shoulders the blame for this mess. It's HIS film....he has told us that often enough.....he wrote it and directed it.
If Olly Stone is responsible for the 1991 film then Tom DiCillo bears responsibility for the 2009 one.

"As you have often pointed out, these days the Doors appear to be more about the rake-off factor of their work, and I don't believe that involving the Doors' themselves as producers was likely to result in the sort of work that would be more exhaustively in-depth than WYS."
"WYS wasn't in depth. WYS was ill informed rubbish. It was passed off as The Doors documentary and I saw many times the words 'definitive' and 'real' used. We as Doors fans have been talking about this for years now.
The level of disappointment in the finished article expounded by the very fact the Doors were involved so heavily. "

Maybe I wasn't clear here. What I was saying was that it was unlikely that a movie with the Doors as producers would be exhaustively in-depth.

I beg your pardon.....apologies I did indeed misread that.

That's a very fair and very interesting point.

Darkstar proposed that guys like Frank, Babe and Paul would have served the film better.
And I agree with that to a fair extent.

As with what you mention about the date of Morrison's leaving for Paris. Dates are indeed important to any History and we have never really been served well in that regard by the Doors members. Of course it's not always easy to remember stuff so I don't criticise for that but we are better served with event History and DiCillo let us down badly there.

Morrison's friend Frank Lisciandro has shown he is capable of finding stuff out but as we know Ray dislikes his kind immensely so they would have been unlikely to be involved witha Door involvement.
You have highlighted another drawback to this film and another reason why it is so utterly flawed.
The involvement of the band a two edged sword.

This in no way diminishes Di Cillos utter lack of research and complete inability to actually allow the footage to speak as he boasted to media and fans.

His involvement a disaster for me The Doors involvement perhaps a major hindrance.
But all good in pushing the debate along.

I watched the movie again when it showed on PBS recently, having seen it back last June when it aired at the Los Angeles Film Festival. I feel it would have been a better movie with very little narration. Depp's voice had a flat, mumbling affect that I personally found irritating and somewhat pretentious. Having spoken to Jim quite a bit personally, maybe he read poetry like that, or spoke 'on the record' like that, but he was quite a bit more animated in speech-pattern during normal conversation.

Maybe the 'real' movie will be made sooner than in ten years, before we lose the opportunity to hear from Frank, Babe, Leon, etc.

I was quite excited when Johnny was announced as I am a big fan of his stuff. Sadly he did a very poor job.
Narration is fine if it educates and trouble has been taken to get facts correct. The film suffers from too much 'Stone' type narration was badly written and ill informed. It concentrates too much on Morrison the icon and not enough on The Doors the band and tries too hard to appeal to the wider audience instead of The Doors audience and serves niether.

I doubt we will ever see a 'real' Doors documentary......unless it's a Ken Burns type of project with plenty of time to tell the story and made for a smaller more select Doors audience.

The failure of this WYS project is really sad. Maybe it will make a few bucks for The Doors and maybe it will bring a few new fans to the fold which is indeed worthwhile but comparing what was promised to what was delivered shows the gulf between the aspiration and ability of The Doors to really approach a definitive History.
Manzarek is talking about the real Doors story coming in maybe ten years but he was saying the same just after the Stone movie twenty years ago.

The only reason I’m bothered by negative reviews is their potential to prevent people from experiencing the film on their own. And, if no one goes to see the film it directly impacts my ability to make another one. To me, this system is criminally insane.

Is one person really any more capable of determining what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ than anyone else? Based on what I’ve seen over the last 40 years I’m not convinced. I’ve never read a review of one of my films that informed or illuminated something I didn’t already know. In general critics either recount a film and call the filmmaker a genius or they recount a film and call the filmmaker a dumbshit. As far as I can tell, only two people benefit from this; the filmmaker lucky enough to get a ‘good’ review and the critics themselves as they solidify their position as the ‘true’ arbiters of taste; as if their masturbatory scribblings are in some way as important as the films they write about.

I think at the end of every review it should be compulsory for the critic to end with,

"This is only my opinion. I really know no more than the guy behind you at Starbucks. I’m just some lucky bastard who gets paid to sit in the dark. I urge each and every one of you to go see the film and make up your own mind."
74. INCLUDE ME OUT Tom DiCillo Blog Published at May 8, 2010

This is from one of many DiCillo whines on his interminable blogging. This particular one regarding WYS not being advertised and only playing small theatres for a short length of time and incorporating another whinge at critics who dare diss his documentary on The Doors.
This is one of the many reasons I think the man such an utter clown.
He has been whining about the poor reaction to WYS since Sundance when the overwhelming opinion was that the narrative was complete shite and in serious need of being flushed down the nearest toilet.
Since then he has moaned that his critics were not Doors fans and did not understand his vision which was utter rubbish as I read many a Doors fans opinion of WYS and pretty much the majority found it insipid at best and puerile garbage at it’s worst.

The idea that critics are indulging in pointless ego trips to make themselves feel important the sign of a man cracking under the weight of his own under achievement.
His Highness seems to think he should somehow be immune from criticism and his work only judged by some form of elite with intellectual credentials in harmony with someone of his obvious importance.
Sorry dude but as a Doors fan I reserve the right to judge anything Doors anyway I choose and I for one judge your complete hogwash very harshly indeed.

TD asks “Is one person really any more capable of determining what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ than anyone else?” and the answer must be yes and no. It’s all opinion of course but informed opinion must count for something surely and I for one would argue that my critique is based on informed opinion rather than an attempt to look clever to the bunch that inhabit this place. Tom seems to feel this is somehow personal but I for one don’t know who he is and care even less. I got free copies of two of his films and after watching them considered I had been robbed.
Nothing he ever makes from now till Doomsday will likely ever interest me and only his involvement with my fave band makes him even relevant in the slightest.

He whines that the negative reviews may put off Doors fans from experiencing his film. Well that goes with the territory mate and can be said of every aspect of entertainment medium in existence.
I think his film to be absolute sewage but I would and have in my comments recommend any Doors fan to go see it and make up their own mind.

I have analysed it a lot deeper than most people will because the aspect of Doors History interests me a lot, which is why this film so offends me in it’s Historical inaccuracy and fallacious view of Jim Morrison.

Dismissing his critics as masturbatory scribblers shows how rattled he is to being discovered as the fraud he is. His real Doors story nothing more than a watered down Oliver Stone movie with the level of research of someone reading the back of the local paper and basing an Historical perspective on the local cricket score.
Research is hard and takes time and effort but it discovers truths that can elucidate and illuminate a subject making it interesting and essential to not only the target audience but the casual one too.
David Attenborough, Ken Burns and Carl Sagan three perfect examples of someone who can make a subject come alive and enthral a whole generation with that subject.
Tom DiCillo not fit to clean the boots of any of those guys. He cannot accept that his film is utterly flawed and bogus in the extreme and deserving of all the criticism it has accrued since Sundance.
His visual presentation was reasonable to good at best but his narrative was unbelievably awful.

Sadly he cannot accept how bad it was and instead indulges in blaming the critics for pampering to their own ego in an attempt to impress the chattering classes. His assessment of his critics as counterfeit as his film.

Here is one constructive suggestion Tom ....maybe if you had spent less time twittering and Blogging and more time trying to articulate a decent script you would not be receiving as much stick from Doors fans.

Tom has now moved on from his Doors documentary and I am sure many of his apologists will make that point and argue that his critics should do the same. Unfortunately the Olly Stone critics never afforded him that courtesy so Tom won't get it either....certainly not from me.

Weird Hippy introducing WYS in paris. June 2010.

I found this vid of some weird hippy guy talking in some strange alien language who seemed to have something to do with the WYS premiere......anyone know who the guy was and what he was rambling on about?

An even weirder bloke introduces JD at the film showing in April 2010

This has some really really creepy guy, who looked rather dodgy to say the least even in the dark, at the beginning who introduces WYS and Densmore who waffles on a bit before the screening.
I would have been more impressed if JD had been selling choc ices at the same time, wearing a tray with a light on it round his neck, to give a more genuine 60s experience for the younger folks

The ice-cream would have been Walls', wouldn't it?! LOL! (British joke, nobody but Alex is going to get it).

Good one.....nice bit of Brit humour......nice ice cream as well......
Where I live we used to have Rea's ice cream which was an excellent local Italian ice cream in the Stockton and Middlesbrough area. Their son Chris who lived in a flat above the Middlesbrough ice cream parlour became rather famous I do believe.

I was a big fan of Kelly's myself. Used to chase their trucks over the beaches of Cornwall all summer long!

Thought you'd enjoy this latest pic of Tom and John at the Paris opening. LOL!