When You’re Strange: Critique?

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

That's another fault with the film.
The editing is atrocious.
DiCillo apparently had little to do with the editing side which shows what a poor director he is.
His narrative was utterly pathetic but his allowance of editors to put together such a badly made hotch potch of images that made no narrative sense at all is even worse.
The film is hailed because of the rarity of some of the images shown in it but there are plenty of rare images which were not shown and what was on display was very poorly presented.
Putting together this badly made visual section with DiCillos pitiful take on both Morrison and The Doors and you get a dismal failure of a documentary.
Considering the time, access and backing this got including The Doors themselves as producers it is lamentable that the finished product is so appalling.

[helenclare]

2 specific criticisms I have that I can think of right now: If Jim 'relishes the attention. He seems to have been born instantly ready for fame’, as Dicillo put it, then why did Morrison shy away from facing the audience in the early performances, preferrring to look at his fellow band members when on stage, rather than face the audience?

Also, I cannot site where I read it, but I've read from 2 separate sources that Morrison asked for the footage of him with friends swimming/diving nude, to be destroyed, some time after it was filmed. Clearly it wasn't - it exists 40 years or more on.

I thoroughly agree that the film has chosen to portray Morrison in a particular light; quite one sided/one dimensional. DiCillo definitely closed the doors of perception on this one. Some 'faux pas' if ever there was one.

As you quite rightly pointed out Alex, the film fails to portray the funny, intelligent, generous and compassionate side of Morrison.

[adam]

hey guys,

i 100% agree that Di-Caralho's statement of Jim being a fame addict is completely misplaced.

But devils' advocate... be under no illusion that jim wanted fame, worked for fame, courted fame & loved some of what fame had to offer him...

...this is a part of the mythology that has unsettled me for a while, this notion that some how jim accidently became a rock singer... he didn't, he worked his arse off for it, i very much doubt he was naive about what fame was, but perhaps he was alittle naive that he couldn't just ditch fame (namely being a door) when he'd had enough

so i totally agree that jim didn't "feed off of fame" & nor was he utterly consumed by it, but he clearly wanted to be famous

love were a band that didn't crave fame

the doors were a band that always wanted to rule the world

& even if that was predominantly ray's dream, jim went along with it.

@helen, nice comment re the singing in the circle

ray makes many comments about rehearsing in a circle & the power of the circle

i'd humbly suggest that maybe jim couldn't sing yet & was a little concerned about looking like a cock in front of an audience, until such time as the hard work he put into his singing caught up with the talent he had to write songs

cheers

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

I both agree and disagree with you Adz mate.
It depends what Morrison defined as Fame.
There are lots of different types of fame.
I think Morrison stepped back from being a rock star when he realised what it entailed whcih was why he wanted a break and why he played the Hollywood Bowl gig the way he did and why many other concerts were not archetypal Doors gigs after about mid to the end of 1968.

For me Morrison saw fame as the renown accorded someone who was recognised for their words.
I think he sought that fame and I think he used the rock stage a as way to achieve this.

As with several threads here COTL comes under a lot of scrutiny.
It was Morrison's first tour de force dramatic poetical piece and had it succeeded I think he would have embraced that renown.

But being remembered as a rock singer was not on his itinerary and once he saw the road he was doomed to follow his mood got worse after WFTS.
He began to be drunk at a lot more concerts from 69 onwards and maybe this was him resigning himself to being a rock star and not being that happy about it.

DiCillo does not seem to understand at all that this guy was NOT the usual rock singer. This guy wanted to be not only a poet but regarded by his peers as one also.

That was why he was so dissapointed when he attended a poetry bash with Babe Hill. He told him 'look at these guys. They are people I admire and nobody knows who they are. And I get invited because I am the singer in The Doors'

That showed humility and not vanity. This guy spent time with poets in Venice beach and supported the LA Art Squad who were a bunch of artists living on the street who produced pamphlets and Morrison would buy the lot and give them away to friends. He would empty the petty cash till in The Doors office or just write a cheque for them so they could buy paint and canvas.
The guy was in awe of poets and not at all full of his own shit as DiCillo tries to portray.

Yes Fame was what Morrison wanted but there is a difference between the fame guys like Ozzy or Motley Crue get and that a writer or poet gets.
Morrison was trapped between two worlds and one gave him a glimpse of the other.
Maybe he thought when they were making WFTS, or COTL as it was then with its great poetic theatre piece in a snakeskin cover, that his dream would be realised through the rock medium.
We can only guess at the dissapointment he must have felt when it fell through.
Now he had only one world to ply his trade and although more lucrative it was less satisfying which is why so few Doors concerts were of the standard of 1966/67 and 68.

The fame of a writer was what Jim Morrison wanted which is why the leather pants went and he put on weight.
He rebelled against his own self made image and like an artist destroying a canvas or a poet burning a notebook that was his symbolic attempt to rid himself of himself.
He had trapped himself in a self made prison.
There was nowhere to run so he sought relief in the dreams of a drunk.
He cut himself off from The Doors and sought the company of friends that shared his shattered dreams of poetry and theatre.
In the end he gave us Miami as a last desperate act designed to kill his stage persona forever.
Little would he know that rebellious couple of hours would ironically cement his fame for all time as one of rocks greatest performers and madmen.

[adam]

hey alex,

absolutely, i think the salient point is that De-Caralho* doesn't ever give any account of jim's true desire for frame, except of course to suggest (by proxy) that baby jim needed fame like most new borns need breast milk

[brief subject change, would have expected some addressment of the flimsy & entirely pointless speculations of recent yrs re jim's sexuality too]

i agree with you that the fame jim wanted & the fame jim got were quite different

but i do have to reiterate my belief that jim wanted fame very much (at least initially)

not sure how much stock to put in the various stuff said of the years, but the 'jimmy phoenix / death stunt' suggests someone who's kinda desperate to be in the public eye....

i agree totally that jim must have been humbled, embarrassed & even angry that poets & writers he considered to be colossal talents, were broke unknowns compared to himself, who was a singer...

but i've gotta stress my original point... jim embarked -by choice- on a career that the entire success of which could be judged pretty fairly on how famous he got & (as we all know) the initial elektra marketing was jim jim jim jim jim jim

i'm sure (well it's virtually a given known fact) jim grew to hate to monster that fame created, but he wanted that fame to begin with & of this i'm 100% sure (as a hunch can be !!!)

cheers

*anyone who speaks portugese may see my poor word play here !!!!

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

I think you make a fair point Adz but it's not as clear cut as it sometimes looks.
Lets not forget that Jim freaked out at the cover of the debut LP and said for the second one that he did not want his face on it.
So that's not someone embracing fame as such.
I think for fame we should really read attention as Jim was a young lad who had been brought up in a military background and moved around a lot so it must have affected him.
So seeking attention with outrageous behaviour is not the same as seeking fame.
There are as many stories of him shunning the limelight as him hogging it.
He did show a lot of humility in his time as a Door.
The story of how at a party in the early days he was engaged in conversation by some guests and pointed to Ray and said 'you see that guy. He's The Doors'.
His demand that the DJ who introduced them as Jim Morrison & The Doors go back out and introduce them properly was a sign that he did not value himself higher than his band mates.
Same goes for his giving up 75% of his songwriting royalty which by todays standards would be worth tens if not hundreds of millions.
This was someone who was humble and he showed that when in the prescence of his peers.
He actually said as much when he appeared on the same stage as John Lennon, Bo Diddly, Jerry Lee Lewis, Little Richard, Gene Vincent and Chuck Berry.
This was a man who showed great humility when in the prescence of poets and artists.
Of course he was outrageous but I don't think he was a show off as such.
It's not an easy thing analysing Morrison as he contradicts himself a lot.
He could be selfish as well as generous, cruel as well as kind, shy as well completely outrageous.
When you read accounts of people who met him away from The Doors he always seems polite and rather quiet.
He was a complicated individual but I still don't think DiCillos vision comes close to capturing who Jim Morrison was.
It's a good debate. Hopefully more will join in.

[adam]

i cant criticize decaralho's interpretation of morrison's relationship enough, it's easily the worst part of the doc, i can forgive the jimbo stories they're are inextricable from the myth but his handling of the core dynamic of morrison is unforgivable (i mean that jim could've wanted to sing, act, write draw, paint & never expected to be famous)

but jim wanted to be famous as he said himself (i think) "i'm not saying if i had to have my time again, i wouldn't pick the artist plodding away on my own trip" (or something like that, but basically "i picked this life")

as aghast as he was that he was promoted to be the top door, it doesn't mean that he didn't want to be a famous door...

it's noble that he feels the doors are a 4 way equal partnership, well more than noble unheard of, unique & amazing that he doesn't ego it up & demand the lion's share of the attention

i would imagine that this is very rare amongst groups with a clear front man/ writer

[eg nirvana started off splitting 33/33/33% then they got big n kurt got a bigger share (he did write ALL the songs) in fact if nirvana records had suddenly stopped selling after nevermind kris n dave would've owed kurt money.....]

but wanting the fame to be evenly distributed isn't the same as not craving fame

n that's basically my point

jim was no accidental ultimate barbie doll

it is a good debate - be cool to see what the other's think...

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Again I think you make fair points mate but my disagreement stems from semantics of the interpretation of Fame as regards Morrison.
Becoming Famous is a different thing to seeking Fame.

As you say Morrison said many things like that. He said instead of an artist he would become a banker.
Much of what he says is said for effect rather than any deep meaning.
Frank Lisciandro once said that Morrison used words for their effect rather than their meaning.
We both can agree that Jim embraced Fame but it was not the Fame he expected is what I am saying.
I still don't agree with DiCilo that Jim sought out Fame as such because what he means and what I am saying are worlds apart.
The renown Jim sought. (I deliberately do not say Fame) was that of a word man rather than a performer.
Jim was very shy at reading his poetry and very very rarely did that to an audience.
He had doubts about his voice and was shy to anyone outside the other three Doors.
He wanted to gain the respect of his peers not become a T Shirt or Poster. As you say in another thread he worked very hard to gain that respect with many hours spent with his journals fine tuning his words.
Ray Manzarek was once asked what was the most cherished memento he had of Jim Morrison and he produced a well worn book and said 'this is Jim Morrison's dictionary and he used it to write his poetry'.
This is an amazing turn of respect from a man more famous for craving Jim Morrisons dick than his dictionary.
But it shows that even for all their faults the three surviving Doors were touched by Jim's struggle and striving to be known as a Poet.
Even someone as horrible and obnoxious as Manzarek could see what DiCillo did not see though why he let that vision be misrepresented is of course another story.

This is a portrait of the Antithesis of what DiCillo paints.

Dicillo presents a vain, preening, fame obsessed Morrison who was 'born for fame' and 'self centred' and it's that interpretation I disagree with not the idea that Jim liked being Famous.
Hell of course he enjoyed that. Who wouldn't.
But its the semantics of the word that I think that DiCillo falls down on and falls down like a crashing elephant in the room.

Morrison was surprised to find he could actually front a rock band. The evidence for that is in the earliest days of The Doors where he was too shy to even look at an audience.

Some of his comments about the making of the first album show that he did not expect that the band would last long and was almost surprised to discover that they were making music that would last for years not weeks.

DiCillo fails to understand that there is a difference in ruthlessly seeking fame, being born to fame and having fame thrust upon oneself.

Morrison had that fame thrust upon him by virtue of being in the hottest band in America in 1966.
It's true that at first he revelled in that fame. And lets be honest who would not.
But he saw The Doors with a different eye than most everybody else.
To him it was a vehicle to gain respect for his words not his actions.
The dissapointment that he must have felt when that did not happen is there for all to see in 1969 and 1970.
The vain preening self centred Morrison of When Your Strange so far from the true Jim Morrison as to be laughable in its stupidity.

If as the idiot director says that he missed the attention in Paris in 1971 then why did he do so much to rid himself of the hottest image a rock star has ever had in the History of rock music.

To deliberately destroy his own self made image is not a sign of a fame seeker but more of a truth seeker who wanted to be judged on the truths he brought rather than his looks and the myths of his reputation.

The film is so incredibly far off the mark that it is rendered a joke by the clowns who made it.

It represents more the Bay City Rollers than The Doors.

It is littered with misrepresentations of both band and the lead singer.

Morrison saw The Doors as the new wave of art rock.
He wanted to incorporate Greek Tragedy, the drama of film and theatre, and poetry into the rock music form.
He did manage a few rather brilliant triumphs but it was COTL that he pinned his hopes on.
When they were dashed it seems likely that he resigned himself to being a singer in a band got rid of the pretty boy image that America was obsessed with and decided that he would just sing the blues.
Of course he did dabble in the art of The Doors during The Soft Parade and the title track shows what could have been aceived with COTL. Texas Radio was one of his poems and several other he wrote reflect the drama of cinema poetry and theatre.
But his new direction was cut from under him in 1968 and being famous did not give him the same satisfaction as it did when he thought he could achieve his dreams with The Doors.

So from the Hollywood Bowl onwards he did a bloody good job of alienating his audience who just wanted him to sing LMF and be outrageous.
The Barbie Doll had learned a few new words like 'Fuck You! I am gonna do what I want'.
And he did. He got drunk and sang the blues. Every now and then he would hark back to better times by singing The End or presenting a 20 minute COTL but mainly from the end of 1968 Morrison was no longer a Shaman or a Superstar he had become a Myth and a Legend and death sealed that deal.
He is remembered now for all the things he thought the most trivial and not for that which he strived most to be and that was a writer and a poet.

Throughout the WYS 80 odd minutes it is evident that DiCillo just went with the Myth instead of trying to discover the truth about the subject. We get a glimpse in the corner of the eye of the Poet but all we see mostly is the Madman..

The dissapointment and anger I felt when I walked out into the chilly London Night back in October 2009 was compounded when I was able to examine the film from it's PBS showing and what I saw and heard made me bloody angry.
Even Oliver Stone had more of a clue than the so called Official Doors movie.

So I will agree with you that Jim Morrison actively sought Renown but not Fame and there is a huge difference between the two.
He wanted to be acknowledged as a Poet by those he respected and seen as a Poet first and singer second by his wider audience.
he sought respect rather than dollars.
Of course dollars are great as it's better to be rich than poor but first, second, third and foremost Jim Morrison sought renown as a writer.

[casandra]

Hello,

I agree with both in most that you had commented.

For me, the first thing we must know is what each of us wants to understand for the word “fame”. I agree with Adam that in 1966-1967 Jim Morrison had an interest in “fame” and he worked to be “famous”. But for me, the word “famous” means recognition of his work (acknowledgment) like any artist, writer, painter, musician, etc. could have it. A romantic concept of “fame”, and perhaps, it can be a bit naive. He was very young then.

Since 1968, Morrison realized that recognition or “fame” that he had sought, it led or entailed some things that he didn’t like. He had become “famous”, a “celebrity” (I don’t know if this would be the right word). So, as Alex says, being a singer (mean o way) for after to be considered or recognized as a poet (purpose), it wasn't or didn't go for a right way. It wasn’t what he had expected. Most people (audience, fans, journalists, record company and even his band mates) involved him in a role in which he didn’t feel himself good and that he deliberately tried to destroy, but he could not so, I believe. He was trapped by the character he created or the journalists had created and the character began to do his own life himself.

In a scene from DiCillo's film, Jim is surrounded by photographers and Ray, John and Robby were on the side away from the flashing cameras, and we can hear something like this: "Morrison captures all the attention, if other guys, they cared or not about it, we don’t know, they remain in silent”. This is another DiCillo misrepresentation, because Jim always tried to do understand to the people that he was in a FOUR people group. They weren’t a singer and three accompanying musicians. However, the other mates always appear one step behind. I believe that this wasn’t a Jim’s conscious decision (“I’m the leader, I’m the first”) because he was an egocentric (as DiCillo said) because he wasn’t it, but a pretty humble guy, aware of his limits of his talent. The others mates preferred to remain behind, in the background, out of journalists’ scrutiny sight. It was the most handly position, away from the public eye.

Some of his words were outrageous, and sometimes he manipulated the journalists, as he said, sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously. But the journalists also turned manipulate his words, creating the myth. For example, when he said "I am the Lizard King…". He later said it was ironic; it should not be taken seriously. But to the audience and the journalists’ eyes, he already was typecast in a role: “Young Lion”, “The Lizard King”, “The Barbie doll”, etc.

I think Jim was a guy that he was auto-analyzed himself a lot and he thought very much about what he had done at the beginning of his musician career: photos, interviews, etc. And he felt soon he had lost the control of his own image and his musical career. I think this could happen in the spring or summer of 1968 and this, other things (stress, many concerts, larger audiences, pressure for songwriting and make records, to get hits, his mates, Buick episode,...) and one million things more made his frustration and agravated his alcoholism. His poem "As I look back" says a lot about his feelings.

So what I wonder if he (only he) liked the “fame” or all happened was the way for the group (all of them) became “famous”. And we only see his actions and examine his reasons, because he was the Doors face.

Adam, I don’t speak Portuguese, but I understand what you mean with De-Caralho ...

Greetings.

[adam]

thanks Casandra, i don't speak Portuguese either, but i pick up the odd word !!!

I think the comment frank L made about jim saying "he was born in the wrong time" is indicitive

if jim was 100 yrs older he could've been a poet and a mainstream star (i DONT mean jim wanted to be a mainstream star, i just mean that in the 19th cent a successful poet was a mainstream star)

the myth goes that jim was to leave la for nyc & be a writer, but instead stayed on & met ray on the beach...

this (to my speculative mind) suggests that jim took quite a conscious decision to pursue a musical career over a purely literary one

but i can't stress enough, this ludicrous notion that decaralho makes that jim had a grand canyon sized hole in his self esteem that could only the adulation of an audience could fill is complete bollocks

jim (to me) seems embarrassed by fame after 68, not so much that he didn't want fame anymore, but he didn't want that hero/hyperbole type of fame any more

i think if jim could visit the masses on the various msg boards, he say something like "thanks guys, i'm touched - but if you think the doors were that amazing, start your own band, it's really not that difficult*"

in short i think he believed in his work a LOT more than he believed in his marketability as a star/celebrity

*not difficult in that ali found it easy to throw a punch, rossi finds it's easy to ride a bike fast, tiger finds it easy to take his pants off i mean hit a golf ball, i just mean i don't think jim was over awed by his gift, if he made an oscar type speech he'd be thanking people who he found inspirational, not god for giving him his talent, i think he had a balanced view of fame & what it meant & the diff between the fame he wanted & the fame he got

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Feb 12, 2011 19:43:51 GMT adam said:

jim (to me) seems embarrassed by fame after 68, not so much that he didn't want fame anymore, but he didn't want that hero/hyperbole type of fame any more

I think that nails it mate.
I agree with your assessment that Jim found being a teen idol counter productive to what he had imagined The Doors to be.
Although he was responsible for his teeny bop image he, for me, had not counted on that taking away the cerebral part of The Doors and replacing it with raw emotion.
I think Jim wanted The Doors to be for the Head and not the Heart.

It's evident with the first two albums as they weave in Celtic folklore, Greek tragedy, poetry such as Blake which he nicked for End Of The Night, cinema, environmentalism, and very intelligent observations of what life was like back then in places like LA.
This band was for thinkers rather than dancers.

I saw the band on Top Of The Pops back in the Autumn of 1968 but don't remember much about it but luckily there are lots of photos and looking at them Jim seems very ill at ease miming HILY to an audience of the worst class of teeny boppers we could muster in the late 60s.
The TOTP audience was in another dimension to the kids I knew who were bright working class kids who knew their music and although we watched TOTP we were NOT of TOTP.
And that kind of audience was what Jim was attracting.
The sensation seekers rather than the truth seekers.

You hear it in the concert bootlegs as he tries to shush the audience and tries to give them something to ponder with a bit of poetry or in extreme cases COTL.
But they always disappoint him because ultimately they scream for LMFF (Light My Fucking Fire)!

I was not lucky enough to make an audience like that as I was too young but I (to my shame) guess I would have just run with the crowd back then and been exactly the same.
Of course as I got older I got wiser and began to understand what people like Jim were trying to present in rock music as opposed to pop music.

So one would think that somebody like DiCillo would engage his feeble brain and would have seen beyond the teenybopper and understood that this band was about a lot more than leather trousers, LMF, getting drunk and knob flashing.
I have been listening to rock bands since 1962 and this band was and still is the smartest band I have ever heard.

Yet a film like WYS does not seem to be able to understand how utterly intelligent the music and lyrics of The Doors were.
Of course they could do teeny but even bubblegum like HILY is a clever use of words to explain a moment in time the writer had on Venice Beach.
Even Robby could write intelligent lyrics sometimes.
LMF probably one the least intelligent lyric The Doors did but the music was clever paying homage to classical and jazz.

This band was not fucking Status Quo or dumbasses like The Beatles this band was bloody smart and took a long time to figure out.
I am still doing it over 40 years later.

They deserved a film that at least recognised that they were unique in an art form that was evolving rapidly covering intelligently a wide spectrum of musical form.
And that Uniqueness was such that 40 years after the singer died there has never been a band that truly has emulated what The Doors did.
There are bands that sold more than The Doors, bands that had better musicians than The Doors and bands that in terms of popularity dwarfed The Doors but there has never been a band quite LIKE The Doors.
That is their greatest achievement.
That 38 years after the band gave up the ghost they still have never been emulated.

That's the best explanation of why they never sealed worldwide popularity back in the 60s.
These guys made you have to think and the time period was probably not quite ready for that.
If they had formed in 1970 and started from that point I believe that they would probably had fared better.
The Peace and Love era had gone by then and The Doors were the opposite of that back in 1967.
Bands in the 70s were open to revolutionary ideas so I think The Doors would have fit right in there.
Sadly they were never appreciated by their audience in the 60s except probably for their earliest days in clubs like the Whisky.
As their audience grew their Fame increased and the smartness of that audience diminished.
By the time we got to 1970 the audience was a enamoured by
the hits and in love with the leather trousers and the Young Lion Morrison. The fact The Young Lion was now fat and bearded probably led to the disillusionment with The Doors that was evident in 1969 and 1970 as their popularity dwindled and the singer got more hostile towards his audience that did not get what he was trying to say.

He proved he could still be smart in 1970 with Morrison Hotel and what would become LA Woman but he was no longer pretty and our Ultimate Barbie Doll was now a grumpy old man in the body of a 26 year old.
He had had enough of them by the time he got to Dallas in 1970 and that weekend it just got too much for him.
Fame did not mean a hall full of screaming acolytes to Jim Morrison it meant being recognised as an erudite thinker who believed passionately in what he wrote and wanted to be remembered for that rather than his hated self image.
Sadly all he ever got once fame kicked in was the acolytes and it was disciples he wanted not the Mob.
He wanted to create a symposium of like minded people not a religion.

DiCillo only saw the religion of the Cult of Jim Morrison and was an acolyte of the leather trousers not a disciple of the words behind those trousers.

What a knob head he was to miss that which was most obvious about the band and see only that which he wanted to see....the sensation rather than the sensationAL.

[casandra]

Feb 12, 2011 19:43:51 GMT adam said:

I think the comment frank L made about jim saying "he was born in the wrong time" is indicitive

if jim was 100 yrs older he could've been a poet and a mainstream star (i DONT mean jim wanted to be a mainstream star, i just mean that in the 19th cent a successful poet was a mainstream star)

If we speculate on what Jim thought about how the life of a poet in the nineteenth century was, we would lead too far...

I think the poets in the nineteenth century, even the most successful, had a quite miserable life. They lived in small attics, starved to death; they were very cold and wrote to the candlelight. The "enfant terrible" Rimbaud, Morrison’s hero, he didn’t get sell one book during his life. When he was in London with Verlaine during their affair, he was going all days to the British Library because: "The heating, lighting, pens and ink were free" there.

Only if they were aristocrats, as Lord Byron, or their relatives were richs, as Baudelaire, they could afford to devote themselves to poetry.

[adam]

well jim loved blake... wonder if he knew he was unkown until waaaay after he died

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Robby Krieger is still a little bitter about Oliver Stone’s 1991 biopic on his band, the Doors.

But the guitarist was more than enthusiastic about “When You’re Strange,” the 2009 documentary about the Los Angeles group, which was awarded top long-form music video at the Grammy Awards on Sunday afternoon during the pre-telecast show, a film which the 65-year-old Krieger said finally “got it right." Especially in terms of the band's oft-mythologized lead singer, Jim Morrison.

“I think [the film] lends some realism to how people view Jim,” Krieger said, who was also nominated for his solo disc “Singularity." “There have been Oliver Stone movies, and books that really give the wrong idea of Jim. This film really gives a look at who he is.”

The documentary about the life of the band was written and directed by Tom DiCillo and, for the first time, pulls material from Morrison’s experimental film, “HWY: An American Pastoral.”

Krieger said the band's surviving members wanted to “keep away from the making of the film” and trusted DiCillo’s vision.

“There was a lot of stuff that I had seen before,” he said. “But there were outtakes and things I hadn’t seen.”

Krieger said the band is readying a 40th anniversary of “L.A. Woman.”

-- Gerrick D. Kennedy


Guitarist Robby Krieger accepts music video award from the pre-telecast ceremony at Staples Center on Feb. 13, 2011.
Note huge fuckwit behind Krieger working his controls.

First of all why is Krieger still bitter about Stone's biopic?
It never stopped him signing off on it along with the other two and it never stopped him raking in the millions the film made for him during the 90s at the theatre and in 20 years as a DVD release.
Bit of hypocrisy creeping in there Krieger you been too close to Ray for too long.
The competition must have been pretty shit if this garbage was the best they could find to give an award to.
Now we will see smug members of The Doors spouting the same old shit for the next 6 months as they jump on the Grammy band wagon and shift into overdrive for the big 40 year Morrison Leech.
The fact it won an award is of supreme indifference to me but the fact they will milk the shit out of it certainly is.
people keep waffling on about all the pretty pictures.
But its piss poorly edited as well as piss poorly written.
Shows what a load of shit the Grammys really are


Krieger said the band is readying a 40th anniversary of “L.A. Woman.”
Jebus save us from another series of re released Doors albums with 'rare' out take

Will this milking of LAW interfere with their Morrison milking?
These guys are so greedy I doubt that it will

[helenclare]

I tried to add my response on DiCillos Blog for the WYS Grammy Award, but it seems it's been screened and rejected.

www.tomdicillo.com/blog/?p=368

I wrote the following (hardly offensive in my opinion - just a point of view):

"Let not ‘When You’re Strange’ blot out what Jac Holzman and Bill Siddons had to say about Morrison - a side of Morrison which was not captured in the narrative of WYS.

“Beyond [Jim’s] public image, he was a friend to many, and those of us at Elektra…… who worked with him and The Doors so closely over the past five years will remember him as one of the kindest and most thoughtful people we have known.
He is already missed.”
–Jac Holzman, President of Elektra Records

“I hope that Jim is remembered not only as a rock singer and poet, but as a warm human being. He was the most warm, most human, most understanding person I’ve known. That wasn’t always the Jim Morrison that people read about - but it was the Jim Morrison that I knew and his close friends will remember…”
–Bill Siddons Statement - July 8, 1971

Congratulation to Paul Ferrara for a mesmerizing visual feast "

Whatever happened to freedom of expression?

[casandra]

My congratulations are for those guys who have really made this film could be.

1. For the “actor” in leading role: Jim Morrison, because the movie wouldn’t be without him. He appears in 95% of the images and the story spends 95% to him, because the film is essentially a clumsy analisys of his life and personality. We don’t know and never will know if he would have liked or disliked the film, as being dead, he can’t say any word about the film.

2. People who have made possible that 80% of the images and the sound of the film being: Paul Ferrara, Frank Lisciandro and Babe Hill. Although these are alive, I haven’t seen any article or interview on which they tell their thoughts about the film. The journalists haven’t approached to ask them about their opinions or, at least, about the filming process HWY, Feast of Friends or Hollywood Bowl concert. I think their opinions would be very interesting.

The three Doors and Dicillo have always captured all the interviews and all the people are congratulating to those.

So if someone deserves the Grammy award are the others guys, who have remained silent. The film never could have been done without them, if they wouldn't have filmed the pictures 40 years ago.

¡¡¡¡¡¡Enhorabuena Jim, Paul, Frank and Babe!!!!! We remember you!!!

[adam]

the blog police missed my sarcasm, although i tried to be nice about that fact he made a film... even if we dont liek his film, he still worked hard to make it & in an age when the 60s really were a long time ago, the music industry is a fraction of what it was & guitar music simply doesn't sell it was an important to achievement to make doors movie...

i mean we don't like how he wasted the opportunity (to tell teh story)

i've no problem that he actually made a move,

i said =

Adam
Feb 13th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
congrats success is always to be respected

you seem to be a perfectionist

perfectionists always want to achieve more & if you could make the move all over, what would you do different?

people make their achievements in spite of difficulty not because of it, does this apply to Morrison?

in your movie, not so much..

making a movie is harder than i’ll ever know, have a great night you deserve it

cheers

[helenclare]

@ Cassandra - well said.

@ Adam - I wondered if the response from 'Adam' on the DiCillos' came from you. now I know it did Yes, you were subtle, but I got your ulterior meaning.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

Dicillo got pretty much everything wrong with this film.
It was badly edited, had a hopeless narrative, and getting Johnny Depp to read it in such a dull way was foolish as Depp is one of the finest actors of his generation.

But worst was that he failed to understand why the Doors were the Doors.

He made the same mistake Granada TV made back in 1968 and made it seem that they were born from civil rights marches, political unrest and the Vietnam war instead of cinema, poetic drama, literature, jazz and theatre.

Granada had an excuse as they were seeking to make an anti American film and used The Doors as a pawn in their anti US rant.
Dicillo is a clown and was assisted by three clowns and a muppet in Krieger, Densmore, Manzarek and Jampol.

It seems amazing to me that the media has not beeen able to see past the pretty pictures, true the narrative has been slated but nobody seems to get into why it’s so bad.
Same goes for many Doors fans.
They are looking but not seeing and hearing but not listening.

I have been accused of having an anti DiCillo agenda but I had never even heard of him till WYS.
I watched a couple of his movies and was not impressed.

I approched this film with an open mind even with the disturbing reports of DiCillo as narrator before Depp and as a Doors fan.

It was as a Doors fan perspective that I was angry with WYS upon leaving the screening after it’s UK Premiere in London back in 2009.
I was able to examine the film in detail thanks to the PBS showing and my critique grew from watching small segments and taking notes and then watching the whole film to see whether my comments were fair.
I have never approached this film with anything other than with an open mind and a Doors fans eye and ear.

The injustice done to The Doors in general and Jim Morrison in particular is there for all to see and hear but unfortunately a lot of Doors fans are not as bright as they once were and few seem to get just how utterly awful DiCillos narrative really is.

Hopefully once the furore dies down they may examine it with the same critical eye that Stones movie was examined and still is 20 years later.
Stone was not making a documentary however which DiCillo was.
Stone did a good job making a movie whilst DiCillo made a piss poor job of this documentary.

For The Doors to say it’s the real story shows how far they have fallen.
Their greed has overwhelmed their once artistic integrity and all that’s left is a bunch of guys concerned at the impact the film will have on their back catalogue.

Morrison has gotten a bum rap from pretty much everybody except Doors fans themselves and this tripe adds to the list of culprits who portray Jim as nothing but a drunk but with the added DiCillo slant of being a vain, self centred attention seeking weakling.

I am sure he will be smug as shit on his ridiculous blog as plenty will tell him how wonderful a job he did but how many will have actually 'watched' the thing.

It would be nice to see more critique of this film based on what is said and not said rather than just 'oh look at the pretty pictures' which is what many of the reviews are based on.
I firmly believe Tom DiCillo needs a good duffing up for this travesty but too many Doors fans are trying to see who can crawl farthest up his arce so I doubt we will see anything soon. Other than this!

Feb 15, 2011 13:09:29 GMT @helenclare said:

Congratulation to Paul Ferrara for a mesmerizing visual feast "
Whatever happened to freedom of expression?

To be brutally honest both HWY and FOF are utterly abysmal films that are badly shot and edited but of course essential to a Doors fan and I am like you waiting to see both released in their original form plus any out take footage but with the clarity we saw in WYS.
Morrison had as much film talent as Ray Manzarek which basically meant give a couple of chimps a bit of camera equipment and they could have done as good a job as either Ray or Jim
It was of course amazing to see the footage on the big screen in such glorious colour and clarity but both movies are as shit as WYS.

Freedom of expression is an illusion I am afraid Helen and as far as The Doors are concerned only available to those that kiss their arces.

[TheWallsScreamedPoetry]

I posted this on the DiCillo blog with a link to this critique and it was posted but then removed almost immediately as I was trying to check it was posted correctly.

An examination of the Grammy Award winning film 'When You’re Strange' and the reasons why it is a pap smear on the underpants of Doors History.
The greatest band in the world deserved better than this cack!
The only reason for hiring DiCillo I can see is that he was cheaper than Alan Smithee and available straight away.

I guess old Tom does not want to hear what a shit job he did but just have his ass cleaned by the ass kissers.