Film chains, tho its eyes lie some

Rating: 8/10 (21 October 2001)

As a big Doors fan who is interested in the background of The Doors as well as their great music (tho, I have no problem in admitting, not as much), I am sympathetic to Ray Manzarek's criticisms about the failure of Oliver Stone's film to focus on Jim Morrison's better side, not to say there was not a very bad one. He was extremely well versed in literature and poetry, and this is itself, as well as its contribution to Doors' lyrics, should have been presented, and it clearly could have been done so effectively. (Doors fans out there, you know about Jim's well-known [to people like us] challenge to pick up any literary book on his shelf and test him.) And I certainly would not care if the result were a longer movie, rather than cuts in other scenes; I would remain riveted from start to finish to a 30-hour movie about the Doors. Jim as the jerk is no-holds-barred throughout the film, but it is said that he could be intelligent and sensitive when he was not drunk, so why not make all this a first-half (or first-third) focus followed by a second-half degeneration?
But a film's role is to entertain, and The Doors does not fall short, starting with a beyond-excellent acting performance by Val Kilmer as Jim. There certainly was accuracy in what one SAW of Jim, if not a fully balanced character portrayal. Looks, mannerisms, physiognomy, voice and inflection, lip syncing and singing, anything relevant to being convincing--they were all here and on an Oscar level, altho the film world would never have let that be. Meg Ryan was more convincing in her role as Pam than she was in any other movie in which I have seen her. The editing could have been better, but the cinematography was fabulous, dazzling and chromatic, with great concert scenes. (And I do not care whether those nude dancing girls hardly ever or never actually happened.) The song selection was excellent. I thought the Indian scenes in the car crash and desert, the Whiskey-a-Go-Go scene, New Haven and Miami, the "Celebration of the Lizard" footage, etc. were all well done. And its fine to have some crazy stuff (I won't give examples, to avoid spoilers)--if he did not do it, you know, it is close, or something he easily could have done.
I am a stickler for accuracy in life -- in writing, in quoting other people, etc. But in movies, is not the most important thing whether the inaccuracy causes a meaningful, substantive distortion? Thus, the "higher" extra emphasis on Ed Sullivan--who cares, it was fun; the "Come on Buick Light my Fire"; the UCLA film scene, which did not really make him look like a Hitler lover (but I admit I was bugged by "I quit", which did not happen); composite Patricia Kennealy; the presentation of Andy Warhol. Where there was substantive inaccuracy, as I said before, was in an unbalanced portrayal of Jim--the lack of the literary side (and I'm sure, some other positive qualities). Perhaps some day we will see that on film, not just books.
8 of 10