Doors and Perception

I got to thinking about this today. Here is a quote from Ray Manzerek about the film Oliver Stone made about his former band The Doors.

It was ridiculous. It was like a movie about an alcoholic. If you want to see a movie about a drunk go see The Doors movie. Oliver Stone did a terrible job, but it sure was wild. It was a wild movie, and a lot of people liked the wildness of the movie, it’s wild, but it’s not psychedelic. It was not about Jim Morrison. It was about Jimbo Morrison, the drunk. God, where was the sensitive poet and the funny guy. The guy that I knew was not on that screen. That was not my friend. I don’t know who that guy was.

That quote has been edited to hopefully make the point that Ray didn’t like the movie. I didn’t hear that particular interview but, I do remember hearing all three surviving members of the band say similar and even stronger words during a KSHE radio interview shortly before the release. I can honestly say that what those guys said is at least partially a factor in why I have never seen the movie. They used their credibility as band members to influence me to exercise my choice to not be a consumer.

Now, I have been hearing a lot of talk about this A.B.C. movie “The Path to 9/11″. Bill and Hilary Clinton, Sandy Berger, and a host of others including one of the actors, Harvey Keitel, have issued statements regarding that the film portrays members of the Clinton administration in a bad light. They have also sent correspondence to Disney president Robert Iger urging him to not show the movie. A.B.C. has supposedly altered the content of at least one scene and is considering pulling the film altogether.

I am hearing the word censorship thrown around so, I looked it up.

Main Entry: cen-sor
Function: transitive verb
: to examine (as a publication or film) in order to suppress or delete any contents considered objectionable

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc

Being from a law dictionary I presume that this definition would hold up I court. Could be wrong about that.

By my interpretation of this definition, the Clintons and others are censoring this film. At the very least, they want to delete some of the contents. They would be satisfied if they suppressed it.

Here is what a lot of people miss. This is not a First Amendment, free speech issue. It does not become a free speech issue until the government is doing the censoring. There is a difference between free speech and censorship.

The fact that these people have obvious political clout might make some uncomfortable. A misuse of that power might be interpreted as governmental censorship. That would have to be proven. I don’t think that is what is going on.

See, in the case of the Doors movie, I heard what Ray and the guys said and formed my own decision. It was also based on other Oliver Stone movies and a general cheesiness factor.

A.B.C. has said that “The Path to 9/11″ is a fictional account based on the 9/11 report, not a documentary. Hillary Clinton has said that the subject matter is too important and should not be fictionalized. That is where I have a problem with this whole thing. The writer has every right in the world to fictionalize any subject. I should have the right to form my own opinion of his work.

This is not a first amendment issue or government censorship but, it is censorship make no mistake.

Related posts

• Does Rachel Ray Support Terrorism? (5)
• More Google NonSense (5)

Tags: censorship