starting off the nirvana doc project strong with "kurt cobain: about a son", directed by aj schnack and released in 2006.
quick summary; schnack strings together interviews conducted december 1992 and march 1993 between music journalist michael azerrad and kurt cobain for azerrad's book "come as you are: the story of nirvana" to piece together a loose narrative of kurt's life using supplemental background footage divided into 3 sections; aberdeen, olympia and seattle.
thoughts; this was the very first doc i ever watched in the beginning stages of my hyperfix. it was recc'd to me by my gf (shoutout to her <3) as insight into kurt's life through his own words, which is a rare sight given how many directors imbue their own biases into their understanding of him (*cough* brett morgen *cough* we'll get to him soon enough). so the fact that schnack chose to let kurt talk instead of talking for him is very welcome.
admittedly, i was excited to rewatch this doc for the project as it's one of my favorites out of the two i've already seen. hearing kurt describe his life in casual conversation with the tv on in the background or munching some food or with courtney asking him to make a similac bottle for frances after he's done really brings me a sense of comfort, as if i'm in the room with him and azerrad. never once did i ever feel bored throughout the entire hour and a half runtime, it got across what it wanted to say and got out effectively. growing up in washington, i appreciated schnack using footage from around aberdeen, olympia and seattle and also help give a visual of places kurt frequented when he was alive.
one critique i will administer is that it's very hard for those beginning to get into nirvana/kurt to understand exactly what kurt and azerrad are referencing at certain points. i hadn't read "come as you are" before watching "about a son" so i was lost almost immediately when name drops like aaron burckhard or myer or buzz or even krist and dave (yes i was That new, cut me some slack) came about or references to events like dave and kurt freezing in their olympia apartment while waiting for the first checks from geffen to come in were brought up in passing. also doesn't help matters any that there are no dates mentioned, so figuring out a timeline is nearly impossible without prior knowledge. quite a shame for such a lovely doc, i cannot recommend this without having done research beforehand if you know nothing about the band or kurt.
is the information in this doc accurate?; since kurt is narrating the doc himself essentially, it's hard to say what is and isn't an exaggerated truth that we aren't already aware of. the bridge story is mentioned, which is proven to be untrue by multiple sources including krist and his sister, kim. there's also a portion toward the end where he speaks about his drug usage in the past tense as if he had gotten clean when he was lying and still using heroin. he discusses letting courtney handle matters for him when it's known that he was very particular about everything relating to nirvana and wouldn't ever "bend over and help 'em slip it in [his] ass". there's also quite a bit of bitterness directed toward krist and dave as this would've been during the issue regarding royalty splits and kurt's increased usage of heroin that clouded his judgement. but otherwise? i'd say there's quite a bit of accurate information relayed from kurt throughout this doc about his life.
final rating; a solid 4. not a perfect 5 sadly, but still very close!
where can this be watched?; currently "about a son" can be streamed for free off of youtube and tubi. if you have an amazon prime subscription, you can also watch it on prime.
fifth up on the list for the nirvana doc project is "nirvana: up close and personal", directed by bob carruthers and released in 2007.
quick summary; conducting interviews with those who knew, worked with or knew of the band with supplemental archival footage provided alongside, director bob carruthers retells the history of nirvana, their rise, fall and subsequent legacy after kurt's passing.
thoughts; this was...fine i guess? i think this is the first doc i'm truly, actually ambivalent about. i don't have strong feelings like with other entries we've covered such as "soaked in bleach" or "about a son". i think the best i can give this is a shrug. it feels like a made for tv documentary for those who want to get up to speed on the history of nirvana and also know maybe some more tidbits about kurt they weren't already aware of. they do bring up krist and dave briefly but don't delve further. it's very kurt centric like how nirvana docs usually are. how kurt ran the band, how it was his vision, how he felt, etc. when it would be really refreshing to hear about, yknow, the significance of the other two's contributions. yes i'm glad you brought up how krist was mistaken for the manager of the band because of how he kept track of finances and booked gigs and such in the beginning and also was the mouthpiece during interviews but can we talk about how important krist really was to the sound of the band? he's irreplaceable. there would be no nirvana without krist novoselic, point blank period. also dave's there i guess. he hits hard. when like--there's so much else we could delve into. they gave some nod to chad, which i'm happy about, but once again didn't bring up the other drummers they went through (which is kinda insane cause you'll bring up chad's contributions but not dale crover???? THE guy that was important in the beginning of the band??? alright). the interviews that were conducted were fine, they got the typical roster of people low budget documentaries get when they can't actually interview the main players (even though the letterboxd description claims they did interview them, false advertising?). beware, though, this doc features a charles r. cross jumpscare. really bogs down everything when he's shown but he's not being a shit so i guess that's something. not very keen on the interviews they conducted with kurt's paternal grandfather, leland cobain, either. he's part of the "kurt wasn't suicidal" crowd and i'm not particularly fond of that notion. just because he didn't appear visibly suicidal to you doesn't mean he wasn't suicidal. also worth mentioning that the scene transitions and editing were very early 2000s and obnoxious. there's also a cover band that they use to feature songs occasionally, both with blurred footage in a recording studio and audio, that they lie and say are actually the band. it isn't, that clearly isn't kurt's voice. you can't lie to me, carruthers. overall, i'd say this is a pretty forgettable doc. i'm probably gonna forget about it by tomorrow. i'm already losing information as we speak.
is the information in this doc accurate?; somewhat. i'd say the vast majority of it is accurate with some minor inconsistencies here and there. such as asserting kurt's parents, wendy and don, divorced when he was a teen when they divorced around the time he was 7/8 or calling their music pop adjacent when they're more in line with punk rock or straight rock with minor pop elements. also bringing up kurt being clean before 91 is kinda silly and spreads the lie kurt himself conjured of only really getting into heroin at the height of nevermind. he was a pothead as a teen, dabbled in prescription drug abuse and also occasionally injected heroin but his addiction didn't worsen until their meteoric rise. there's also some courtney hate and conspiracy sprinkled in for good measure, but not overly obnoxious about it as past entries have been prone to doing. they discuss briefly the potential of kurt losing custody of frances, the ever looming rumor of divorce and speculated he was rewriting his will to exclude her when there's no true evidence of this. it's word of mouth, as i've stated before, and we will never truly know if any of these claims are true. though to claim those are a few of the reasons why he might've become suicidal and taken his life is a bit extreme. there's also talk of kurt ghostwriting hole's breakthrough album live through this and how it's an open secret. i've never been able to find concrete proof of this and courtney has discussed often that he had no involvement in the writing of that album, which i'm inclined to believe. he's not secretly spreading a message through songs on his wife's album, that's absurd. they also bring up how grunge died when nirvana disbanded. i've not gotten into this really because it's unimportant to nirvana on the whole but the label of "grunge" was a joke term bruce pavitt, cofounder of sub-pop records, coined when he was in college to describe seattle bands sound at the time that spiraled out of his hands after nirvana skyrocketed to fame and put seattle on the map for the greater public. there's no such thing as actual grunge. other than that, i'd say it's pretty solid information wise (even if it features untrustworthy sources such as charles r. cross and leland cobain).
final rating; 3 out of 5
where can this be watched?; currently "nirvana: up close and personal" is free to stream off tubi and amazon prime.
second up to bat for the nirvana doc project is "cobain: montage of heck", directed by brett morgen and released in 2015.
quick summary; featuring kurt's artwork, journal entries, interviews and archival footage, filmmaker brett morgen attempts to string together the story of kurt cobain's life, the rise of nirvana and his sudden passing.
thoughts; ok where do i even begin? controversial opinion; i am not fond of this documentary in the slightest. there's many things wrong with this portrayal of kurt's life and the history of the band that gets pushed down by the public's general perception of this documentary. so lets get into it.
brett morgen is a very biased director. his idolization of kurt is very apparent through the entire 2hr 12min runtime (which is far too long if i might add, but i'll get into that later), distilling the truth in favor of pushing his "tortured artist" agenda. morgen positing that he was destined to be miserable from birth is a sentiment that's been circled for decades at this point, formed in the aftermath to try and find a reason why someone seemingly so brilliant would end up passing so abruptly and violently. it's all part of the image of the "rock and roll martyr", as my gf so succinctly put it, that's been posthumously stuck to kurt by those who can't see past their rose-tinted glasses. one of those people clearly being morgen.
while i like the use of kurt's artwork and early drafts of his songs throughout, even if they are set to a score that makes them out to be scarier or more ominous than they really are, i draw a line at using his personal journal entries to service the narrative being pushed. i've never been a fan of the fact that his journals are available to the public, it's uncomfortable and invasive to read his personal thoughts as they're clearly meant for himself, not the eyes of others. especially in this context. it just bears asking; what was the purpose of doing that? there's more than enough public material to use, just because you have access to kurt's personal belongings doesn't mean that you should air out his private struggles for the entire world to see. but that's just me.
the timeline is wildly out of order (more on that in the accuracy section). the visual style and soundtrack can be abrasive and headache inducing at times. the interviews that were conducted were sparse and hardly insightful with some feeling less necessary than others (more on that in the accuracy section), perhaps it would've been better if they weren't included whatsoever. the length felt far too long and dragged during certain sections, did it really need to be over 2hrs? had everything been presented with intention instead of aimlessly throwing whatever at the wall in a lame attempt to create a timeline then it would've been an easy 1hr 15 tops in my opinion. i did quite like the animation done by stefan nadelman and hisko hulsing during sections of kurt's youth in aberdeen, they helped give visual aid to what was occurring whether it be his story about the girl or noodling around the olympia apartment creating collages or demoing songs. some home video footage i felt was unnecessary to include and felt invasive, much like how i feel toward using his journal entries. if you're a first time viewer trying to get a cohesive grasp of nirvana/kurt then you're gonna be left confused cause it feels as if nothing is really explained and moreso left to interpretation (which also doesn't help with the timeline issue). i could honestly go on forever but i think i'll leave it at that.
is the information in this doc accurate?; i think there are nuggets of truth being presented, but they're bogged down by morgen's insistence on his own biased perception of kurt. as i mentioned before, the timeline strung for this specific doc doesn't adhere to reality as it bounces between specific time periods. during one section in particular i'll use as an example, morgen presents krist's home video footage of nirvana's brief stint in the UK to promote their single, sliver, as if it were them touring in 1991. that footage was taken in 1990 a short while after dave joined the band. how can i tell? dave's hair is still blond. he didn't lose it until around early 1991. he joined in october 1990, the tour happened the same month. doesn't help matters any that years are not included in this doc, making it appear as if the audience is traversing in a linear fashion when they're not. i mean, morgen didn't even bother to include a mention of the prior drummers nirvana went through (aaron burckhard, dave foster, dale crover (briefly), chad channing, dan peters (for one show lol)) before landing on dave. then again, this is a trend with all supposed nirvana documentarians so i guess i shouldn't be surprised.
i've talked about this before but including kurt's story about the mentally disabled girl as if it were a real event that happened instead of exaggerated fiction was uncalled for. though the truth of what happened will never be known, from my understanding the girl mentioned in that story was real but kurt did not interact with nor did he take advantage of her according to those in aberdeen that attended school with him. i've heard claims as well that she might've not even been mentally disabled but since it's nothing but hearsay at the end of the day, i'm choosing not to entertain the idea. either way, it's fiction kurt created out of a snippet of his life, nothing more, nothing less. people have believed this story for over a decade now all because of this doc and i believe that to be very irresponsible.
now, about those interviews. i understand it's important to seek out those who were close to kurt to compile their insight, but i think morgen left everything said on the surface level instead of digging deeper. there aren't many presented throughout the doc as it's intention is to use visuals to create its narrative rather than rely on the spoken word of others, however, what's left in the doc is very telling. the only people i trust to tell some semblance of truth are krist, kurt's sister, kim and tracy. wendy, don, jenny and courtney are unreliable narrators that muddy the waters of kurt's life in service of making themselves out to seem better. we're well aware of how kurt's parents treated him during his early life, especially don and wendy. opting to use the "tough love" style of parenting popular during the 70s and 80s to try to curb their son's misbehavior when it was clearly ineffective. yet in the doc? there's portions where they discuss raising kurt as if they glad he was around and not a burden in their eyes that they passed off to multiple family members until eventually fully kicking him out. my gripes with jenny mostly pertain to what she discussed in the companion book (which you shouldn't need to make if your doc is good enough to stand on its own, but that's just me) so i won't go into it as it's not part of the doc itself. courtney is notorious for exaggerating the truth, here is no different. the story she tells about kurt being able to read her mind about potentially cheating on him as the reason why he overdosed and ended up in a coma in rome should tell you just about everything you need to know.
it's sloppy work of morgen to present their insight/opinion as fact, which has caused an entire group of people to believe misinformation that can easily be disproved and is, in my opinion, very irresponsible as a documentary filmmaker that's meant to be unbiased when presenting the facts of a person's life. especially one as heavily distorted over the decades as kurt's.
final rating; 2 out of 5
where can this be watched?; currently "montage of heck" can be streamed off of hbo max or rented off of amazon prime or apple tv.
sixth up to bat for the nirvana doc project is "nirvana: the untold stories", directed by simon bisset and released in 2003
quick summary; comprised predominantly of talking heads interviews with occasional supplemental photographs and voice over narration, bisset takes the viewer through a crash course of nirvana's history up until the subsequent end of the band.
thoughts; well ok, i think i found a contender with "nirvana: up close and personal" for documentaries that truly leave my head after i finish watching them. i did truly give this the old college in trying to retain information while watching this but in the end i'm just left with a shrug and some minor inaccuracies to take note of. i found the whole ordeal boring, which i guess is a breath of fresh air compared to previous entries in this project (i'm looking at you "soaked in bleach" and "kurt and courtney"). but really? this is the best we could do pertaining to a documentary about nirvana? a boring made for tv documentary that felt sluggish despite the short run time? christ. was this the best documentary in the whole world? not really. the presentation was grating, given the rip of this i watched had some blinking lights from age throughout and the random zoom ins with a black and white filter over interviews were incredibly distracting. this was made without permission from anyone involved with nirvana, which is why many of the interviews conducted were with people around the band or kurt instead of with direct members. this isn't new, but it really did feel like they were reaching a lot of the time. leland cobain was in this one (ugh) but not for long, so i'm forever grateful about that. if i have to hear that man talk one more time i'm blowing my brains out. i will say though, it does go deeper than the shallow "wants to be about nirvana but it's really about kurt" type that i continue to encounter throughout this project. a good chunk of this doc is dedicated to the formation of nirvana, their performances that eventually led to recording bleach, nevermind and in utero before kurt's tragic passing. though there still is a bunch of time dedicated to just kurt, of course, can't skip out on that for a second. overall, an inoffensive piece i wish had more time and effort put into. feels like something a college student would slap together in a week for a project. i need something meatier for this project one of these days i swear to god.
is the information in this doc accurate?; somewhat. much like "nirvana: up close and personal" there's a mix of inaccurate and accurate information. however, this one differs in that i'm unable to verify a lot of stories that were told throughout. friends of kurts and those who attended the first nirvana performance were interviewed, telling stories of the experience being near the members early on in their lives. it's hard to tell if a personal anecdote is true or not, so i won't touch on those. charles r. cross is in this doc and stinks up some of the run time by putting his personal opinion on whether they were a good live band or not early on into their later years in it for some reason. like ok we get it, you were a music journalist in the seattle music scene before you became The Kurt Biographer (tm), you heard them perform and didn't care for them until nevermind. shut up dude i'm tired. anyways. they discuss kurt's relationship w/ courtney starting in 1990 when that isn't true, he was w/ mary lou lord until 1991 when he dumped her during their european tour, then got with courtney sometime later. the most important thing i need to mention here is that WE FINALLY GOT A DOC THAT MENTIONED THE OTHER DRUMMERS!!!!!! FINALLY OH MY GOD!!!!!! yes, this doc mentions that nirvana went through numerous other drummers before landing on chad for bleach and dave for the remainder of their run and i'm beyond excited about this information. you have no fucking idea how many of these i've watched at this point that just Don't mention aaron burckhard or dave foster or even fucking dale crover before chad and dave!!!! so i'm giving it points just for that alone (and also being accurate when they were in the band, but not for the reasons why they were kicked out lol). one of these days though we'll get a doc that mentions the brief period of time when they played the bleach tour with jason everman. one day. they also skimp over krist's life entirely, as well as dave's, but give particular attention to kurt's. this is absurd to me cause come as you are was already out by that point, so why not reference it at least? it has information about all their lives in it and their upbringings, why even mention them if you're going to skim/ignore them entirely? and with that, i really cannot recall much else tbh that needs to be addressed. like i mentioned above, there's a lot of information i didn't retain as this doc bored the life out of me despite my best efforts to pay attention. if you do watch this, just remain skeptical about what stories are being told and who they're being told by is all i'll say.
final rating; 3 out of 5
where can this be watched?; currently "nirvana: the untold stories" is free to stream off tubi.
fourth up to bat for the nirvana doc project is "soaked in bleach", directed by benjamin statler and released in 2015.
quick summary; partially comprised of talking heads interviews, reenactments and real audio recordings taken by private investigator, tom grant, director benjamin statler attempts to bring to light the "truth" of kurt cobain's passing; asserting that his death wasn't a suicide as widely reported in the press, but a murder.
thoughts; ok fuck this "doc". i fucking hate tom grant's stupid ass more than anybody on the fucking planet. if i ever see him it's on sight (not serious i promise i'm just angry). this was an immensely frustrating watch from start to finish. by the time i was done, i wanted to wring that piece of shit's neck for every foul, stupid word that fell out his mouth. the first "doc" in this lineup that actively made me cry out of pure frustration. he's been pedaling his stupid conspiracy (that he categorically denies is a conspiracy, despite the fact that it clearly is) for over 30+ years now (20 at the time of the doc) and he probably won't ever stop at the rate he's going. everyone that participated to some degree is on my shit list. i hate this thing. shame on this director, shame on the reenactment actors, shame on the people who agreed to be interviewed for this thing. fuck you all, i hope you sleep rotten for the rest of your lives. also, the version i watched was in german so i couldn't read the text presented and understand what it was trying to assert. probably for the better honestly. the interviews and reenactments were nauseating enough.
is the information in this doc accurate?; no. i won't get into the nitty gritty of picking this piece of shit apart because it's not worth my time or energy frankly. i already did a fair bit when i reviewed "kurt and courtney" previously, which is a smaller scale version of this "doc", so if you want more of my thoughts then go read through that post. all you really need to know is this; tom grant is unreliable, he always has been and always will be. he has more to gain out of this than he lets on, why else would he take numerous public appearances over the years if he wanted to keep his professional integrity? every single thing he's ever talked about; the heroin dosage, the shotgun position, the penmanship on the note, all have answers which he constantly rebuffs. evidence to the contrary of his claims have been provided and he actively denies them because they don't fit with his narrative, so he sought people who do agree to inflate his fragile ego. if he actually cared about the case, then he'd accepted a long time ago that he was wrong instead of bulldozing forward with his eyes closed and fingers in his ears when faced with criticism.
i will not defend SPD nor their handling of the case. i'm not in the business of siding with police, but that does not mean i agree with tom grant either. i will not speak further on this.
also leave courtney alone. while i'm not her biggest fan, pointing the finger at her behavior at the time and labeling her a murderer is absurd.
the talk of divorce is speculation. there's no provided documents that kurt and courtney were in the process of divorce or annulling their prenup as far as we know. it's all talk and i will not entertain this claim.
rosemary carroll, kurt and courtney's lawyer at the time, has also since recanted her statements that were present in the "doc" to tom grant.
kurt was suicidal, all of those who claimed otherwise did not know kurt as well as they believed. it's very plain to see as they didn't interview anyone in kurt's close circle, only those on the outer ring. why not interview krist? or dave? or courtney? or dylan? or his mother? or anyone who did tech for the band? yknow, people who knew kurt on a day to day basis well enough to assert whether he could be or not? really sit with that for a moment and that will tell you everything you need to know about this piece of shit "doc" and its motivations. nobody involved in this production gave an actual shit about kurt, it's so plain to see. there's no empathy, no care, it's exploitative of a very vulnerable man's mental health and drug usage for others personal gain. they didn't even run through the timeline until the VERY LAST 10 minutes of the "doc". fuck this piece of shit right to hell.
final rating; 1 out of 5
where can this be watched?; currently "soaked in bleach" is unavailable on streaming services and can only be bought as a dvd off amazon.
third up on the roster for the nirvana doc project is "kurt & courtney", directed by nick broomfield and released in 1998.
quick summary; traveling across various states, documentarian nick broomfield interviews those either directly involved or adjacent to kurt and courtney's life in order to understand their relationship and how it may have played a role in kurt's sudden passing.
thoughts; i think this is the shoddiest documentary i've come across for the project thus far. very DIY, on the go filming while having to worry about whether the funding's gonna pull out or not. broomfield carrying a boom mic around was incredibly distracting and i couldn't help but laugh at this attempts to ring into an apartment building when it clearly wasn't working. as i put in my letterboxd review of this, it was basically 95 minutes of broomfield going around interviewing people who pedaled conspiracy theories about kurt's death while saying he didn't support them and also harassed courtney himself and with enlisted help from stalker paparazzi for no reason really. was this even a documentary? what was the purpose? to make courtney out to be a monster? that was done to death even by the time this "doc" was released. get new material dude. sure, it was nice seeing some of kurt's art in tracy's home and hearing old recordings he'd done as a child/teen but like--was it really necessary to interview people like hank harrison? or some random lady claiming to have pictures of kurt and courtney shooting up then not providing them at all? or fucking tom grant? i'm glad none of their bullshit was republished in the doc, but i feel like if it weren't for british libel law holding him back, broomfield would've kept everything in without pushing back on their made up claims. in the end, this was a waste of time. i'd rather rewatch montage of heck a million times than this piece of garbage strung together on a budge of nothing and a whim. i hope broomfield is ashamed of himself for the stupid nonsense he pushed out with this nothingburger of a "doc".
is the information in this doc accurate?; short answer, no. started off immediately by claiming seattle is kurt's hometown. it's not, aberdeen is. there's a distinct difference between the two places. brought up the story of living under the wishkah river bridge, which is proven false. claimed tracy was his one and only real love before he got famous, also untrue. i doubt there was anyone in kurt's life that could definitively be called his "one and only real love" whether before or after he got famous. tracy had an impact on his work absolutely, much like tobi and courtney did. but to call her his one and only real love is kinda loaded since he really didn't treat her the best throughout the course of their relationship, leaning more in a motherly direction than romantic at times. claimed dylan carlson was immortalized in the song "in bloom" when there's no definitive proof that's the case whatsoever. i could go on like this forever honestly but at this point i'm nitpicking. so lets address the elephant in the room; the interviews.
out of everyone broomfield interviewed, only 4 were definitively a part of kurt's life; his aunt mary, the school teacher who housed him briefly, tracy and dylan. same goes for courtney in him interviewing her father, hank harrison. everyone else seem to be floaters or seemingly lying for the sake of spreading an agenda (in my opinion, i can't verify this for certain). a woman is interviewed claiming to be one of frances' nanny's. as far as i'm aware there's only been two recorded people that were nanny's to frances, jackie ferry and cali dewitt. there may have been more that were undocumented, i'm unsure, but i am certain that woman interviewed was not a nanny as she seemed to only know information when fed answers by the other woman in the room or broomfield. then there's tom grant. pro tip; do not trust a single word this man says, he's unreliable and has stated for years and years that kurt was murdered by courtney without substantial evidence other than saying "trust me bro". when given evidence that despite having large amounts of heroin in his system, it was indeed possible to still be conscious and operate a gun, grant denied it outright through moving the goalpost and sticking his fingers in his ear. he doesn't want to listen to reason, he's pedaled this stupid theory on end for years either because he genuinely believes it or he's in it for the notoriety of it all. broomfield interviewing him is ridiculous, even if he does push back on his theories toward the midpoint in the "doc". i understand why he needed to be included but still. at least try harder to disprove him instead of passively shrugging your shoulders and going welp he's wrong, lets talk to some other people who are equally as wrong. also fuck hank harrison, that man (allegedly) dosed courtney w/ LSD as a child, threatened to abduct her and proudly proclaimed he sicced pitbulls on her.
final rating; 1 out of 5
where can this be watched?; currently "kurt & courtney" can be streamed for free off of tubi
