NIRVANA DOC PROJECT: DOC #2
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.