Kurt Cobain documentary trailer

Goalmouth likes nothing that happened after 1955

 

I thought the same thing. Feels toned down for an artist who was anything but.

 

This comes out about a week from now.

I can't wait.

 

Well, what'd we think of it?

 

It's pretty fantastic.

It's just so ridiculously well done.

 

It kept my attention because I was in high school at that time but it didn't blow me away the way everyone told me I would be blown away. How in the hell do you not address the altercation between Nirvana and Guns 'n Roses at the MTV Music awards?

 

I'm guessing there were probably enough stories to fill several hours.

 

The utter absence of Dave Grohl was pretty glaring.

 

This is a quote from the director... “I wanted to keep [the film] as intimate as possible, so I didn’t feel the need for multiple members of Nirvana [to be in it],” Morgen told the packed audience at Spring Studio in Lower Manhattan. “But I didn’t want to be in a Q&A and answer this question all the time, so I asked if I could talk to Kirst and Dave. I heard back that Dave was in the middle of doing his album [and was unavailable]. Which is fine, and I was fine with that."

Read more: Why Dave Grohl not in Kurt Cobain documentary - Business Insider

Almost everybody knows Grohl is in legal battles with Love, so it's not a shock, but for the director not to want the only other surviving member of the group is complete bullshit.

 

At least since last year's R&RHOF induction I had the impression Love and Grohl were getting along OK.

Another factor is Frances Bean Cobain, who I had read had probably as much or more control over the content as her mother. I believe since she turned 21, she, not Love, has final say on Nirvana-related projects.

It was also pretty glaring that SHE didn't make some kind of statement in the movie, too.

 

I really didn't like it. Two hours and 15 minutes, shrouded in weird animations with no real insights, this wasn't a "documentary." It was a collection of home movies and mashed together animations of what I think were his drawings and notes.

It was like they intentionally didn't want to go into great detail on anything. They talked about his childhood and talked about his problems being passed from family member to family members, but they didn't say why he kept pissing the family off. The most intriguing thing was when he tried to have sex with the disabled girl, then they talk about people finding out, kinda, but never go into detail.

Outside of looking at his scribbles and reading some articles, how much investigating did they do?

I don't know how you do a "documentary" without talking to Grohl or the daughter, who is an adult now. How about the reporter who wrote all the articles about him?

Just feels like the chose style over substance.

 

Rolling Stone had an interview with Frances Cobain a week or so ago -- supposedly the first public comments she'd ever made on her dad.

She didn't claim to have any stunning insight into Kurt's frame of mind -- she admitted she barely remembered him at all -- but she did have some relevant comments on the making of the movie.

She was listed as an executive producer; you'd think she'd have sat down for three minutes and at least have given a few quotes.