I just watched the Kurdt Cobain documentary About A Son by AJ Schank. It was very disappointing, given my fodness for Kurdt Cobain and Nirvana, as well as the fact that the director's prior documentary was the very excellent Gigantic: A Tale Of Two Johns (about They Might Be Giants).
Basically, the entirety of the movie is the audio of interviews Cobain gave for a book played over long shots of empty houses, street corners, etc. It is extremely tedious after about fifteen minutes. At 90 minutes, the whole thing starts to reek of artless artiness. Every so often some band's music will be heard (that supposedly inspired Cobain) as the endless shots of trees or buses roll by, intercut with random people on the street staring vacantly at the camera.
OK. So it is boring and completly unenlightening if you're a Nirvana fan and pointless and obscure if you're not. That would probably just make it a boring art film. But the real problem is: How do you make a movie about a musician and never NOT ONCE play any of the musician's music? Not one note of Nirvana. I imagine (or hope) it was copyright issues (although it can't be too hard to get Nirvana music since that piece of garbage Shoot 'Em Up used one of their songs). The other (much much better) documentary Kurt And Courtney didn't have Nirvana music either. But that movie, much better, sort of made a satirical point about the fact.
There is also no footage of Nirvana, maybe two stills each of Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic, and, at the end, maybe a dozen familiar photos of Kurdt.
Look. I get this movie. I see what they were trying to do. Unfortunately, the filmmakers were successful all too much at their intentions. But it was a bad idea. I can't imagine who this movie is for. Nirvana fans will learn nothing new, and those who don't care about Nirvana won't care about this movie.
Not one Nirvana song. Amazing. The definitve Kurdt Cobain/Nirvana movie still needs to be made. Gus Van Sant's pseudo-biopic Last Days had much more insight into Cobain (and his last sad lonely days) than any other "true" film has thus far managed.
Basically, the entirety of the movie is the audio of interviews Cobain gave for a book played over long shots of empty houses, street corners, etc. It is extremely tedious after about fifteen minutes. At 90 minutes, the whole thing starts to reek of artless artiness. Every so often some band's music will be heard (that supposedly inspired Cobain) as the endless shots of trees or buses roll by, intercut with random people on the street staring vacantly at the camera.
OK. So it is boring and completly unenlightening if you're a Nirvana fan and pointless and obscure if you're not. That would probably just make it a boring art film. But the real problem is: How do you make a movie about a musician and never NOT ONCE play any of the musician's music? Not one note of Nirvana. I imagine (or hope) it was copyright issues (although it can't be too hard to get Nirvana music since that piece of garbage Shoot 'Em Up used one of their songs). The other (much much better) documentary Kurt And Courtney didn't have Nirvana music either. But that movie, much better, sort of made a satirical point about the fact.
There is also no footage of Nirvana, maybe two stills each of Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic, and, at the end, maybe a dozen familiar photos of Kurdt.
Look. I get this movie. I see what they were trying to do. Unfortunately, the filmmakers were successful all too much at their intentions. But it was a bad idea. I can't imagine who this movie is for. Nirvana fans will learn nothing new, and those who don't care about Nirvana won't care about this movie.
Not one Nirvana song. Amazing. The definitve Kurdt Cobain/Nirvana movie still needs to be made. Gus Van Sant's pseudo-biopic Last Days had much more insight into Cobain (and his last sad lonely days) than any other "true" film has thus far managed.