I really liked it. I was pretty active in the music community then, but not personally involved with Nirvana so I don't take it all to heart like some people.

However I can see why some people might be upset.The film WAS particularly laden with Love's POV... because she's desperate for attention and clearly gave the most access and, well, she's the survivor.

People here who were around then HATED Courtney (for good reason - she's just awful) and were afraid of her considerable wrath. Now she's defanged and so people can vent. I'm surprised the director didn't predict that.

Would a film officially sanctioned by the Cobain estate ever be anything but over-representative of Love's perspective?

Nothing gets a 50 year old Seattle grunge fan worked up quite like a Cobain “documentary. “ Anyone under 30 give a shit? Thought not…

He might still be relevant if he were alive (more likely he’d be playing to a bunch of middle aged losers trying to re-live their youth at the Emerald Queen Casino) but he’s dead (long dead). And not relevant (and becoming less relevant each year).

@3:

Yeah, he is soooo not relevant that, when you go to many foreign countries and mention you're from Seattle you get asked about basically three things: pot, Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain. What's irrelevant to you personally is well, irrelevant, to put it bluntly.

@3 Totally true. All dead artists who changed the medium forever are no longer relevant after they've been dead for a while. Warhol, Hendrix, Shakespeare, Homer, Kahlo, Nijinsky, Mozart, Hemingway, et al = IRRELEVANT, and becoming less relevant each year.

@3 Not as relevant to you as Benghazi or Ebola?

The first man who shouted out was Steve Fisk, who produced Nirvana. He pointed out that author Michael Azerrad's name was misspelled in the credits. The woman who said it was all "Love's point of view" was photographer Alice Wheeler. I think Morgen could've dealt with her better, asking why she thought it was that way. Morgen had final cut, so it was his film. When Love entered the story, there was a lot of footage of her, but she was wife, they lived together, had a kid, that was all important. I personally didn't feel it was all Love's point of view and would like to know why Alice thought otherwise. Funny that Morgen then suggested she "make her own film" (or some such statement), as Alice's photos are in the movie...

Commenters shouldn't take @3's bait. Wild guess: He is well over 50 and scoffed at the scene in its heyday. Damn, I bit.

@7 Yeah. I thought Alice, whose work I really, really like, was maybe a little uncharitable.

But I can see how it felt like a great deal of material was filtered through Love. You're right. Morgen should have plumbed that.

Alice worked a great deal with the band. I never worked with Kurt. But I occasionally rubbed shoulders with Love. And. Yeah. She left of wake of resentment and anger behind her everywhere she went.

I was surprised how emotional I got throughout the film. But I don't see how anybody is surprised that all that stuff about Love comes to the surface when you tear away the scab of a seminal Seattle trauma. Morgen should have known the lion's den he was walking into.

Also I know that some of Alice work with Nirvana has been recently used without attribution, payment, or consent in various media to promote the film. So I bet she's a little raw about that. Which I TOTALLY understand. That shit pisses me off, too.

Anytime there's a new book or movie, we get some predictable carping from the I Was There police. Well guess what, these works are not for us, they're for the general public.

The film is fine. It's not just a heroin film, and it's not a Courtney film. But she was his wife whether you like her or not, and of course she's going to give her point of view when she's asked for it. Jeez.

@11: Impossible to tell while sitting in the theater or just afterward, and no, it's not sad, not everyone is 50.

@12 Yes... it's just too much to ask of a "journalist" covering screening to ask the plethora of industry people present the names of people asking questions. And if only there was some sort of interconnected wireless technology where one could then instantly research who people in a small professional community might be.

In fact from now on every individual referenced in every Stranger article should just be titled "Whatsherface" and "Somedude." Because apparently everybody under 40 is just too god damned lazy or stupid to care anyway.

Not everyone is 50? You don't say.

A sing-a-long! (sing it like you believe it)
I think I'm dumb I think I'm dumb I think I'm dumb I think I'm dumb I think I'm dumb

@11, I did think it was a little sad actually. I know both of them; when Steve spoke, I turned and recognized that it was him. I recognized Alice from her voice. Admittedly, it can be hard to tell in a theater where you can't who everyone is very readily. But I'm pretty sure Steve's been interviewed for the Stranger before, and I know Alice's work has been in the paper, so they're not unknown quantities. Maybe the writer didn't think to/couldn't track them down afterwards.

It reminds of a few years back from Richard Lee got kicked out of Duff McKagan's reading and the Stranger wrote something, probably on Slog, having no idea who he was. There were immediate comments; didn't you know it was Richard Lee, the "Kurt is dead" conspiracy theorist? The writer was somewhat defensive, well, how would I know that, yadda yadda. Well, the Stranger at one time wrote an article about Lee. So it's in their archives. No, not that you have to have the entire archive memorized, but sometimes it does feel as if people have their narrow fields of interest and aren't much engaged outside of that.

I'm still curious as to why Alice thought it was from Courtney's point of view. Did she mean the whole movie? It didn't feel like that to me. The film's basically chronological, so when Courtney enters the story, she has her say. In fact, most of the new interviews are pretty short, and we see her most in home movie footage. That's quite interesting, if depressing.

It's not a Nirvana film. It's a Kurt Cobain film. If you're interested in him, you'll likely enjoy this film.

Here's a video from last night's Q&A:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZDEEb8h…

Oops here's a working link to the Q&A: youtube.com/watch?v=tZDEEb8hghI

Believe it or not, not everyone hated Courtney back in the day.

@15 I remember that Lee thing. It's okay for a reporter to not intrinsically "know" who everybody is on sight. But it's unforgivable for them to not research and find out. It's literally the most fundamental part of the job. And these days easier than ever to accomplish.

I really, really liked the film. i thought it was unflinching, exceptionally artistic, and creative —and personal — not what I expected at all.

I admit that when I hear Courtney's voice I have to suppress reflexively and childishly booing. She was made into such a cartoon villain for so long. A part she seemed to relish.

But it would have been a very boring and predictable movie if they indulged in making her some bad guy. Low hanging fruit and all. Not to mention her own daughter was the producer, and that would've been in bad taste.

@3, I just saw a screening here in NYC, the audience was primarily young people who were not alive or just young children when Kurt was alive. So at the very least here in NYC the younger generation cares.