Kim Deal says This movie is fake.


Kim said in an interview when asked about the Breeders documentary:

"So -- I thought the Dutch people who made it had a really nice filmmaking quality to them, I thought it was really sweet. And it was a real documentary, it wasn't like, "reality show" documentary. Like the "Loud, Quiet Loud" documentary we did -- that was pretty fake and stuff. But this was real -- they didn’t edit to create drama, they'd just edit to put it together."

I did think the film was contrived when I saw it, like especially the awkward silence bit, it seemed like it was edited like that just to prove they hardly spoke and that there was tension. It was all very suspect, seemed too set on proving a point and portraying them a certain way to be a genuine documentary.

Well anyway, it's not. Also apparently Black had the final say on the editing of the film so make of that what you will....

reply

Hold on. New developments! Frank Black on loudQUIETloud:


"Look," he says, "I've got nothing against the film or the film-makers, but they manipulated the whole thing. They wanted a story, and that story became this tension within the band, how awful we got along, and Dave's downward spiral. Whereas Dave was actually the one who was holding us together. His breakdown only came at the end of the tour when he was upset about his dad's death. Then he became this kind of Jekyll and Hyde figure, dulling the pain with red wine and pills."

Deal's portrayal proved the other sticking point. "Kim wasn't happy with the film at all," he admits. "It made her look like she was hardly there, clutching her beer and chain-smoking cigarettes. It made it look as if we had just scooped her out of the gutter." So they asked for some scenes to be removed? "Well, yeah. We told them we didn't care for the original cut. We ended up putting a lot of stuff back in."

The problem, Thompson suspects, is that the film-makers never really understood their subject matter. "They were naive, like a lot of people who don't understand how rock bands are when they go on tour. They'd roll into the hotel every morning and say, 'So what are you guys going to do today? Ooh, are you going to go buy some ice cream?' I guess they expected us to be like the Monkees, always up to mischief. But we're boring, you know. And touring is boring. You just sit around not talking to each other."

This, at least, is something that the film was able to pinpoint. "The movie as it stands is basically truthful, even though it's exaggerated," Thompson says. "But it does suggest something that is correct: the awful lack of communication within the band. That silly dysfunctional quality. Sometimes we don't speak enough."



Well seems no one was happy and it was pretty much faked and exaggerated to make it more 'interesting' than it actually was

reply

[deleted]

To be honest I think the film makers did a crap job. The pixies are clearly middle aged musicians that were doing a tour to get some money back, film it straight like that and yeah, it's boring. It's the film makers fault that they could not find a better angle. For one, why did they not show more old footage (yep there was like a smidgen) and explain what happened with the band then juxtapose that with who they were today. They should have trawled through the archives and found some really interesting stuff. Plus there was no formal interview with any of them. Why not. It's the freak'in Pixies man, they changed the musical landscape... why no questions.

Wasted opportunity of a movie. Go watch Blurs No Distance Left to Run.

reply


I watched this a few years ago - it was okay but all I need to know about the Pixies is what I get from their music and the way they absolutely destroy on stage.


Engine engine number nine, on the NY Transit line..

reply

Any doc that is edited around a clear narrative is going to seem fake or contrived, especially to the people who were in it!

I thought it was great and insightful.

reply