Review of Soaked in Bleach (2015) by Jimmybaginski — 13 Jun 2015

Well, this came up as a complete suprise to me. I never thought I'd see the day a documentary which tried to tie all the threads in this long forgotten case ever appearing in public again. A lot of those previous efforts failed to shed accusations of sensationalism and opportunism. Time, talent and quality might have rendered those formulaic accusations somewhat useless. Let's procede.

Since first devouring the finer details of this case in 1998, on Tom Grants website, it seems this story has taken almost 20 long years to regain steam in the post-millenial age. Yes, expose books have come and gone, spiking the interest-ometer here and there, but I'd confined this story to 'the one that got away' a long time ago, whilst tacitly hoping it would resurface when the right time came along. That time is now.

It's been a difficult road for Tom Grant (the PI hired by Courtney, seemingly as a false flag, decoy). Most news outlets and music media commenters have historically, ritually dismissed this case as crack pot 'conspiracy theory' with obligatory references to 'tin foil' and accusations of cultural mysogyny that follow in the wake of controversial female public figures and thrown it in the can.

Of course, this has always been in light of Courtneys careful, expert media manipulation, often in symbiosis with journalists that should really be gaining better distance and making more independent judgements. But alas, Courtney has always had the media too afraid to take this case on on it's own merits. This film attempts to break through the radio silence with a huge thunder clap that has to be having Courtney reeling in desperation. It's that potent.

Of course her intimidation of any and all opponents with litigation and outright physical threats continue to present day with her issuing a Cease And Desist to every theatre showing this movie (see 'Streisand Effect' on Urban Dictionary for that one), her storied, often troubling profile aside, the evidence here is not entirely couched in character defamation, as most reviews would have you believe. That would be too cheap and easy. And just when you find yourself accusing the actress who plays Courtney of portraying her too cynically, too 'characatured' (or to stereotype of desperate, Cluster B, Nancy Spungeon junkie), you realise Courtney IS the stereotype, and has seemingly cast herself this role in 'real life' long before it could be abstracted upon her. The audio recordings of her fumbled confessions reveal a very solipsistic careerism at the heart of this woman that is hard to deny.

The evidence is the focus of this film. Incongruities, red herrings, misdirection all point towards 'foul play'. The ineptitude and negligence of the Seatle Police Department raises suspicion in and of itself, but when looking at the sheer volume of evidence that was overlooked you start to see a very nefarious picture emerge. I'll leave these details to the viewer to discover for themselves. But, be prepared to rub your eyes in disbelief. Not because this film asks you to be credulous or give into assumptions about Courtneys character, but because it uses empirical evidence and reasoning to slowly collate the undeniable truth: This case needs to be reinvestigated. Too much was dismissed out of hand or glossed over for beurocratic expediancy.

Does it paint a bad picture of Courtney? Yes. Does it lead us on a conspiracy theorists matrix of of exciting sleuthing and juicy details? Yes. None of this is Tom Grants fault, however. This story has it all but none of it would have been possible if Courtney didn't manage to call the only private investigator still working Easter Sunday in April 1994, that had the integrity to be facts lead and vigilint with documenting them.

If your reading this review, your in either one of three general camps.

1) You think Courtney is being tried as a witch in a public scapegoating that extends her suffering. Your a fan of her work and hate to see her victimised for merely being a woman that loved a 'rock star' when he killed himself. People look for someone to blame after a tragedy.

2) You looked into this because you loved Kurt Cobain as a kid. You wanted answers and so looked for them. You may have had your suspicions about his wifes previous and subsequent behaviour that leads you to assumptions that may or may not be confirmed by this films findings.

3) You don't have a clue what to believe but your curious to find out what this film has to say and what the controversy behind it is all about.

I don't know what mix I am of these three positions I am but I know I'm as biased as any childhood Nirvana fan ought to be. Go find out for yourself and watch this film even if it's just to strengthen your original position. You have nothing to lose by finding out.