‘Pee-wee as Himself’ Director on His Attempts to Gain Paul Reubens’ Trust: ‘There Was a Real Power Struggle Between Us’

by

In the initial scenes of Matt Wolf’s HBO documentary series “Pee-wee as Himself,” the late entertainer and artist, Paul Reubens, ponders over the question of who should be in charge when making a celebrity documentary.

Apparently, it’s not appropriate for you to manage your own documentary production,” he explains to the camera. “Instead, it’s crucial that you make others believe they are in control, rather than yourself. I’m searching for a word to express this – what is everyone emphasizing to me that I seem to lack?

Wolf remarks from off-camera, “Perspective.” Reubens, who initially envisioned himself as the director of “Pee-wee as Himself,” disagrees strongly. “We’re going to have a lot of discussions about this, and they won’t end any time soon,” he says, predicting, “This debate will last until this documentary is completed. You can take that to the bank.

The contentious relationship between Wolf and Reubens is highlighted throughout the two-part documentary that explores Reubens’ professional life. In the 1980s, Reubens played his character Pee-wee in numerous films and a popular Saturday morning TV show called “Pee-wee’s Playhouse.” However, Reubens’ image as an adored childhood icon was significantly damaged in 1991 when he was taken into custody for indecent exposure at an adult cinema, and then again in 2002 when he faced charges for misdemeanor possession of explicit content.

Reubens explains to Wolf that he doesn’t want this project to resemble a traditional ‘legacy’ film,” said Reubens. “Instead, my focus is on correcting some misconceptions, and that’s about it.

Without Wolf’s knowledge, Reubens had been fighting cancer during the making of the documentary. Unfortunately, the actor passed away in the year 2023 before the movie could be fully completed.

EbMaster held a conversation with Wolf regarding “Pee-wee Herman Playing Himself” before its debut at the Sundance Film Festival, which is scheduled for January 23rd.

Building trust between a director and their subject is crucial for creating a strong documentary. However, Paul seemed wary of you, Reubens. How did this mistrust affect your experience as a documentary filmmaker?
When I first approached my subjects, I’d usually say, “I don’t expect trust, but I want to earn it.” With Paul, I aimed to bolster his confidence and be supportive. The project appealed to me on a personal level, yet I maintained my role as an autonomous filmmaker, aiming to create a portrait of an artist. My conversations with Paul likely spanned hundreds of hours, focusing on the direction of the film, the process, and Paul’s involvement. Essentially, it was about earning his trust, but eventually, I recognized that Paul, being honest about his nature, wasn’t inherently trusting. Given his past experiences with media misrepresentation, it made sense that he would be cautious about the documentary process. So, it felt natural to me that he would approach this venture unconventionally and with reservations.

Did he pass away prior to the completion of the movie’s final edit, yet he held the role of executive producer for the documentary? Was it his responsibility to make the final decisions regarding the film’s edits?

In the movie production, I had the ultimate decision-making authority, while Paul provided valuable input. This collaborative approach is increasingly common in our industry, but it can be confusing due to its gray areas. I aimed to avoid creating a sensational or overly favorable portrayal of Paul. Instead, I wanted to depict him truthfully and complexly. I reassured Paul by saying, “It’s alright to be intricate; simplicity is not befitting you. I want to portray your complexity, and I believe you should too.” Paul agreed with this approach. However, as we moved into the post-production phase, it caused apprehension for both of us because I wanted to maintain my integrity throughout the process. Consequently, there was a power struggle between us, but in the end, I maintained control over the final cut of the film.

Did Reubens ever watch a movie, and if so, had you known that he was ill with cancer until just a few days before his passing?

Paul watched 40 minutes of the video before he passed away. I showed him this segment to boost his confidence that the movie matched the type we had talked about. At that time, I didn’t know Paul was ill or had cancer. We spoke two weeks prior to his death, and he approved of moving forward with the project. Something seemed amiss regarding his health, but I wasn’t aware of the severity. However, we had a personal and impactful discussion where I felt assured about the film, and he expressed confidence in me to create the movie as discussed. After that, Paul died.

In your 40 hours of interviews, there’s no mention of Reubens’s second arrest in 2002. Instead, the movie mainly uses other people’s accounts to narrate this aspect of his story. Did you find it challenging to edit this section of the film?

The last interview was planned for a week following his demise, indicating his intention to participate. However, I had reservations about the balance of the film; it would portray him extensively at the start and then not at all towards the end. But on the day he passed away, I began perusing the 1,500-page transcript from our 40-hour conversation. I discovered an abundance of material, focusing significantly on his first arrest and its impact. Fortunately, there was another interview with him about the second arrest conducted by Stone Phillips, allowing me to incorporate his voice. Thus, crafting the edit proved challenging as I strove to maintain a sense of his presence despite being unable to conduct that final interview.

Read More

2025-01-23 23:48