Matt Wolf Says Filmmaker Buddies Convinced Him to Re-Cut ‘Pee-wee as Himself’ to Include … Himself

by

Pee-wee as Himself director Matt Wolf had his work cut out for him.

Producing a documentary, especially one focusing on a challenging character who frequently vanishes for extended periods, is already a daunting task. But add to that the unpredictability of such elusive individuals and, at times, their prolonged absences – I’m talking months or even an entire year – and you’ve got yourself a real challenge. And when you think it couldn’t possibly get any tougher, your subject succumbs to an illness you were entirely unaware they were battling.

Paul Reubens put Wolf through the ringer.

On the day following Pee-wee Himself winning the first ever outstanding original film, TV or streaming award at the second Gotham Television Awards, there wasn’t much left to irritate Wolf, but we managed it nonetheless.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

Given that you’ve recently penned a deeply personal piece about the process of creating the movie and the reasons behind featuring yourself and Paul, I’m curious: before the initial shot was even taken, did it ever cross your mind that you might be part of the film at all?

Initially, I had been hesitant about being part of a movie, as I’m not particularly fond of documentaries where the filmmaker intrudes unless necessary for the narrative. However, Paul and I had numerous discussions prior to the recording, and we began capturing our phone conversations since we felt our relationship mirrored some aspects of who Paul was. The concept was already there between us. During the first day of filming, Paul was quite rebellious and resistant, and I realized this raw resistance would make excellent material for a portrait, showcasing who Paul truly was and his approach to this process.

Following Paul’s passing, as I delved into editing the film, my initial cut carried a nostalgic hue. Fellow filmmakers and friends advised me, “You should portray the genuine individual you knew, rather than a sanitized version.” This was the moment when I began to integrate myself more prominently, blending humor with sharper edges. It became clear during this process that this wasn’t about self-indulgence. Including myself in the film wasn’t narcissistic; instead, it served as a tool to illustrate Paul’s internal struggle with his choice to reveal aspects of his personal life.

From the beginning, I’ve sensed an underlying aspect in it, and our footage aimed to delve deeper into this for the movie. At first, when creating the film, I had concerns about being unkind by incorporating this, but with the support of fellow filmmakers, I ventured there and found a method to present it in a way that felt considerate.

So there was a cut that didn’t have you at all?

The film intrigued me, but it was somewhat indifferent. What seems to captivate viewers is how the movie portrays Paul’s character, revealing both his controlling nature and his ambiguity towards fame and being documented. Initially, I used it as a source of amusing anecdotes, almost like a comedic routine between us. The majority of our interactions were humorous, with a sharp edge that I held back for a while.

What has the reaction been from the filmmaking community in your choice to keep those moments in?

Everyone recognizes the challenging nature of film production, especially those in the filmmaking industry. After penning an essay I’d been considering for some time, many filmmakers contacted me as it mirrored their private experiences seldom brought up in public discourse.

In the movie, Paul serves as an executive producer. Is it your opinion that including your disagreements with Paul will make this documentary stand out and avoid being labeled as a “self-indulgent project” by critics?

It’s uncertain if someone is an executive producer on a film, as the role isn’t always clear. The lack of a standard definition for this position often leads to skepticism among viewers, especially when a project seems like a self-indulgent venture. Why wouldn’t viewers feel this way? They might think, “I wish this person could step back a bit so I can see them with depth and nuance.” This complexity is what makes a documentary subject intriguing, not just their fame or notoriety. Intelligent subjects realize that their complexities are what make them fascinating.

I find it hard to grasp why someone would willingly expose themselves like this, or comprehend the reasons behind holding back or limiting disclosure. I don’t claim to know the specifics of agreements between documentarians and their subjects. Additionally, I believe that people, including journalists, often expect a division between personal and professional lives that simply doesn’t exist in documentary filmmaking. As print journalists, we don’t require as much access as documentarians do, and it seems impractical to maintain a distance when intimately capturing someone on camera for extended periods.

Maintaining trust by ensuring a person recognizes that your actions serve a collective purpose, which is typically rooted in mutual interests, I wouldn’t categorize as compromising. Instead, I believe filmmakers ought to generally be open about their intentions, while respecting the filmmaker’s autonomy. However, I don’t produce films aimed at criticizing or exposing someone unfairly, and there are certainly public figures who deserve scrutiny. But it’s unreasonable to expect a person deeply involved in a project to later betray that trust.

Discussing vanity projects and conflicts of interest, there seems to be an oversimplification in the discussion. It’s important to differentiate between critiquing someone you closely worked with in a film production, versus working for them to promote their public image. I believe the situation is rarely as clear-cut as good versus evil. Instead, it occupies a more complex and varied range of possibilities.

From what I saw in the documentary, it seemed like there were many pauses and restarts in the project, sometimes followed by extended periods without action. At any point, did you question whether starting the film was a good idea?

Indeed, I was determined to produce the movie. The more involved I became, the more it seemed impossible to withdraw. I found myself in a corner with no escape route. The circumstances appeared beyond my grasp and influence.

It must have been scary though, not knowing if it would ever be completed.

frankly, it was an incredibly challenging experience. It wasn’t relaxing or carefree in any way. Instead, I found myself deeply troubled by the doubt that surrounded whether this movie would come to fruition. This project demanded more of me than any other, and if it had failed, it could have been disastrous.

At certain moments, I found myself doubting that the project would succeed. I wished for us to progress in life without the burden of this project’s uncertain outcome weighing heavily on us.

It seems that you’re quite fond of Pee-wee Herman. Was the challenging aspect of collaborating with Paul Reubens, in your opinion, similar to not wanting to meet one’s idols because of potential disappointment?

No, Paul isn’t like Pee-wee. It didn’t take long to realize they were two distinct individuals. I didn’t experience an enduring sense of awe with him because there was an instinctive feeling between us, a connection that I felt, but it was different from the admiration I had as a fan. Instead, he seemed more like someone I could relate to on a personal level.

As a gamer, I’m not your typical fangirl or fanboy. I can appreciate someone’s work without being overly fond of them personally. It wasn’t about admiration or hero worship, but rather encountering an adversary who might not be swayed by my usual tactics to build rapport or get what I want. Moreover, I yearned for the ultimate challenge, and underestimated how tough this project would truly be. In hindsight, perhaps I was overconfident or naive about its complexity.

Paul passed away prior to our last round of interviews, during which he was scheduled to talk about his arrests. Is the Pee-wee Himself documentary entirely factual?

Sure thing. To put it another way, I’m not one for speculation. When people ask me, “What questions would you have asked during the final interview?” I had already prepared for that final interview, and I knew what I would have asked. However, I can’t figure out why Paul didn’t hold that final interview. It seems there were a number of complex circumstances at play that I wasn’t privy to. But Paul disclosed as much as he could, and he did so at the appropriate time. It was truly remarkable to have access to that material.

As documentary creators, we deal with boundaries. Our resources are finite – there’s always something missing. It’s unrealistic to expect everything. To believe you could have everything might be self-indulgent. This project was a treasure trove of content. I had over 40 hours of interviews with my subject and more than a thousand hours of archival footage, and to suggest that this is not sufficient is greedy. Therefore, I don’t view the film as incomplete; rather, I see it as tragically comprehensive.

Did you get the impression that Paul was waiting to die to not do the interview about his arrests?

Indeed, I’m not aware of Paul’s motivations during our disagreement. However, it’s clear that he was driven to ensure the completion of the film, a fact he made evident before his passing. At that moment in time, I couldn’t fully grasp the situation.

You don’t feel like you got played.

Indeed, I wasn’t involved at all. It seemed like I was collaborating with someone who had a lot going on behind the scenes that made an already challenging project even more arduous. As it turned out, I realized that my subject, Paul, was determined for this film to be finished, and I took that responsibility extremely seriously.

“Reflecting on my journey and reaching the other side triumphantly, I can’t help but wonder if my upcoming ventures might seem less daunting now?”

While I can relate to your sentiment, I must admit that this film was an exceptional case for me. It wasn’t just Paul Ruebens’ global impact and personal influence on me, nor the unprecedented access I was given, but also the unexpected circumstances surrounding his passing that made it unique. After all, it’s highly unlikely that I’ll ever work on another film featuring a subject as controlling as he was, only to have them pass away, leaving me with complete creative control to create an intricate portrayal of such a person. I don’t foresee future films carrying the same level of significance and high stakes as this one did.

When viewing this movie, it provokes a deeply emotional response in me. It appears that others who watch it also find it emotionally impactful, which has come as something of a surprise. I didn’t anticipate that the intensity of feelings I experienced after going through this relationship and process would resonate so immediately with viewers, but it seems that’s exactly what is happening.

Read More

2025-06-04 21:05