That’s exactly what he does in King of Kong, only now he combines the first quote with the second and people like Brian Kuh carry out his orders (of anybody this guy is the evil, asshole tool). As to the heavy handed actions that were carried out by Twin Galaxies the movie and the online posts from the website forums made at the time pretty much dovetail together. Guilt by association with Roy Stildt.

Back to Billy though, having the luxury of reading more interviews of Billy Mitchell after the movie came out I can only say that going in he thought once again that he could control and manipulate these new personalities in his life and his regret is not how he was portrayed but that he totally miscalculated the lack of control he would have once the film came out.

I read your post completely and thoroughly. I agree completely with your points of view, I just can’t reconcile how we come to two completely different views of this man. Is he a nice guy? Sure, he does lots of nice things for people. How you got evil I’m not sure. Arrogant maybe, not evil. Is he vindictive? No, he is very protective of his achievements as a master gamer and can’t stand anyone who fraudulently claims the right to a high score. Here again, an asshole? Heavy handed maybe but not an asshole. Both traits presented by the way in the movie.

Is he a Darth Vader Helmet head hair, manipulative control freak, who lacks self esteem and needs to market his success as a gamer, business man, father and husband like a used car salesman at every turn lest you think he’s a failure? Absolutely.

The film may have a simple theme but they took a complex personality documented very clearly Billys need to always appear in control and on top of situations. Steve is willing to risk his reputation and possibly fail every time he shows up live to play. Billy always has a plan and is unwilling to risk exposing any flaws or failure in any unrehearsed situation he can’t control or have a high chance of success at. The fact that he paid for the food at the restaurant is irrelevant. That fact that he didn’t come in right away because he was presented with a situation he hadn’t prepared for is very relevant.

If Billy was “hurt” by any aspects of his personality that were presented on screen that’s introspection he needs to undertake to change his personality. As you have stated it is your responsibility to provide a “construction of truths”. I can only trust that when confronted with people in our society who sell themselves as how they want to be seen that you as the documentary film maker presents the man behind the curtain and not the caricature they wish you to portray.

You’re comparing a film which records present-day conflicts to your films which document decades-old conflicts. One involves basic facts which are still under active dispute. One involves people looking back at their youth.

Do you feel a direct comparison is valid?

How would you have framed it if it were a present-tense conflict in which the interviewees had active roles?

I never said, or at least, never meant to say that I would cut out negative parts of a group or of individuals in return for a stress-free dinner. Negatives are negatives. The fact someone says nasty things, or refuses to admit they lost something they lost, or has nothing but indemnity for someone over a minor point… these are just the way people are.

My issues are where one intentionally cuts a film to heighten this, or, more accurately, cuts OUT a bunch of stuff to make a person seem unbalanced.

ARTSCENE definitely has my interviewees being petty, and the conflicts/discussions being much ado over nothing, but I framed it with people looking back at their youth, not cutting them so they seem to be steeped in the past and reliving lost glory days. I didn’t cut it that way because that’s simply not how it is. I’m saying that when you intentionally cut things to MAKE people seem this way when they AREN’T, you’re throwing people into the fire so your little film burns brighter. That’s what bothers me.

I appreciate the fact you treat your subjects very fairly, to the point you haven’t burnt bridges. I’m less convinced of the fact that this gives you a greater claim to the mantle of truth in your films.

You made a big deal of Billy buying dinner for the folks in KoK. Fine, but I’m guessing Seth Gordon found this inconvenient fact in contrast to his overall impression of Mitchell, that he was hypermanipulative. A ‘master of information control’. So he chose to focus on that. That’s somehow a greater fiction than your choice to not paint the artscene people as petty?

I appreciate the fact you stick to your principles with how you frame your films. That’s how you roll. It seems petty to me to totally crucify a filmmaker taking the same liberties, even if they are a lesser ‘construction of truths’ than in your critical eye. So they went for the bucks and the narrative. You went for playing it safe enough that your own conscience wouldn’t bother you. I’m sure there’s plenty of folks that would find your handling of Thom Henderson ludicrously biased and nowhere near the ‘truth’.

In any case, I enjoyed reading your take. And I do have to agree. KoK definitely framed things a certain way in pursuit of a narrative.

Don’t take this as someone just sniping at you. I’m thrilled to discover GET LAMP project, as Suspended is one of my favorite creations ever. I’m digging into the Michael Berlyn writeup as we speak.

I don’t have issues where you know you’re seeing something not true. It’s that so many films want you to believe you’re seeing something true when they’ve done anything but.

How do you feel about Herzog and his notion of the ‘ecstatic truth’?

And, the documentary made about this whole KoK mess ten years from now, after the dust has settled from the release of the fictionalization, better be good.

This is my first time posting here, as I just found this blog today. I watched King of Kong about 3-4 weeks ago, and while entertained I could feel it was rife with bias and probably edited to the point of being skewed. So as soon as it finished I deigned to find out what was real and what was not about the film.

In my initial search I found a few of the big inaccuracies of the film, such as Billy being less of a prick than shown(which I had already summarized) and of a few of the things left out and such. I was quite enraged. Documentaries are meant to document and inform, and they should be true to their subject matter and not try to cop-out and make a flimsy, inaccurate depiction of the people it’s filming.

But that was that and I continued with my life. But a forum I frequent had a thread about the movie and a friend of mine posted a link to your initial King of Wrong article and I was immediately entranced and in complete agreement. I then read all the rest of your King of Wrong stuff, including this very long, thorough, and enjoyable read right here and now I must say I love your attitude and views, and you have all of my respect.

I may not like King of Kong, but I am glad I watched it for two reasons: A) I learned that I should be ready for some documentaries to op for a more commercial and entertaining approach that will be rife with inaccuracies. and B) I found your site.

After reading this article I am now fully interested in watching your BBS documentary and am currently downloading it and am ready for something not only great, but I can be assured it’s informative. I plan to actually BUY the documentary as I start working next week and will purchase it within the next month or so as I fully support you and cannot wait for your next two documentaries. I’m only downloading now because I am so hyped at the moment that I MUST see your work.

Anyways, this is like me masturbating to you or something. Sorry. Lol. Just wanted you to know how much I appreciate you and that you’re the first blog I’ve actually taken the time to respond to. Plan to be an active reader for a long time to come. Peace.