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?