American Anarchist (2016) Reviews

• A Biased Documentary (May contain what some could consider spoilers)

  bdiddytampa2017-04-01

  The "documentary" American Anarchist basically spends an hour and twenty minutes trying to blame this 65 year old man for horrific events of the modern internet age. It's absurd, and totally one sided. The way he ended it made me sick. His goal the entire time, and you can tell from how he words his questions, and how the movie is edited that he just wanted to make this man uncomfortable. He wanted to watch him squirm, repeating the same question over and over again "Do you feel responsible for this event, do you feel responsible for this event.." and on and on with these horrible events where people were found to be in possession of his book, blame this man for them, and display it for the world to see, that was his statement to me when he ended on a question that the subject had trouble verbalizing. This man wrote a book, when he was 19, with a very unstable childhood. I think a good portion of the population rebels around that age, against their parents, establishment, government, institutions.. whatever. He wrote this book because he was angry, I would have been if I'd experienced the world the way he did growing up, and all he wanted to do was get published. Most of the stuff/recipes in the book are BS anyway. Unfortunately from my understanding, some of the bomb making material does not fall under that category, but was obviously not THAT hard to find anyway, because William found it, and half are high school chemistry experiments, and to sit there and blame this man for all of those horrific events, every question thrown with malice. He had nothing to do with the decisions these people made. Reading the Anarchist's Cookbook was not the impetus that tipped/incited these people to rage, they were already raging, and would have found the way and means to do what their warped minds wanted to do with or without it. If the discussion, or questions had been more objective and fact finding, this would have been a very different movie.. but like the 19 year old that wanted to be published, the more sensational you present the material, the more likely you are to accrue an audience, and sales. William AND Ochan even called Charlie on it in their kitchen! You'd been invited to their house, they were cooking a meal for you and you just wanted to see them break down crying for the camera in remorse, directing accusatory questions to his wife, who didn't even know him when this was written.. it was disappointing. Some of the historical stuff about William himself was interesting, they did convey his mindset at the time very well as opposed to after life matured him.. but never excused him once. That's why I believe this movie was so biased. Making a documentary biased in the way you presented William, reveals your agenda. To make him look bad. That's not what I want from a documentary, I want facts, unbiased questions, and a presentation that leaves your agenda out of it, so the audience decides for themselves. You failed. I gave a 4 because of the interesting information about the author of the book, but I did not care for how it was presented and edited. It was forced sensationalism. At its worst.

• Interesting Subject, Sleazy Film-maker

  dwankan2017-06-28

  William Powell wrote the Anarchist Cookbook when he was a teenager. Now in his sixties, he is a retired school teacher, who has spent most of his responsible adult life trying to help teach difficult to reach children. In this documentary, he talks about his radical years in the late 60s and his life subsequent to the book's publication. A simple man, who apparently struggles with certain implications of the book and some personalities who have found it inspirational, Mr. Powell seems to have made a good life for himself apart from his youthful foolishness. Charlie Siskel's documentary about the man would have completely failed were it not for the subject itself, which saved the film from its maker's lack of ethics and film-making talents. The editing was atrocious, and a good thirty minutes of irrelevant information could have been cut from it. Worst of all, Siskel bullies Mr. Powell repeatedly, pressing again and again to make the man feel guilty about tragedies such as the OK City bombing and the Columbine shooting. Both Mr. Powell and his wife take Siskel to task for his relentless passive-aggressive attacks, but he continues through the end of the film. While I enjoyed hearing from Powell, I was constantly brought back to Siskel's agenda to demonize him, which coated the entire documentary with a layer of muck and left a bad taste in my mouth.

• American Anarchist or: How to Blame an Old Man for Everything Wrong with the World

  Durdenist2017-04-06

  American Anarchist is exactly the type of "documentary" i hate to watch. Director is totally biased and he spends 80 minutes trying to prove his point. And the point is: William Powell, a 65 year old teacher who lives in France is responsible for almost every mass shooting in the US. Because he wrote a book about how to make explosives and how to use guns when he was 19. It's not an easy movie to watch because it's so one sided and judgmental. At some point you feel like you're watching someone being ambushed and coerced into saying things he doesn't want to say.

• A laughably poor film about an incredibly interesting man

  mikeherbig2017-06-28

  An intelligent, well spoken William Powell has to contend with the childishly devised verbal attacks of director Charlie Siskel. The director seems to delight in pointing out minor flaws in memories from 40 years ago, and constantly gives Powell alternative answers to his questions when he doesn't get the "gotcha" response he wants. Even the title "American Anarchist" doesn't make sense. Powell spent most of his life outside the U.S. and says himself in the opening that he doesn't identify with any country. To name it American Anarchist seems either an intentional insult to the film's own subject or just more lazy filmmaking. Powell is an incredibly interesting subject but it is unfortunate that a better exploration of his life wasn't made, rather you get a poor hour and a half long attempt to corner a confession out of someone who doesn't owe one. The film also includes a bizarre decision to equate the publishing of the book with Powell's being molested as a child, rather than the obvious turbulent political climate of the 1970s. The ending zoom in is just laughable and the dedication of the film to his memory shameful.

• shame and blame

  g_morang2017-06-28

  All this documentary does is blame this old man over and over again. I own a copy of the book and like hundreds of thousands of other people, that's where the story ends. Very hard to finish due to the fact that it focuses on shaming the author for a full hour instead of delving into the actual book itself and more about why it was written. Terrible