Seven out of 10 because I was interested in the history of this book, being exposed to bits of it as a young, ignorant adolescent. I agree wholly with other reviews on how biased the interviewer was, and how this story, which could have been very interesting, was turned into a blame and shame game. There is absolutely little to no evidence to suggest that the 'Cookbook' alone or even in part drove anyone to commit terrible acts against fellow human beings. Anymore than there is evidence to suggest that metal music or violent comic books did. I'm not sure what the interviewer's end game or motivation is, but to put it bluntly, he's kind of a dick.
70 Reviews
The Very Unfairly treated Bill
nicole-4844 July 2017
When I was 19, I worked in a hippie bookstore that carried "The Anarchist Cookbook." We kept it behind the counter, along with other naughty books ("The Joy of Lesbian Sex"; even "The Satanic Verses".)
At the time, we all thought it was very, very COOL-- and naturally, deliciously subversive-- that we were selling this book.
Point being: 19.
This film bothered me tremendously, most of all for Siskel's indignation, which somehow seemed irrelevant to me. Of COURSE the book is atrocious. Of COURSE the book has motivated many a disturbed individual to commit heinous acts-- one here in Salt Lake City, in fact, where Mark Hoffman (the "Salamander Letters" forger) purchased the book from that hippie bookstore, and used it to make bombs that killed two people in 1985.
My point is, viewers get it. Powell gets it. Powell's wife gets it.
But I am not so sure about Charlie Siskel. At one point the filmmaker presents a barrage of horrific acts committed by people in possession of "The Anarchist Cookbook." (was I the only one who wondered why we were all being flogged with this theory, considering what can now be so easily found on the Internet?) We even get to hear that Senator Feinstein think Powell's book should be "removed from the internet." (Huh?)
The best part of the film is the backstory about Powell's troubled boyhood. This part of the film is genuinely moving, and made me think of Frank Conroy's lovely and dark book, "Stop Time." Powell tries again and again to gently articulate that there is something to be learned-- a connection worth exploring-- between alienated youngsters in a damaged world, and dangerous ideas and rhetoric. Powell tell us, "my skeleton is not in the closet," and continues (with amazing forbearance, I thought) to explore the impact of "The Anarchist Cookbook."
Towards the end, Powell lights up briefly and long enough to describe the subject of one of his other books. Siskel goes at him with his thesis doggedly, and one last time, before the camera lights on Powell's baffled, bemused countenance.(I could just hear Siskel going, "Gotcha!"). This film felt to me like a dumbed-down version of a much, much more complicated history and story.
At the time, we all thought it was very, very COOL-- and naturally, deliciously subversive-- that we were selling this book.
Point being: 19.
This film bothered me tremendously, most of all for Siskel's indignation, which somehow seemed irrelevant to me. Of COURSE the book is atrocious. Of COURSE the book has motivated many a disturbed individual to commit heinous acts-- one here in Salt Lake City, in fact, where Mark Hoffman (the "Salamander Letters" forger) purchased the book from that hippie bookstore, and used it to make bombs that killed two people in 1985.
My point is, viewers get it. Powell gets it. Powell's wife gets it.
But I am not so sure about Charlie Siskel. At one point the filmmaker presents a barrage of horrific acts committed by people in possession of "The Anarchist Cookbook." (was I the only one who wondered why we were all being flogged with this theory, considering what can now be so easily found on the Internet?) We even get to hear that Senator Feinstein think Powell's book should be "removed from the internet." (Huh?)
The best part of the film is the backstory about Powell's troubled boyhood. This part of the film is genuinely moving, and made me think of Frank Conroy's lovely and dark book, "Stop Time." Powell tries again and again to gently articulate that there is something to be learned-- a connection worth exploring-- between alienated youngsters in a damaged world, and dangerous ideas and rhetoric. Powell tell us, "my skeleton is not in the closet," and continues (with amazing forbearance, I thought) to explore the impact of "The Anarchist Cookbook."
Towards the end, Powell lights up briefly and long enough to describe the subject of one of his other books. Siskel goes at him with his thesis doggedly, and one last time, before the camera lights on Powell's baffled, bemused countenance.(I could just hear Siskel going, "Gotcha!"). This film felt to me like a dumbed-down version of a much, much more complicated history and story.
Great idea and story but overly antagonistic.
wildturkeywill19 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A fascinating tale of something we've all heard of but probably don't know the background behind. Mr. Powell seems remorseful but apparently not remorseful enough for the interviewer. It's definitely worth the watch even with the cringe factor of watching Mr. Powell needlessly squirm during his interrogation.
truly bad film
matteiaffair30 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Very pretentious, and in bad faith. Spoiler?: the "director" sets out to shame a man for writing a handbook of violence 45 years ago, when he was a teenager. Although today he clearly regrets the existence of the book, and although he can't do anything about it because he never owned the rights to it, nonetheless the famous-nephew filmmaker won't let go of his need to convict the guy and humiliate him on camera. Pathetic, kind of despicable, and really crappy filmmaking, too: just check out the cloyingly sentimental score.
I have never written a review on IMDb before but this film... ugh.
I have never written a review on IMDb before but this film... ugh.
I Felt Sorry For William Powell
sendtokris-0045629 November 2019
William Powell wrote the Anarchist Cookbook when he was 19, naive, and angry at the government for their violent oppression of the 60s counter-culture movements. He wanted to be a published author and thought writing a manual of techniques to resist oppression would find an audience. He didn't realize what kind of audience it would eventually find, nor that his book would continuously come back to haunt him for the rest of his life.
Powell, age 65 in the film tells of domestication into family life and his life-long passion for helping teach children with learning disabilities, while he optimistically hoped that his first book would quietly die the death of a passing fad. Unfortunately, that was not the case, which Charlie Siskel tries to drive home repeatedly to the point of seemingly bullying Powell in a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou exposition as he lists case after case of violent incidents where the cookbook was involved.
I found this film scary and saddening because it is a salient example of how a naive mistake made during a person's youth can indefinitely and permanently damage their life on an ongoing basis. The low score is mainly the fault of the filmmakers who did not seem to have a clear idea of what to do and hence resorted to harping on different ways of shaming a man for actions that he has not engaged in, endorsed, or even condoned for almost 50 years.
Powell, age 65 in the film tells of domestication into family life and his life-long passion for helping teach children with learning disabilities, while he optimistically hoped that his first book would quietly die the death of a passing fad. Unfortunately, that was not the case, which Charlie Siskel tries to drive home repeatedly to the point of seemingly bullying Powell in a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou exposition as he lists case after case of violent incidents where the cookbook was involved.
I found this film scary and saddening because it is a salient example of how a naive mistake made during a person's youth can indefinitely and permanently damage their life on an ongoing basis. The low score is mainly the fault of the filmmakers who did not seem to have a clear idea of what to do and hence resorted to harping on different ways of shaming a man for actions that he has not engaged in, endorsed, or even condoned for almost 50 years.
Some value in spite of the heavy slant
BrookeAWheeler9 July 2018
Like some other reviewers, I fell most of the value in this was in the opportunity to hear Powell talk about his life, and its value is IN SPITE of Siskel's attempts to place blame on Powell for things that others did. If it weren't for the obvious agenda that Siskel was trying to push here, it would have been 7/8 stars for me.
American Anarchist or: How to Blame an Old Man for Everything Wrong with the World
Durdenist6 April 2017
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.
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.
Good film but bias dragged it down
prrin7 July 2017
I gave the American Anarchist a 6 out of ten with a sense of guilt. The interview style documentary was filmed well, but the interviewer's bias against William Powell shocked me. It felt like the purpose of the movie was to place blame on William. In my option this focus on the negative effect of "The Anarchist Cookbook" prevented this documentary from being worthy of a 9 or 10. Rather than trying to blame William the film should have been focused on who he was and is.
I feel guilty giving American Anarchist a 6 because William Powell has an amazing mind. If given the chance he would have added a different perspective on violence in children and how they express it. William should be proud of "The Anarchist Cookbook". The book gives invaluable insight on the children who commit atrocities, and if it had been looked at with this view it might have helped prevent them.
I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in interview style documentary but with a warning of the bias.
Sadly William Powell passed away in July, 2016.
I feel guilty giving American Anarchist a 6 because William Powell has an amazing mind. If given the chance he would have added a different perspective on violence in children and how they express it. William should be proud of "The Anarchist Cookbook". The book gives invaluable insight on the children who commit atrocities, and if it had been looked at with this view it might have helped prevent them.
I would recommend this film to anyone who is interested in interview style documentary but with a warning of the bias.
Sadly William Powell passed away in July, 2016.
Low blow
nyrn29 June 2017
Chris McKinley and Charlie Siskel probably thought they had a real scoop here, but are clearly grasping at straws. Half way into the documentary – when clichés have run dry; the lonely piano, the super-8 footage etc – it becomes pretty clear that the producers are pushing the script towards some kind of a statement from William Powell. The fabricated narrative of Will as the outcast terrorist loner just doesn't work. In reality we get to know a very sincere person who's deeply involved in educating children with disabilities. Is Will responsible for the actions of all the individuals that have read the book? Of course not. The film is finished abruptly, mid-sentence, as if the producers ran out of questions. They probably did.
A worthy but flawed documentary
djhanson-258384 July 2017
I have done some video for a local Access TV station so I understand that putting together an informative video that is thought provoking is no easy task.
That said, the director and interviewer, Charlie Siskel, was really hostile toward William Powell at times. And Powell never really lost his dignity. And to a degree, if you can stick with it, therein lies the power of the documentary.
William Powell in his aging adult incarnation was thoughtful, nuanced and had given his life to service in educating hard to educate kids. He never dodged questions. He engaged them thoughtfully. He got it, that this book he wrote, had lived much longer and stronger than he ever anticipated and he understood that it contributed to some mayhem over time. And he felt that deeply.
I felt one of the best lines of the documentary comes early in film. Powell says that he felt at the time of its creation, that if the military and the Weathermen were going to have this knowledge--bomb making and firearms--then it should be generally available. And he points out he got it right off the shelf of the New York city library. He acknowledges that the "eye for an eye" thinking wasn't a reflection of where he was now but it was was what motivated him them. He acknowledged that it almost always breeds only more violence.
I thought that was an idea that bore more exploration given the militarization of police forces we see now. But that moment passes.
Another criticism is that like so many young creators--think The Beatles and Michael Jackson--the real control of what happened to his book passed from his hands immediately when initially published. Lyle Stuart, the publisher, wrote the contract in such a way that he controlled for many years the publication of the book and eventually he bought out Powell for claims to even royalties. Not one interview of Stuart or the current holder of the publishing rights. This was surprising to me.
But the video is interesting, engaging and uncomfortable. All too often even in current times when people give themselves over to violence as a solution, Authorities find a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook in their belongings. And Siskel makes much of that, repetitively. Even though the ways to kill people have far evolved since the circa 1960's information that Powell published. So I don't think the methods described in the book totally explain the book's hold on people.
As Powell's wife herself states, the book is a cautionary tale about how your writings can outlive you on the internet, even when you yourself have way surpassed your thinking at the time.
Technically well done, interweaving many sources, it's well worth the watch.
That said, the director and interviewer, Charlie Siskel, was really hostile toward William Powell at times. And Powell never really lost his dignity. And to a degree, if you can stick with it, therein lies the power of the documentary.
William Powell in his aging adult incarnation was thoughtful, nuanced and had given his life to service in educating hard to educate kids. He never dodged questions. He engaged them thoughtfully. He got it, that this book he wrote, had lived much longer and stronger than he ever anticipated and he understood that it contributed to some mayhem over time. And he felt that deeply.
I felt one of the best lines of the documentary comes early in film. Powell says that he felt at the time of its creation, that if the military and the Weathermen were going to have this knowledge--bomb making and firearms--then it should be generally available. And he points out he got it right off the shelf of the New York city library. He acknowledges that the "eye for an eye" thinking wasn't a reflection of where he was now but it was was what motivated him them. He acknowledged that it almost always breeds only more violence.
I thought that was an idea that bore more exploration given the militarization of police forces we see now. But that moment passes.
Another criticism is that like so many young creators--think The Beatles and Michael Jackson--the real control of what happened to his book passed from his hands immediately when initially published. Lyle Stuart, the publisher, wrote the contract in such a way that he controlled for many years the publication of the book and eventually he bought out Powell for claims to even royalties. Not one interview of Stuart or the current holder of the publishing rights. This was surprising to me.
But the video is interesting, engaging and uncomfortable. All too often even in current times when people give themselves over to violence as a solution, Authorities find a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook in their belongings. And Siskel makes much of that, repetitively. Even though the ways to kill people have far evolved since the circa 1960's information that Powell published. So I don't think the methods described in the book totally explain the book's hold on people.
As Powell's wife herself states, the book is a cautionary tale about how your writings can outlive you on the internet, even when you yourself have way surpassed your thinking at the time.
Technically well done, interweaving many sources, it's well worth the watch.
A Biased Documentary (May contain what some could consider spoilers)
bdiddytampa1 April 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
William Powell can't live with being a bad person
smutsik4 July 2017
This is the most beautiful and shaking piece of art that I've seen in a long time, if not ever, that conveys the human need to view one's own person in a flattering light. The dynamic between the interviewer and William Powell is so gripping that it almost physically hurt at times - Powell being confronted with his book's implications on western society and taking different positions in order to find justification for what he has written. It is a stunning portrait of human vulnerability and the struggle of being a good person, even when one has done something bad. William Powell is cognitive dissonance embodied.
On why this only got a 9 out of 10: I feel that the film could have ended sooner, the ending felt bleak in comparison to what it'd been like if the director would have had the courage to leave the portrait as raw at it deserved to be. The interviews conducted with William Powell doesn't need a frame in order to be powerful, just the theme of Powell's internal struggles over what impact his book has had on the world is stark enough. I feel so aware of man's vulnerability that I feel like I've been watching napalm burn on my skin.
If you are even remotely interested in human nature, psychology or the pain and suffering that comes with trying to be human, watch this brilliant piece of art right now.
On why this only got a 9 out of 10: I feel that the film could have ended sooner, the ending felt bleak in comparison to what it'd been like if the director would have had the courage to leave the portrait as raw at it deserved to be. The interviews conducted with William Powell doesn't need a frame in order to be powerful, just the theme of Powell's internal struggles over what impact his book has had on the world is stark enough. I feel so aware of man's vulnerability that I feel like I've been watching napalm burn on my skin.
If you are even remotely interested in human nature, psychology or the pain and suffering that comes with trying to be human, watch this brilliant piece of art right now.
Psychoanalysing Responsibility
TroliusMaximus11 July 2017
This film is a psychological vivisection clad in a documentary veil. It confronts a ubiquitous human frailty that becomes exposed when one is tasked with the ownership of one's actions.
The infamous book in question is immaterial; insofar as it only works to draw viewers to a film that would otherwise be predicated upon a nonentity author ― a man who even 95% of those that have actually read The Anarchist Cookbook, would likely not know by name. The real nub of this piece is in the laying bare of a man who―by all indications―has shirked reconciliation of and contrition for the reverberations his teenage, hubris-fuelled 'musings' played a significant role in.
As cited by other reviewers here (*particularly correlating to the inordinately dismissive, scathing and objectively unjust, low review scores; précis that read as though compiled through gritted teeth and largely riding piqued personal bias and emotion), the interviewer is, at times, prying in his examination of Powell's motivations for writing his book; his apparent lack of (for most part) compunction; and his persistent prevarication―relating to the horrors his instructional prose has (in a technical and instructional sense) unarguably contributed to.
However, this pressing interviewing style actually worked well, in the context of what the documentary-maker seemed to be striving for ― i.e., to coax an admission (or some element of guilt) pertaining to the vicarious, inimical and abetting effects of what marked the claim to infamy for this conflicted pedagogue ― a tragically ironic (karmic?) vocational twist, in and of itself. The final scene I found particularly cogent, in how it accentuated the man's inner tumult and―to the very end―his inability to even know how to, let alone find closure. His death (shortly after filming) ― leaving his introspective ambivalence / denial forever in 'limbo' ― imbued the film with additional gravitas. Lastly, the juxtaposition of his comparatively more amenable and forthright wife, also served nicely to underscore Powell's foibles.
For an examination of the human condition, and as an example of the eternal struggle for this organism to avow commensurate responsibility for its actions, this is an excellent exposé. For budding anarchists and disestablishmentarians, the film will likely come across as somewhat heavy-handed and accusatory ― elements which I genuinely feel were not the director's intentions, nor were his methods translated to screen as such... Objectively speaking, that is.
The infamous book in question is immaterial; insofar as it only works to draw viewers to a film that would otherwise be predicated upon a nonentity author ― a man who even 95% of those that have actually read The Anarchist Cookbook, would likely not know by name. The real nub of this piece is in the laying bare of a man who―by all indications―has shirked reconciliation of and contrition for the reverberations his teenage, hubris-fuelled 'musings' played a significant role in.
As cited by other reviewers here (*particularly correlating to the inordinately dismissive, scathing and objectively unjust, low review scores; précis that read as though compiled through gritted teeth and largely riding piqued personal bias and emotion), the interviewer is, at times, prying in his examination of Powell's motivations for writing his book; his apparent lack of (for most part) compunction; and his persistent prevarication―relating to the horrors his instructional prose has (in a technical and instructional sense) unarguably contributed to.
However, this pressing interviewing style actually worked well, in the context of what the documentary-maker seemed to be striving for ― i.e., to coax an admission (or some element of guilt) pertaining to the vicarious, inimical and abetting effects of what marked the claim to infamy for this conflicted pedagogue ― a tragically ironic (karmic?) vocational twist, in and of itself. The final scene I found particularly cogent, in how it accentuated the man's inner tumult and―to the very end―his inability to even know how to, let alone find closure. His death (shortly after filming) ― leaving his introspective ambivalence / denial forever in 'limbo' ― imbued the film with additional gravitas. Lastly, the juxtaposition of his comparatively more amenable and forthright wife, also served nicely to underscore Powell's foibles.
For an examination of the human condition, and as an example of the eternal struggle for this organism to avow commensurate responsibility for its actions, this is an excellent exposé. For budding anarchists and disestablishmentarians, the film will likely come across as somewhat heavy-handed and accusatory ― elements which I genuinely feel were not the director's intentions, nor were his methods translated to screen as such... Objectively speaking, that is.
An hour and a half long guilt trip
uberpippi23 June 2017
I felt terrible for William Powell while watching this. Think back to all the stupid things that you thought when you were 19. He wrote it down. He didn't create the recipes for the explosives, he compiled the information. So many of the recipes came straight from our own government and the ways that they were blowing people up. The book had a catchy title and some press. He's spent years disavowing the book, and contributing wonderful things to the world and helping people. But the thing that no one will ever forget is a book he wrote when he was 19.
Imagine being 50 years old and *still* talking about a tweet that you wrote when you were 19 that the world won't forget about.
The interviewer really hammers William over every mass shooting, every bombing, and grills him about every decision he ever made regarding the book. I could hardly get through the "documentary" because I felt terrible for William. He just wants it to go away.
He didn't create the evil in the world. You can google "how to make a bomb" and find recipes from all over. His is the most popular. You cannot remove something from the internet. Even if he could stop it's publication, it would immediately backfire and start an underground market for the book that couldn't be tracked. There are also hundreds of other similar books, many of them are arguably better. Owning the cookbook is something that you have for shock value. I've had a copy since I was 13, because it made me feel tough and edgy. You cannot squash people's desires to make bombs by playing whack-a-mole with every set of instruction you can find.
Children have been taught by their governments since the moment government was created that when someone scares you, you blow them up. William Powell didn't do that. He was exceedingly patient with an interviewer who seemed hellbent on blaming him for every misguided individual that's ever wanted to blow something up. He seems to have made a wonderful life for himself and has given back tenfold, and at the end of the documentary, I just wanted to give him and his wife (who was incredibly gracious) a big hug.
Imagine being 50 years old and *still* talking about a tweet that you wrote when you were 19 that the world won't forget about.
The interviewer really hammers William over every mass shooting, every bombing, and grills him about every decision he ever made regarding the book. I could hardly get through the "documentary" because I felt terrible for William. He just wants it to go away.
He didn't create the evil in the world. You can google "how to make a bomb" and find recipes from all over. His is the most popular. You cannot remove something from the internet. Even if he could stop it's publication, it would immediately backfire and start an underground market for the book that couldn't be tracked. There are also hundreds of other similar books, many of them are arguably better. Owning the cookbook is something that you have for shock value. I've had a copy since I was 13, because it made me feel tough and edgy. You cannot squash people's desires to make bombs by playing whack-a-mole with every set of instruction you can find.
Children have been taught by their governments since the moment government was created that when someone scares you, you blow them up. William Powell didn't do that. He was exceedingly patient with an interviewer who seemed hellbent on blaming him for every misguided individual that's ever wanted to blow something up. He seems to have made a wonderful life for himself and has given back tenfold, and at the end of the documentary, I just wanted to give him and his wife (who was incredibly gracious) a big hug.
Siskel: completely BIASED! and disturbing interviewer by trying to shame him! However it sheds light to a great human being, William Powell who's learned and grew.
shopisabels5 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
A documentary by a completely biased and disturbing Siskel who tries to shame him (shame on you Charlie Siskel), but it also sheds light on William Powell's beliefs, his personality, and so forth.
His life had changed in several ways and tried to move forward with his life, but he was often judged and discriminated against because of the book he wrote.
William Powell no longer believes or promotes this book. He has and continues to disassociate himself from this book. Powell believes that it should be taken out of publication.
Please consider the fact that he wrote this book when he was 19/20. As humans, we grow--our opinions, mindset, and beliefs change as we gain more knowledge and experience. In our teenage years/early adulthood, most of our opinions/actions are reflected by our own peers and society. In addition, at the time Powell wrote the book, there was a lot of suppression in society. There was a lot of Americans who protested against the ongoing Vietnam War. People fought for Women, African-American, and gay rights/equality. Although the book contained explicit information on weapons and other related information, it was relevant to the idea of counterculture era and its intentions was for it be a fad book. The impact of this book was very much understated.
Over time, it has had a lot of influence primarily because of the people that made the decision to continue the publication and distribution of this book, people that promote this book by spreading the hype, and people that apply the idea to real life in unnecessary places/environment that we see in the news.
Just like everyone else, we have a public responsibility. Just like there are weapons that can be easily accessed and used there are also various dangerous information available through book and with a click of a button online. Ultimately, It comes down to the responsibility and intention of the person.
RIP William Powell (William Powell has recently passed away in 2016 due to a heart attack)
Please also consider reading the review of this on village voice as well!
His life had changed in several ways and tried to move forward with his life, but he was often judged and discriminated against because of the book he wrote.
William Powell no longer believes or promotes this book. He has and continues to disassociate himself from this book. Powell believes that it should be taken out of publication.
Please consider the fact that he wrote this book when he was 19/20. As humans, we grow--our opinions, mindset, and beliefs change as we gain more knowledge and experience. In our teenage years/early adulthood, most of our opinions/actions are reflected by our own peers and society. In addition, at the time Powell wrote the book, there was a lot of suppression in society. There was a lot of Americans who protested against the ongoing Vietnam War. People fought for Women, African-American, and gay rights/equality. Although the book contained explicit information on weapons and other related information, it was relevant to the idea of counterculture era and its intentions was for it be a fad book. The impact of this book was very much understated.
Over time, it has had a lot of influence primarily because of the people that made the decision to continue the publication and distribution of this book, people that promote this book by spreading the hype, and people that apply the idea to real life in unnecessary places/environment that we see in the news.
Just like everyone else, we have a public responsibility. Just like there are weapons that can be easily accessed and used there are also various dangerous information available through book and with a click of a button online. Ultimately, It comes down to the responsibility and intention of the person.
RIP William Powell (William Powell has recently passed away in 2016 due to a heart attack)
Please also consider reading the review of this on village voice as well!
remorse not regret
ferguson-630 March 2017
Greetings again from the darkness. If only the young had a monopoly on ignorance and poor judgment. As William Powell's wife states during this film, all adolescents do dumb things, but they don't all write it down and publish it. Such was the case with 19 year old Mr. Powell who, at age 19, wrote "The Anarchist Cookbook". It was published in 1970 and has since sold more than 2 million copies.
Charlie Siskel (Gene's nephew and director of Finding Vivian Maier) conducts an extended and in-depth interview with the 65 year old Powell in an attempt to discover what motivated him to write the book, how it has affected his life, and how he feels about it now. Siskel pulls no punches with his questions, with one of the first being, did Powell 'advocate a violent overthrow of the government?' Powell's proclamation that it was not intended as "a call to action", leads us to believe he was either quite naïve as a 19 year old author, or has spent the last four decades rationalizing his original intent.
In the late 1960's the counterculture uprising included monumental movements: Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and Gays. For an insightful 19 year old to write a book for like minded individuals – the liner notes state it's "not a book for children or morons" – and claim the only choice for real men is revolution, well, it's understandable that his work and the corresponding stigma has followed him through life.
It's a fascinating interview with a man who professes remorse ("which is different than regret") and somehow seems to be caught off-guard with the "laundry list of associations" to his book: Columbine, Oklahoma City bombing, Aurora theatre massacre, Gabby Giffords shooting, and numerous other bombings, shootings and atrocities against humanity. Mr. Siskel was a producer on Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, so he pushes hard for insight during this part. Powell is very self-reflective and measured in his responses during the final segment even as he states "I didn't do" those evil things. He does acknowledge some responsibility, and states that while everyone has 'skeletons in the closet', his skeleton is in print through 2 million copies and easy internet access.
At one point he labels his own work as "over-the-top exaggerated rhetoric" and admits that what he now views as rubbish, was at the time considered "cool". His defense, so many years later, that he wanted to advocate people thinking for themselves rings a bit hollow. No matter how true it is that he doesn't control publishing rights and long ago distanced himself from the book, it's a chilling reminder that one's legacy doesn't discriminate against age. All we have is (hopefully) wisdom with age, and an introspection that can be shared. The documentary is one that provides much insight into human nature, while also serving as a compelling history lesson.
Charlie Siskel (Gene's nephew and director of Finding Vivian Maier) conducts an extended and in-depth interview with the 65 year old Powell in an attempt to discover what motivated him to write the book, how it has affected his life, and how he feels about it now. Siskel pulls no punches with his questions, with one of the first being, did Powell 'advocate a violent overthrow of the government?' Powell's proclamation that it was not intended as "a call to action", leads us to believe he was either quite naïve as a 19 year old author, or has spent the last four decades rationalizing his original intent.
In the late 1960's the counterculture uprising included monumental movements: Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and Gays. For an insightful 19 year old to write a book for like minded individuals – the liner notes state it's "not a book for children or morons" – and claim the only choice for real men is revolution, well, it's understandable that his work and the corresponding stigma has followed him through life.
It's a fascinating interview with a man who professes remorse ("which is different than regret") and somehow seems to be caught off-guard with the "laundry list of associations" to his book: Columbine, Oklahoma City bombing, Aurora theatre massacre, Gabby Giffords shooting, and numerous other bombings, shootings and atrocities against humanity. Mr. Siskel was a producer on Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, so he pushes hard for insight during this part. Powell is very self-reflective and measured in his responses during the final segment even as he states "I didn't do" those evil things. He does acknowledge some responsibility, and states that while everyone has 'skeletons in the closet', his skeleton is in print through 2 million copies and easy internet access.
At one point he labels his own work as "over-the-top exaggerated rhetoric" and admits that what he now views as rubbish, was at the time considered "cool". His defense, so many years later, that he wanted to advocate people thinking for themselves rings a bit hollow. No matter how true it is that he doesn't control publishing rights and long ago distanced himself from the book, it's a chilling reminder that one's legacy doesn't discriminate against age. All we have is (hopefully) wisdom with age, and an introspection that can be shared. The documentary is one that provides much insight into human nature, while also serving as a compelling history lesson.
Mildly interesting....but it felt like he STILL doesn't quite get it.
planktonrules10 July 2017
This film consists of interviews with William Powell, the author of the infamous "Anarchist's Cookbook"...a how-to guide for folks anticipating terrorist activities. The book explains how to make bombs, napalm and more.
When the film begins, it's surprising to see that Powell is now a school teacher working with underprivileged kids and isn't the crazed anarchist many might expect. In many ways he seems like a decent person. However, when the film came to Powell's responsibility for homegrown terrorist attacks, like Columbine, where folks admit to having bought the book and used it...then Powell seems to obfuscate a bit. He takes responsibility to a degree...and the filmmaker then pursues this...pushing to take a greater sense of ownership over his impact on these terror attacks. Again and again, Powell appears to dance in circles taking ownership...to a degree...and only to a limited degree.
Overall, the film is mildly interesting but nothing is that exciting or mind-blowing that I would say it's anything like a must-see picture. A time passer....
When the film begins, it's surprising to see that Powell is now a school teacher working with underprivileged kids and isn't the crazed anarchist many might expect. In many ways he seems like a decent person. However, when the film came to Powell's responsibility for homegrown terrorist attacks, like Columbine, where folks admit to having bought the book and used it...then Powell seems to obfuscate a bit. He takes responsibility to a degree...and the filmmaker then pursues this...pushing to take a greater sense of ownership over his impact on these terror attacks. Again and again, Powell appears to dance in circles taking ownership...to a degree...and only to a limited degree.
Overall, the film is mildly interesting but nothing is that exciting or mind-blowing that I would say it's anything like a must-see picture. A time passer....
Interesting Subject, Sleazy Film-maker
dwankan28 June 2017
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.
Only God can judge him(?)
kosmasp21 February 2018
Yes the movie takes a very clear stance and by doing so (repeatedly) it may annoy some viewers (probably not as much as the individual who has to live with his written contribution and something that people use and abuse time and time again). The fact of the matter is, that mistakes of the past can haunt us. Sometimes we choose not to think about them and just keep on living. You can see that he tries or tried to move on with his life.
It's not easy though, especially when you get reminded by a film crew and if the guy asking you questions keeps digging and asking. It is a tough watch and a somewhat strange documentary. But this what makes it compelling in a way too. And while the filmmaker is judgemental, it is still left up to you, to judge about the author of a "bad" book ... And it's up to you to interpret and really draw something out of this. What it says about human nature, about forgiveness, about corrupting, about easy manipulation and about responsibility ...
It's not easy though, especially when you get reminded by a film crew and if the guy asking you questions keeps digging and asking. It is a tough watch and a somewhat strange documentary. But this what makes it compelling in a way too. And while the filmmaker is judgemental, it is still left up to you, to judge about the author of a "bad" book ... And it's up to you to interpret and really draw something out of this. What it says about human nature, about forgiveness, about corrupting, about easy manipulation and about responsibility ...
A laughably poor film about an incredibly interesting man
mikeherbig28 June 2017
Warning: Spoilers
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.
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.
Great potential... ruined by bullying interviewers
DarthJordan5 July 2017
I read the book when I was in Middle School so when I saw this documentary getting added to Netflix I was very excited to watch it. However this is a perfect example of why the media is hated and no one believes a word they say. The entire time the interviewer is trying to blame William Powell for every single terror attack that ever occurred since 1970. I feel more sympathy for the author of this book than I do any of the victims of the attacks committed by someone who read his book. I am an avid documentary fan. I will 9/10 times watch a documentary even when I know I'm not going to enjoy the rest, but I had to stop halfway through this dumpster fire because I couldn't stand the false message the producers where trying to force down your throat.
The interviewer is...?
zen-hood24 March 2020
This is one of the best and most revealing interview I have ever followed and merits praise, not condemnation. Those reviewers who claim the interviewer is somehow manipulating the subject is a line straight from this documentary. They are directly quoting Powell.
The interviewer maintains a calm demeanor throughout and this is obvious by the tone of his voice. When Powell becomes aggressive, it's because he's defensive. A good interviewer let's the subject do the talking, does not interrupt, or does not react defensively, but respectfully.
It is Powell who struggles with the simple questions he cannot answer, will not answer, resists, and deflects the role his book has played in acts of horrendous violence.
Instead, he attempts to distance himself, invoking ignorance of these acts, and thus attempts to minimize the relevance of the question. He cannot accept the consequences of what he authored and what it provoked.
The hesitation, the silence before his responses, speaks a thousand words. One who genuinely does not feel guilt will not pause and hesitate before the answer to the question. That is an instinctive response.
The hesitation stems from his struggle to respond without first crafting a "genuine" and credible response before a mirror. It's a rehearsal. When he finally does respond, the response is immediately followed by a "But... I didn't do it. They did."
These are attempts to distance and absolve himself from the massive influence and violence by the book he wrote. The "I didn't do it." response doesn't cut it. It's a cop out.
Clearly this a man is struggling with his inner demons. And I feel nothing but pity for him.
The interviewer maintains a calm demeanor throughout and this is obvious by the tone of his voice. When Powell becomes aggressive, it's because he's defensive. A good interviewer let's the subject do the talking, does not interrupt, or does not react defensively, but respectfully.
It is Powell who struggles with the simple questions he cannot answer, will not answer, resists, and deflects the role his book has played in acts of horrendous violence.
Instead, he attempts to distance himself, invoking ignorance of these acts, and thus attempts to minimize the relevance of the question. He cannot accept the consequences of what he authored and what it provoked.
The hesitation, the silence before his responses, speaks a thousand words. One who genuinely does not feel guilt will not pause and hesitate before the answer to the question. That is an instinctive response.
The hesitation stems from his struggle to respond without first crafting a "genuine" and credible response before a mirror. It's a rehearsal. When he finally does respond, the response is immediately followed by a "But... I didn't do it. They did."
These are attempts to distance and absolve himself from the massive influence and violence by the book he wrote. The "I didn't do it." response doesn't cut it. It's a cop out.
Clearly this a man is struggling with his inner demons. And I feel nothing but pity for him.
shame and blame
g_morang28 June 2017
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
Documentary, or excuse to place unwarranted shame and blame?
martial-1123016 April 2017
This documentary was so hard to get through once they started with the attempted shaming of the author as if he was personally responsible for the actions of dozens of individuals who did horrible things.
Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of incidents had nothing to do with anarchy or getting at the government except for what, the bombing done by McVeigh, who was educated in explosives by the US military, not the book and was influenced by what he experienced serving in Desert Storm that caused his hatred for the government.
I've known quite a few people who have owned and read the Anarchist Cookbook, as I did myself, and like anyone with any slight knowledge or common sense came to the same conclusion that I and most have, that it should be considered entertainment and given out as a gag gift before treated like some kind of guide for warfare on any level.
I wonder if the guys who made this even did any research, if they knew that if someone wanted to make homemade weapons, including explosives that the US military publishes various manuals that are serious and make the Anarchist cookbook look like something for young teenagers.
Some would probably say this a bad review in the way I put it together, but considering the so called "Documentary" I'm reviewing I don't feel it necessary to worry. The guys that put this together, and especially the interviewer should be ashamed of themselves.
Ignoring the fact that the vast majority of incidents had nothing to do with anarchy or getting at the government except for what, the bombing done by McVeigh, who was educated in explosives by the US military, not the book and was influenced by what he experienced serving in Desert Storm that caused his hatred for the government.
I've known quite a few people who have owned and read the Anarchist Cookbook, as I did myself, and like anyone with any slight knowledge or common sense came to the same conclusion that I and most have, that it should be considered entertainment and given out as a gag gift before treated like some kind of guide for warfare on any level.
I wonder if the guys who made this even did any research, if they knew that if someone wanted to make homemade weapons, including explosives that the US military publishes various manuals that are serious and make the Anarchist cookbook look like something for young teenagers.
Some would probably say this a bad review in the way I put it together, but considering the so called "Documentary" I'm reviewing I don't feel it necessary to worry. The guys that put this together, and especially the interviewer should be ashamed of themselves.
The Scapegoat Express
heywoodyeblomi1 July 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This could have been a good documentary. In fact, the first half contains some interesting background about the author and era in which the book was conceived.
And then (spoiler alert...)it turns into a quest to blame the author for everything that anyone has ever done while being in possession of a copy of his book. Honestly, I wouldn't have had the patience to sit through that interrogation; I would've shown the interviewer out.
I look forward to the follow-up documentary, in which one of the original architects of the internet will be hung out to dry for providing a gateway to all kinds of potentially harmful information. There will probably be a montage featuring all manner of murders, bombings, hate crimes, etc. which were perpetrated by people who regularly used the internet.
Just a wasted opportunity.
And then (spoiler alert...)it turns into a quest to blame the author for everything that anyone has ever done while being in possession of a copy of his book. Honestly, I wouldn't have had the patience to sit through that interrogation; I would've shown the interviewer out.
I look forward to the follow-up documentary, in which one of the original architects of the internet will be hung out to dry for providing a gateway to all kinds of potentially harmful information. There will probably be a montage featuring all manner of murders, bombings, hate crimes, etc. which were perpetrated by people who regularly used the internet.
Just a wasted opportunity.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
