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.