[2.5]
What should have been a fascinating depiction of a man coming to grips with the mistakes of his youth ends up as a combative exchange between a director who is not getting what he wants and a man smart enough to make measured, thoughtful statements. Sure, William Powell (as the author of The Anarchist Cookbook) is no hero by any stretch, but he comes across as one here, thanks to his patient appeasement of filmmaker Charlie Siskel, who doesn’t seem to understand the nuanced work of a documentarian. It’s no surprise that Siskel was a field producer on BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, as his film is a rather obvious attempt at a ‘gotcha’ profile-doc, ala the Charlton Heston interview at the end of Michael Moore’s film or the stellar FOG OF WAR. But when Siskel determines that Powell is not apologetic enough, not fully owning the responsibility of being the writer of a so-called terrorist manual, he continues to hound and berate Powell with the same questions. How could he Powell not have known about this act of violence committed by a man who owned a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook? What about this incident? Or this one? Perhaps Powell has quietly pushed this knowledge outside his periphery, but Siskel’s attack style doesn’t help. Instead, it pushes us to feel sympathy for Powell, who has evidently allowed this outsider into his home to discuss painful memories. I’m shocked Powell never threw Siskel out, but then again, Powell seems a lot smarter than Siskel, and knew how that would come across on screen. Siskel tries to paint a portrait of a troubled boy who turned to revolutionary tactics, then later abandoned them and tried to start a new, more ‘establishment’ life. We learn that the past has come back to haunt Powell on many occasions, even in Africa and Malaysia, when his teaching career has been stunted after teachers or rivals learn that he wrote a controversial book in his youth. It’s seemingly unfair, as this Powell seems so markedly different from the angry author he used to be, but Powell absorbs the responsibility with a quiet grace. Who are we to condemn him and say he needs to feel utter guilt for the rest of his life? The man has obviously come to grips with his actions, as we all do with things we aren’t proud of. Siskel seems set on a smear piece, on turning Powell into a mournful villain, forever haunted by his past. By letting Siskel make a fool of himself, Powell is clearly the winner, the adult who has chosen to make better life choices (as an educator, no less), rather than spend time trying to ruin other people’s lives.
burning retina 