IMDb RATING
5.9/10
1.8K
YOUR RATING
The story of one of the most infamous books ever written, "The Anarchist Cookbook," and the role it's played in the life of its author, now 65, who wrote it at 19 in the midst of the counter... Read allThe story of one of the most infamous books ever written, "The Anarchist Cookbook," and the role it's played in the life of its author, now 65, who wrote it at 19 in the midst of the counterculture upheaval of the late '60s and early '70s.The story of one of the most infamous books ever written, "The Anarchist Cookbook," and the role it's played in the life of its author, now 65, who wrote it at 19 in the midst of the counterculture upheaval of the late '60s and early '70s.
- Awards
- 3 nominations total
Jeff Nightbyrd
- Self - Yippie Leader
- (archive footage)
- (as Jeff Knightbyrd)
Gavrilo Princip
- Self
- (archive footage)
Joan Rivers
- Self
- (archive footage)
Lyle Stuart
- Self - Publisher
- (archive footage)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
2nyrn
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.
The filmmaker showed absolutely no class or ethics on the making of this film, and worse yet does not even seem to recognize how poorly put together his line of questioning is. He asks leading questions and shows extreme bias. He even includes a point where Mr. Powell questions him on his rhetoric. The film itself seems well made, but the filmmaker needs some serious help in understanding how to conduct an interview.
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.
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.
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
Did you know
- GoofsAt approx. 49:10 you briefly see a microphone dip down above Powell's head.
- ConnectionsFeatures Bowling for Columbine (2002)
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Also known as
- Американский анархист
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
- Runtime1 hour 20 minutes
- Color
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content