Against King of Kong

I absolutely loved The King of Kong, a documentary about high-stakes competitive arcade gaming, but via Ezra Klein it seems there's some concern that the film makes a number of material factual errors and omissions.

Comments

See also this inteview from The Onion's AV Club with the "villian" of the movie:

http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/the_king_of_kong_continued

Hits some of the same points as the article Ezra linked to.

Posted by BobJ | February 15, 2008 2:36 PM

There's no way anyone would have ever even bothered to see this movie had these "dramatic liberties" not been taken.

Posted by Dave | February 15, 2008 2:45 PM

How is the editorializing in Kong any differnt than any other documentary? I thought it was pretty clear in watching the movie originally that there was no way Billy was that much of an asshole and the film-makers had probably taken some liberties to amp up the drama. It's also clear from reading the avclub interview, that Billy Mitchell is an extremely interesting person with a slightly outsized ego. Can't we just enjoy the movie for what it was?

Posted by drjimcooper | February 15, 2008 2:46 PM

Dr. Jim:
I think the problem was that the people who got painted as goons and lunatics didn't really enjoy it. The movie, which got way more attention than anything else that weird little subculture ever has, portrayed certain people unfairly, and tainted their reputations unjustly. I can understand having a problem with that, however the movie works as a piece of cinema.

Posted by BobJ | February 15, 2008 2:53 PM

Hello Everyone,

Saw the movie last year. Loved it!!! It was definately one of my personal favorites from 2007. I didn't realize that there was much of a controversy until I actually read more about the movie and looked up all the records.

Anyway, I do want to say that Billy Mitchell is, like, the God of nerds in that film. And I mean that in a good way. What's not to like about his high school 'stache, the feathered hair, the hot wife, the wearing of all black, the talking in the third person, the being the king of "Pac Man" and "Donkey Kong?" He is a king among men. And he apparently makes really good hot sauce.

Posted by adlsad | February 15, 2008 3:05 PM

Echoing the other commenters, I loved the movie, but even on the first viewing, a lot of the film rang false to me. Particularly the implication that Billy Mitchell's taped high score was achieved by cheating seems to fail even under the evidence presented in the film.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 15, 2008 6:26 PM

"it seems there's some concern that the film makes a number of material factual errors and omission"

I love it when Matthew gets all temperate and considered in his language.

As for you, Dave, you commit an error of a sort that I suppose qualifies as moral idiocy. Let's slot a couple of other cases into the template your message follows. For example: If I hadn't stolen that $200, I wouldn't have been able to spend the $200. If I hadn't raped that girl, I wouldn't have been able to have sex with her. And so on.

So, yes, without the smears and lies, King of Kong would have been far less popular. But that doesn't mean the smears and lies are all right.

Posted by kyle | February 15, 2008 7:21 PM

So, yes, without the smears and lies, King of Kong would have been far less popular. But that doesn't mean the smears and lies are all right.

Without "smears and lies," there'd be no documentary; documentaries no one would want to see rarely get made.

If we want documentaries about video games, we're going to have to live with dramatic editorializing, a crime a bit less concerning than theft and rape.

This wasn't investigative journalism, it was non-fiction filmmaking, more "The Hills" than "No End in Sight."

Posted by Dave | February 16, 2008 1:13 AM

If we want documentaries about video games, we're going to have to live with dramatic editorializing..

I accept your challenge.

Posted by Jason Scott | February 23, 2008 12:28 PM