KING OF KONG 'Villain' Speaks Out

Since its January premier at the Slamdance Film Festival, the documentary The King Of Kong and its inside look at competitive video gaming and one man's quest to break the world's record for classic Donkey Kong arcade game has been generating positive reviews as it continued across the spring festival circuit in advance of its August 17 limimted theatrical release. (My own review can be found here.)

One person who understandably isn't thrilled with the documentary is Billy Mitchell.

Mitchell is one of the subjects of the film, the 20-year record holder of the Donkey Kong high score who stands in the way of nice guy underdog Steve Wiebe's quest for the crown. The film does not paint a very flattering portrait of both him and record keeping organization Twin Galaxies, many of whose higher ups are friends of Mitchell's.

Now, after four months of silence, Mitchell has decided to speak out and MTV News was the venue. You can read the interview here.

To be sure, complete impartiality is nigh impossible for any documentary to achieve. Just the process of editing a film to a watchable length necessitates the loss of nuance that may impact how an audience perceives certain subjects and situations. It is with that grain of salt that all documentaries must be watched.

And while Mitchell states that he has actually never seen the film, he still hints in the article at possible legal action- "I'm unhappy that so many good people were portrayed in such a negative light and it will be interesting what large law firm may step forward and offer to assist us in our quest for the truth."

As the summer heads towards the documentary's August release, it should be interesting to see how this plays out...

Academy Tightens Rules For Documentary Oscar Hopefuls

AintItCoolNews has an interesting news report/editorial on some recent changes that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have made to the rules regarding the eligibility of documentary films for possible Academy Award consideration.

Among the new rules include stipulations that feature-length documentaries must now screen for at least seven days in 14 markets across ten states as well as stronger restrictions on the format of any documentary shot digitally as oppossed to on film.

What does this mean for the smaller filmmaker?

Well, as AICN's Elston Gunn reports, "smaller budgeted documentary features will be the ones to suffer. You could shoot the greatest documentary of all time for $100 on mini-DV and you're still going to have to jump through fiery hoops or pay a hefty price to get the Oscars to consider thinking about at least putting it on their nominee shortlist."

To me this looks like yet another attempt by the motion picture industry to limit the exposure, and ultimately the profitablity, of any smaller film produced outside of the traditional studio structure. Kirby Dick's excellent documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated makes the compelling case that smaller, independent films are given ratings harsher than their big studio counterparts and thus limiting their potential business.

Until the rules change, documentaries were only required to have a one week run in either New York City or Los Angeles to qualify for Oscar consideration, a relatively easy thing to arrange for an independent silmmaker or small distributor. However, their problems are now multiplied in having to secure at least 14 venues in ten states to screen their films in order to be considered for the Academy Award ballot.

Even appearing on the nominations list gives a small film a boast in additional bookings and DVDs sales, and may very well be the thing that helps a small project break even or turn a slight profit. Appearantly, though, the Academy doesn't see it's mission so much as to encourage the advancement of all motion picture arts and sciences. Instead it seems to be, much like the Motion Picture Association of America, more interested in protecting the interests of the major Hollywood studios and their corporate bottom lines.