King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters

A-

Directed by Seth Gordon

Who knew competitive arcade gaming could be so completely engrossing? Documentarian Seth Gordon takes what is, to say the least, a marginal subject and turns it into a nail-biting, maddening, oftentimes hilarious and ultimately uplifting piece of filmmaking.

Billy Mitchell, an egotistical, mulleted superstar of the gaming world, had held the record for the highest score on "Donkey Kong" since 1982, an almost mythical record that some felt would never be broken. When everyman high school teacher Steve Wiebe suddenly breaks Mitchell's record seemingly out of nowhere, he sets off a maelstrom of controversy in the tiny, incestuous world of competitive arcade gaming.

As "Spellbound" did for the spelling bee, "King of Kong" will (maybe?) do for competitive gaming, pulling millions of viewers who, until now, had no clue such a thing even existed into its world. Gordon's documentary is utterly engrossing from start to finish, a David vs. Goliath tale of an outsider coming in and trying to knock off the unquestioned king of gamers. Gordon's film is most notable in how it clearly pits mild mannered and all around good guy Wiebe against the unbelievably self absorbed and risible Mitchell. The Wiebe vs. Mitchell showdown makes Larry vs. Magic look like boring crap, frankly. No, I'm not kidding.

Gordon's choice to so clearly cast Wiebe as the good guy and Mitchell as the bad guy does, however, beg an important question; Should documentary filmmakers feel the need to give their subjects a fair shake even if they don't deserve it? Billy Mitchell in no way is shown by Gordon as having any redeemable characteristics beyond his success as a businessman and as a competitive gamer. He's shown as being self absorbed, mean spirited, and generally as not being a man of any integrity. In interviews Gordon has stated that Mitchell is actually far worse than he is shown in "King of Kong," and that he (Gordon) actually gave him a fairer shake than he probably deserved. I think documentary filmmakers tend to often be obsessed with presenting both sides of a story and refraining from typecasting characters as either good or bad. The nuance, in most cases, is needed as so few things worth documenting and investigating further can be as easily classified as good or bad. However, if you run across a guy like Steve Wiebe who, based on all accounts, is a stand up guy, and then you come across a guy like Billy Mitchell who, again by most accounts, is a horrible person, is it not responsible to present them as such? Sure, Gordon overdoes it a bit, showing Wiebe at one point taking time off from his busy gaming schedule to frolic in the ocean with his wife and kids while soft music plays in the background. I still can't fault Gordon, however, for showing us how he saw it. That's what a documentarian is supposed to do, after all.