Skip to main content

Do you think I should confess? To what? Committing masterpieces?

F for Fake
(1973)

(SPOILERS) Orson Welles’ F for Fake is in some ways be the obverse of Citizen Kane; so shoestring, much of it comprises re-edited footage from Francois Reichenbach’s documentary about Elmyr de Hory, it hardly compares to the opulence and majesty of his most famous picture. Yet those who know it well tend to set it on high as one of his greatest works, fit to share the same podium with the popularly proclaimed “greatest film of all-time”. That’s likely partly because it’s a “pure” piece, untampered with and thus thoroughly Welles. It’s also the director at his most cheerful and disarming, delivering a film “about trickery, about lies”, in which nothing can be trusted, but it can’t be trusted in a manner highlighting its director’s genius both as an editor and the embodiment of a charismatic, witty bon vivant.


“Is any of this real?” must come the inevitable question. Welles tells us “During the next hour, everything you’ll hear from us is true and based on solid facts”, directly after he has informed us upfront that this is a film about pulling the wool over eyes. At about the 80-minute mark, Welles reveals, that “for the past seventeen minutes I have been lying my head off” but it’s highly likely he’s been doing so for the duration (“Why not? I’m a charlatan”), be it verbally or through his proficiency with the splicing process. Among the picture’s fans was the late great Robert Anton Wilson, who devoted several chapters of Cosmic Trigger III: My Life after Death to its inscrutability. It’s easy to see why it attracted RAW, engaged as it is in a continual process of establishing and breaking down paradigms formed between the filmmaker and the viewer.


Jonathan Rosenbaum, in a piece on the Eureka! DVD release, speculates the picture was formulated at least partly as a response and rebuke to film critic Pauline Kael, who a few years before had engaged in a hatchet job of Welles over what she suggested was his attempt to steal credit for the Citizen Kane screenplay from Joseph Mankiewicz. F for Fake is a piece in which the edifice of art snobbery – of which Kael may be viewed as a symptom – is called into question, but it proffers this notion with a twinkle in its eye and a taunting grin on its face; “All the world loves to see the experts and the establishment made a fool of” we are told. It is these experts who, according to Clifford Irving (author of Fake!, all about de Hory) have verified hundreds of Elmyrs as the original works of the artists he has imitated. Irving goes further “It’s not so much whether it’s a real painting or a fake. It’s whether it’s a good fake or a bad fake”.


Which, of course, is heresy to experts; it would be curtains for their livelihood. Irving himself is counted among the ranks of fakers, thanks to his fabricated autobiography of Howard Hughes (the subject of Hoax, a recent, not bad, movie starring hamster-loving Richard Gere as Irving). This saga had been occurring concurrently with Welles “documentary”, leading him to pose the conundrum of “the author of Fake!, a book about a faker, was himself the author of a fake to end all fakes”. Which, Welles testifies, as if butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth, he “must have been cooking up when we were filming him”.


Certainly, the man who three-and-a-half decades earlier had unleashed his own fake, in the form of a panic-provoking War of the Worlds radio broadcast that led to many tuned-in Americans believing the Martians had landed, is not beyond reproach in such things. He even modestly, but “honestly”, recaps his own history as charlatan in F for Fake, essentially admitting to being one steeped in the art of artifice. He contributes tall (apocryphal) tales regarding Welles wearing shoe boxes around the top floor of a Vegas hotel and having ham sandwiches delivered to a tree, while casting doubt on the entire construct of Elmyr (“Elmyr is a fake faker”).


The picture is littered with wonderfully double-edged verbiage and witticisms, from Elmyr’s “I don’t feel bad for Modigliani, I feel good for me”, to “He gave us a false cheque, for a false painting”, to an amusing tale regarding Picasso labelling one of his own paintings a fake and being called out on it (“I can paint false Picassos as well as anybody”), to Welles chronicling the passage of time in which he “took another plane, grew another beard, made another movie”.


Welles even parodies his own gastronomic weaknesses, setting a scene around his ordering umpteen courses and telling Hungarian cookbook jokes (“To make an omelette, first steal an egg”). His easy-going spin accompanies the editing process very naturally, and as such it’s a dazzling piece of work, and very musical to behold.


We can see the games he’s playing from the off, in which his partner Oya, a lover of Picasso (not), is actually played by her sister (although we don’t know this), and the art of montage enables copious men to be distracted by her shapely figure as she walks along a busy street. Welles spent a year editing the picture, and it shows in the most complimentary of ways. Later, he teases out an “apparent” action-reaction between Elmyr and Irving as Elmyr attests he never signed a name on the paintings (so they weren’t forgeries). Cue a series of cuts back and forth between the two, with Irving finally claiming “The paintings had signatures”. F for Fake’s playful, pop sensibility wasn’t particularly common to documentaries hitherto, but in the time since has become commonplace, awash in everything from Michael Moore to Adam Curtis.


Most of all, above its sharpness and shrewdness, F for Fake is a lot of fun, digging into a subject it knows cannot reveal itself, so perversely encouraging its obscurity. Welles later said “Everything in that movie was a fake”. Well, except for Welles’ bravura as a filmmaker.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

You’re never the same man twice.

The Man Who Haunted Himself (1970)
(SPOILERS) Roger Moore playing dual roles? It sounds like an unintentionally amusing prospect for audiences accustomed to the actor’s “Raise an eyebrow” method of acting. Consequently, this post-Saint pre-Bond role (in which he does offer some notable eyebrow acting) is more of a curiosity for the quality of Sir Rog’s performance than the out-there premise that can’t quite sustain the picture’s running time. It is telling that the same story was adapted for an episode of Alfred Hitchcock Presents 15 years earlier, since the uncanny idea at its core feels like a much better fit for a trim 50 minute anthology series.

Basil Dearden directs, and co-adapted the screenplay from Anthony Armstrong’s novel The Strange Case of Mr Pelham. Dearden started out with Ealing, helming several Will Hay pictures and a segment of Dead of Night (one might imagine a shortened version of this tale ending up there, or in any of the portmanteau horrors that arrived in the year…

‘Cos I’m the gringo who always delivers.

American Made (2017)
(SPOILERS) This is definitely more the sort of thing Tom Cruise should be doing, a movie that relies both on his boyish™ charm and at least has pretensions of ever so slightly pushing the envelope of standard multiplex fare, rather than desperately attaching himself to an impersonal franchise (The Mummy) or flailingly attempting to kick start one (Jack Reacher: Never Go Back); remember when Cruise wouldn’t even go near sequels (for about 20 years, The Color of Money aside, and then only the one series)? American Made is still victim to the tendency of his movies to feel superstar-fitted rather than remaining as punchy as they might be on paper (Made’s never quite as satirically sharp as it wants to be), but it at least doesn’t lead its audience by the nose.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Two hundred thousand pounds, for this outstanding example of British pulchritude and learning.

The Avengers 4.18: The Girl From Auntie
I’ve mentioned that a few of these episodes have changed in my appreciation since I last watched the series, and The Girl from Auntie constitutes a very pronounced uptick. Indeed, I don’t know how I failed to rate highly the estimable Liz Fraser filling in for Diana Rigg – mostly absent, on holiday –for the proceedings (taking a not dissimilar amateur impostor-cum-sidekick role to Fenella Fielding in the earlier The Charmers). I could watch Fraser all day, and it’s only a shame this was her single appearance in the show.

By Jove, the natives are restless tonight.

The Avengers 4.17: Small Game for Big Hunters
I wonder if Death at Bargain Prices’ camping scene, suggestive of an exotic clime but based in a department store, was an inspiration for Small Game For Big Hunters’ more protracted excursion to the African country of Kalaya… in Hertfordshire. Gerry O’Hara, in his second of two episodes for the show again delivers on the atmosphere, making the most of Philip Levene’s teleplay.

Romulan ale should be illegal.

Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
(SPOILERS) Out of the ST:NG movies, Star Trek: Nemesis seems to provoke the most outrage among fans, the reasons mostly appearing to boil down to continuity and character work. In the case of the former, while I can appreciate the beef, I’m not enough of an aficionado to get too worked up. In the case of the latter, well, the less of the strained inter-relationships between this bunch that make it to the screen, the better (director Stuart Baird reportedly cut more than fifty minutes from the picture, most of it relating to underscoring the crew, leading to a quip by Stewart that while an Actor’s Cut would include the excised footage, a Director’s one would probably be even shorter). Even being largely unswayed by such concerns, though, Nemesis isn’t very good. It wants to hit the same kind of dramatic high notes as The Wrath of Khan (naturally, it’s always bloody Khan) but repeatedly drifts into an out-of-tune dirge.

Old Boggy walks on Lammas Eve.

Jeeves and Wooster 2.5: Kidnapped  (aka The Mysterious Stranger)
Kidnapped continues the saga of Chuffnell Hall. Having said of 2.4 that the best Wodehouse adaptations tend to stick closely to the text, this one is an exception that proves the rule, diverging significantly yet still scoring with its highly preposterous additions.

Jeeves: Tis old boggy. He be abroad tonight. He be heading for the railway station.
Gone are many of the imbroglios involving Stoker and Glossop (the estimable Roger Brierley), including the contesting of the former’s uncle’s will. Also gone, sadly, is the inebriated Brinkley throwing potatoes at Stoker, which surely would have been enormous fun. Instead, we concentrate on Bertie being locked aboard Stoker’s yacht in order to secure his marriage to Pauline (as per the novel), Chuffy tailing Pauline in disguise (so there’s a different/additional reason for Stoker to believe Bertie and she spent the night together, this time at a pub en route to Chufnell Hall) and …

Cally. Help us, Cally. Help Auron.

Blake's 7 3.7: Children of Auron

Roger Parkes goes a considerable way towards redeeming himself for the slop that was Voice from the Past with his second script for the series, and newcomer Andrew Morgan shows promise as a director that never really fulfilled itself in his work on Doctor Who (but was evident in Knights of God, the 1987 TV series featuring Gareth Thomas).

I think we’ve returned to Eden. Surely this is how the World once was in the beginning of time.

1492: Conquest of Paradise (1992)
Ridley Scott’s first historical epic (The Duellists was his first historical, and his first feature, but hardly an epic) is also one of his least remembered films. It bombed at the box office (as did the year’s other attempted cash-ins on the discovery of America, including Superman: The Movie producers the Salkinds’ Christopher Columbus: The Discovery) and met with a less than rapturous response from critics. Such shunning is undeserved, as 1492: Conquest of Paradise is a richer and more thought-provoking experience than both the avowedly lowbrow Gladiator and the re-evaluated-but-still-so-so director’s cut of Kingdom of Heaven. It may stand guilty of presenting an overly sympathetic portrait of Columbus, but it isn’t shy about pressing a critical stance on his legacy.

Sanchez: The truth is, that he now presides over a state of chaos, of degradation, and of madness. From the beginning, Columbus proved himself completely incapable of ruling these islands…