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.




Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.