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

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.