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…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

If this is not a place for a priest, Miles, then this is exactly where the Lord wants me.

Bad Times at the El Royale (2018)
(SPOILERS) Sometimes a movie comes along where you instantly know you’re safe in the hands of a master of the craft, someone who knows exactly the story they want to tell and precisely how to achieve it. All you have to do is sit back and exult in the joyful dexterity on display. Bad Times at the El Royale is such a movie, and Drew Goddard has outdone himself. From the first scene, set ten years prior to the main action, he has constructed a dizzyingly deft piece of work, stuffed with indelible characters portrayed by perfectly chosen performers, delirious twists and game-changing flashbacks, the package sealed by an accompanying frequently diegetic soundtrack, playing in as it does to the essential plot beats of the whole. If there's a better movie this year, it will be a pretty damn good one.

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

It was one of the most desolate looking places in the world.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)
Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, broadcast by the BBC on the centenary of Armistice Day, is "sold" on the attraction and curiosity value of restored, colourised and frame rate-enhanced footage. On that level, this World War I documentary, utilising a misquote from Laurence Binyon's poem for its title, is frequently an eye-opener, transforming the stuttering, blurry visuals that have hitherto informed subsequent generations' relationship with the War. However, that's only half the story; the other is the use of archive interviews with veterans to provide a narrative, exerting an effect often more impacting for what isn't said than for what is.

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

What about the panties?

Sliver (1993)
(SPOILERS) It must have seemed like a no-brainer. Sharon Stone, fresh from flashing her way to one of the biggest hits of 1992, starring in a movie nourished with a screenplay from the writer of one of the biggest hits of 1992. That Sliver is one Stone’s better performing movies says more about how no one took her to their bosom rather than her ability to appeal outside of working with Paul Verhoeven. Attempting to replicate the erotic lure of Basic Instinct, but without the Dutch director’s shameless revelry and unrepentant glee (and divested of Michael Douglas’ sweaters), it flounders, a stupid movie with vague pretensions to depth made even more stupid by reshoots that changed the killer’s identity and exposed the cluelessness of the studio behind it.

Philip Noyce isn’t a stupid filmmaker, of course. He’s a more-than-competent journeyman when it comes to Hollywood blockbuster fare (Clear and Present Danger, Salt) also adept at “smart” smaller pictures (Rabbit Proof Fence