All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1167. An easy way of seeing how…
F for Fake
A documentary about fraud and fakery.
In 1977 when I was living in Orson Welles' garage, he let me watch his personal print of F for Fake. Here is an excerpt from the review I published at the time: img18.imageshack.us/img18/2886/rd1h.jpg
Well. Uh... This was a documentary.
My brain is fucked
I started at the top and have been working my way down ever since.
I couldn't understand why people would call this a "film essay" as apposed to a documentary. Now that I've seen it, I clearly understand the distinction, but I'll be damned if I could explain it to anyone. It's less a documentary and more like overhearing a conversation at a party. You have Orson Welles telling you a story, almost as it comes to him, in the most entertaining way he knows how.
The film really does feel like a half hazard conversation that Welles is telling you as he remembers random facts, but it's too expertly put together to REALLY be so random. Sure…
Deception. Illusion. Fakery
FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE-
SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF-
IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE
EXPERIENCE OF YEARS.
How many F's are there?
Most people see 3, but there are actually 6.
If there is absolutely nothing else to take away from this film but the fact that it is a masterclass in editing, that would be more than enough to walk away with fulfilled. You could actually not pay any mind at all to the words being said, just letting the amalgam of sight and sound wash over you, and it would still be a thrill.
I honestly thought it was fictional for the first twenty minutes or so, until Welles brought up his radio beginnings and Citizen Kane. Then again, maybe it was. I seriously don't know anymore. Did Citizen Kane actually happen, or was it only made with the foresight that it would fit in with the many hoaxes…
F for Fake could be classified as convoluted, complicated or confusing. Yeah, whatever. It's compelling and is confusing for the most part, especially the first hour. Frantic and all over the place and beautifully done in every way. A tangled mess for some, but an enthralling and undeniable masterpiece for others. I am one of those others. Editing is above and beyond what it could have been and is nothing short of extraordinary. A story of the art of fake art and the fakers behind the fake art. "The Act of Faking"? Easily my favorite "documentary". Wonder how it will work on re-watches. You got me, Mr. Welles. You got me good. You and your fantastic voice, that of which rivals Liam Neeson's.
Fake suckas be bluffing.
It seems like the last 20 minutes or so it the film Welles really wanted to make, and everything else is there to create a context in which that film would work. That said, the everything else is fascinating, both for what it says about the film's subjects and for what it reveals about Welles himself.
Initially released in 1974, the film focuses on Elmyr de Hory's recounting of his career as a professional art forger; de Hory's story serves as the backdrop for a fast-paced, meandering investigation of the natures of authorship and authenticity, as well as the basis of the value of art.
This is quite a fascinating and bizarre film. I admit I don't know what is real and what isn't in this but it is very entertaining. Once you get used to the style (which for me was a little chaotic at first) it became pretty fascinating and it's fun going along this weird tale with Orson.
If only Welles could have reconstructed and recycled every smashed, half-finished project so...
It's a madcap, crazy, chaotic ride that just manages to stay on the rails. Equal parts exhilarating and exhausting. I'm not sure what I saw, just that it thoroughly entertained me.
Very sly, witty, documentary about the subject of art forgery from the great Orson Welles. That damn monkey pretty much steals the entire movie, though. It's VERY self-indulgent, with Welles hamming it up in front of the camera in a cape and large black hat, and showing of his girlfriend every chance he gets. Still, it's loads of fun.
This film is akin to watching slight of hand.
And that's exactly why it opens up with the true actor, Orson Welles, performing illusionist magic tricks to a young boy who is eagerly captivated and completely unaware of how it is all done. The boy is being tricked by this entertainment. As are we, the audience, will shortly be by this film.
This kind of vehicle of magic tricks as a metaphor for creation, art, film, etc., reminds me of The Prestige (Nolan) for its similar usage. But anyway, this movie is not really a documentary as it is described. It does use footage taken from another filmmaker who sought out to shoot a documentary, but Welles cuts it up…
Orson Welles enjoying lobster is the only objective truth I need to love F For Fake. By the way, I am a lobster.
Great 60-90 min films (for those days when you just don't have the energy to watch a 3 hour masterpiece)
Doesn't the title of the list explain it well enough? This is a list of 200+ quality "short" films. Easy…