All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1177. 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
The silver screen. The projector lights up and we tune in. Visuals, sound, and collective communion flow out of the screen like an intense heat wave. These images, these feelings, these ideas; how real are they really? The cinema has always been praised for its spectacular bursts of originality and imagination, carrying the worries, pains, and troubles of the audience away into a clouded fog, a fog that vanishes simultaneously along with the remembrance of reality.
However, what if the fog itself is an illusion, crumbling the very fabric of the cinema into a dusty whiff of salty popcorn? Orson Welles' F for Fake doesn't just tear the concept of deception to shreds, but it also assembles a new form;…
Still an enthralling trap door of a film, dropping the viewer into a haunting labyrinth of soothing narration, entrancing imagery and magical poetry. Worth watching just to witness the stream of impressions flash by like a scattering family of rabbits.
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…
I once was asked how I felt about Orson Welles. I didn't know where to start, how to begin, or if it was even possible to sum up into words exactly how I felt about him. I could not summon the right words to describe the great conjurer of images. I explained that Orson Welles was a renaissance man, that he was a one of a kind individual, a prodigy, and an absolute genius. I described a behemoth of a man that was the undisputed master of art, the overlord of film, and the ruler of of the senses. I explained how he saved my life time and time again with his art. I described an unending genius that grows…
I could watch this daily.
Also, that little jazz waltz is delectable.
A must if you have any interest on the media, editing, or art, whether it's pretty or not.
What if I'm lying about seeing this film?
Format: Digital file
Location: Bed, laptop
It's like the non-shitty version of AMERICAN HUSTLE. Something like a video essay before they existed, imploring you to pay close attention to every editing (sound and visual) choice both by its general conceit and its shots of Welles at a Steenbeck--technically a documentary, I suppose, though of course the film virtually exists to remind how much of a conscious construction of a narrative any film is, fictional or not. To be honest, none of the themes covered here are especially novel, despite some appealing anti-capitalist and anti-establishment glosses--people likely to be watching this are pretty aware of the constructed nature of documentaries already, and like I was getting at with the AMERICAN HUSTLE joke, the question of the value…
Op aanraden van Every Frame a Painting. Daar werd het omschreven als een audiovisueel essay. Het is een documentaire die narratief de lijnen opzoekt rond fictie, vormelijk een beeldenstroom voorschotelt, ingelezen en ingerookt door Welles. Ik was in het begin wat verloren in de snelle montage en een totale onwetendheid over wat of wie het nu precies ging. Het is best op voorhand de wiki's te lezen over Elmyr de Hory en Clifford Irving. De film rekent op een serieuze voorkennis.
Kreeg na twintig minuten de smaak wel te pakken, en de zonneblindenscène tegen het einde aan is een absolute smulpartij. Het is Welles' ode aan vervalsingen, een begrip dat een stevige waaier aan invullingen omvat, en aan Oja Kodar. Ik kan het begrijpen.
Ik weet niet of ik er snel nog is naar ga kijken, het is eerder interessant dan goed, maar er valt nog iets met te doen.
The very nature of authenticity, and by extension every value I've ever had, is being questioned, and I am LOVING IT.
In lieu of a second review for F FOR FAKE, I present to you Tony Zhou's "Every Frame a Painting" video essay on the film. It does a better job than I ever could explaining why this films works and why it's essential viewing for all aspiring filmmakers... It also references DUDE, WHERE'S MY CAR?, something I wouldn't have done in my own review, so already you're better off watching this than reading whatever I would've had to say on the matter.
The film exists to play with expectations, and to show that the illusion is what matters. Goddamn, does it succeed.
F for Fake plays like a treatise on all my thoughts about documentary filmmaking. It argues that aesthetics and emotional truths can sometimes be more important than literal honesty. It situates Orson Wells' own work in the context of a couple of pretty major fraudsters and argues that they should all be taken seriously. It is also really well made, using a number of really interesting and playful documentary techniques to have fun with the form.
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…
The entire Criterion collection organized by spine number.
I don't know why I did this.
Number I've Seen: 196/776 (25%)