All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1167. An easy way of seeing how…
F for Fake
Orson Welles' free-form documentary about fakery focusses on the notorious art forger Elmyr de Hory and Elmyr's biographer, Clifford Irving, who also wrote the celebrated fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, then touches on the reclusive Hughes and Welles' own career (which started with a faked resume and a phony Martian invasion). On the way, Welles plays a few tricks of his own on the audience.
Well. Uh... This was a documentary.
My brain is fucked
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
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…
Ladies and gentleman, by way of introduction, this is a film about trickery, fraud, about lies.
- Orson Welles
Oh Mr Welles you are a genius. It could very easily have slipped into self-indulgence and it's a work of genius that it doesn't. It's a film that points out the fallibility of so called art appraisers, so many examples are given of professionals incorrectly recognising originals and fakes. We have to question to what degree we should value an original over an exact copy, after all, they both look the same so what's the difference?
For lack of a better description, F for Fake is essentially a film about fraud and fakery. Welles speaks to Elmyr de Hory and recounts…
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.
I'd argue that this is Welles' best film. Ostensibly about an art forger and his biographer, also a faker, the film also includes tales from Welles' own life and the story of a model who Picasso painted numerous paintings of. It's an ode to fakers, mainly filmmakers. It revels in the glorious, inherent lie that exists within every movie and how they are made. It's also pretty damn entertaining, keeping it's intentions close to the chest through a masterclass of editing. The film is assembled from previous footage that was given to Welles and additional footage Welles shot. I can't think of a better film that just fucks with it's audience the entire time.
I'd only seen this once several years ago and that initial viewing left me perplexed and confused. First, I didn't like being duped by the film (I'll leave it at that to avoid spoilers). And though this is an Orson Welles Joint, it doesn't immediately seem to share a lot in common with his other work. Stylistically, this looks and feels like the frenetically edited "essay films", which were popular with French filmmakers like Godard in the early to mid 1970s and though I like this one MUCH more than the other essay films of that era, I've always found that type of film to be one that's easy to admire but difficult to really enjoy and love.
Did I used to be a magician, sir? I'm still working on it.
En F for Fake, Welles mescla material de diferentes fuentes. La base es el documental filmado por François Reichenbach, al que Welles sólo agregaría la narración y que terminó escalando en edición hasta convertirlo en una obra propia. A las grabaciones de Reichenbach sobre la vida en Ibiza de Elmyr de Hory, el famoso falsificador, se le agregó su conexión con Clifford Irving, quien también falsificaría una historia sobre Howard Hughes. Esa historia sucedía mientras Welles editaba así que se grabó nuevo material con Clifford y Elmyr y Orson para contextualizar esa historia. Oh y se agregó un nuevo personaje interpretado por Oja Kodar, al que la…
According to Google art is defined as, “The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.” According to this definition, or mine, which would include the word unique, Cliff Irving, Elmyr de Hory, and Orson Welles are all artists. There is, however, one caveat – all three perform fakery. Irving became famous by publishing an autobiography of Howard Hughes despite never meeting the man, and Elmyr is considered the best art forger of the 20th century. It is said that several of his paintings can be seen around the world in various art museums. As for Welles, his “War of the Worlds” broadcast, which was fake, eventually led him to Hollywood and an unprecedented movie contract. At the heart…
"Our songs will all be silenced. But what of it? Go on singing."
As an editing experiment it's daring. As a work of fakery it's stupefying. As a piece of art it's a masterpiece. That this is where Orson Welles ended his career as one of the great directors of all time is weirdly appropriate and more than a little poetic. In a way (that he takes pleasure in exploiting) he ends exactly where he began: with a lie.
it's more than interesting.
You have to pay attention to keep up, but it's a vibrant and rewarding experience. Unlike any other documentary I've ever seen, mostly because of the incredible editing and it has Orson Welles charismatic presence driving it.
I definitely need to watch this one a second time because it's so manic and fast paced I think parts of it went over my head. Still I enjoyed every minute of the movie and found it wildly entertaining and fascinating. Good ol Orson Welles.
I barely had the patience to sit through this film, but Welles' penetrating look (and penetrating voice) held me through to the end. I feel like I need to watch it again to truly appreciate it, but…I'm not sure when I'll feel up to it.
- A Trip to the Moon
- The Great Train Robbery
- The Birth of a Nation
- Les Vampires
- My Neighbor Totoro
- Grave of the Fireflies
- Final Cut - Ladies & Gentlemen
- For All Mankind
Great 60-90 min films (for those days when you just don't have the energy to watch a 3 hour masterpiece)
Don't the title of the list explain it well enough? This is a list of 200+ quality "short" films. Easy…
- Citizen Kane
- 2001: A Space Odyssey
- Tokyo Story
- The Rules of the Game