Author Topic: F For Fake (1974)  (Read 3596 times)

chesterfilms

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 6403
F For Fake (1974)
« on: April 16, 2007, 03:38:33 PM »
Trickery. Deceit. Magic. In Orson Welles' free-form documentary, the legendary filmmaker (and self-described charlatan) gleefully engages the central preoccupation of his career-the tenuous line between truth and illusion, art and lies. Beginning with portraits of world-renowned art forger Elmyr de Hory and his equally devious biographer, Clifford Irving, Welles goes on a dizzying cinematic journey that simultaneously exposes and revels in fakery and fakers of all stripes-not the least of which is Welles himself. Charming and poignant, F for Fake is an inspired prank and a searching examination of the essential duplicity of cinema.
What? What are you talking about? It's girls and spaghetti. We love girls and spaghetti.

Matt Singer

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 294
    • Filmspotting: Streaming Video Unit
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2007, 02:34:19 PM »
It's pretty much an essential movie.  After CITIZEN KANE, it's my favorite Welles movie.  Criterion DVD is awesome too.
-Matt Singer
Co-host, Filmspotting: SVU
FilmspottingSVU.com
Matt on Twitter
Termite Art

chesterfilms

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 6403
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2007, 06:08:47 PM »
It's pretty much an essential movie.  After CITIZEN KANE, it's my favorite Welles movie.  Criterion DVD is awesome too.

I showed this to some friends who absolutely hated it. There is something about it to me that is so watchable. It's one of those films that is unlike any other you have ever seen.
What? What are you talking about? It's girls and spaghetti. We love girls and spaghetti.

Tycho

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2007, 03:47:53 PM »
Absolutely loved this film.  I rented it with no idea what I was in for besides that it was an Orson Welles film.  At first it seems to be an experiment in editing combined with a documentary, surprisingly it works on all levels.  The Picasso sequence is one of the more amazing things I've seen.  It reminds me in an odd way of another movie I saw recently, Rashomon.  You really shouldn't take anything you are told for fact, especially from a charlatan like Welles.
Visit icine.

roujin

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 15377
  • it's all research
    • ssmvc
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2007, 07:08:41 PM »
Was anyone else fooled by it?

I had completely forgot about the 60 minutes thing by the end of the movie so when he revealed the final secret I flipped out :(

Maybe I just wasn't as attentive as I should've been.

sdedalus

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 16553
  • I have a prestigious blog, sir!
    • The End of Cinema
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #5 on: December 18, 2007, 03:37:08 AM »
I think everybody's fooled by it.

It's why Welles was a genius and we're just a bunch of movie-watchers.
The End of Cinema

Seattle Screen Scene

"He was some kind of a man. What does it matter what you say about people?"

m_rturnage

  • FAB
  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1832
  • Beauty hurts.
    • Too Much Time on My Hands
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2007, 03:55:07 PM »
I wasn't fooled by it, primarily because I had a particularly dense friend say, "Dude, you have to pay VEEEERY CLOOOOSE attention to what he says at the beginning or you'll miss it and the movie won't make sense."

It was an enjoyable experience, nontheless.
http://www.26screenplays.com - Short screenplays for independent filmmakers.

You light a man a fire, and he's warm for a night. You light a man ON fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

bromidictirades

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 37
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2011, 05:03:57 PM »
Was anyone else fooled by it?

I had completely forgot about the 60 minutes thing by the end of the movie so when he revealed the final secret I flipped out :(

Maybe I just wasn't as attentive as I should've been.

I realize this isn't the 'spoilers' forum and that I'm revealing a little bit about the film...but it seems like others before me have given a little way...so I'm assuming my vague comments are OK

I too am curious just how many people are fooled by the film upon first viewing? And I wonder if actually being fooled is essential to a deeper appreciation of it? I enjoyed the film thoroughly, but felt no booming impact of a 'masterpiece'...but I know so many others do feel it...

I had a weird experience with the film's surprise...I watched the film via Hulu streaming...and doing so immediately makes you aware of its runtime (which showed at about 87 minutes)...so as soon as 'the next hour' qualifier was invoked I immediately knew something would be deceitful in the last third of the film. The film also makes you so suspicious from the outset that I find it hard to believe that anyone could be surprised by anything!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 05:07:56 PM by bromidictirades »

Sam the Cinema Snob

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 23706
  • A Monkey with a Gun
    • Creative Criticism
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2011, 05:20:22 PM »
I got hoodwinked bad by this film. Didn't expect it at all. I think it's a brilliant little moment where Welles pulls back the veil of the documentary and shows us how easily we can be duped by the style and suggestion of the filmic style of depicting reality.

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 23423
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: F For Fake (1974)
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2011, 09:06:02 PM »
The overall sneaky feel of the film made me hyperaware of the specificity of that condition you speak of brom. So like you I wasn't at all surprised.