Orson Welles' 1974 documentary "F for Fake" examines trickery and fraud, mainly focusing on two men who have been exposed as frauds themselves. Clifford Irving is a biographer who wrote the allegedly fraudulent Howard Hughes autobiography, yet, at least it seems, purports his innocence. The other main subject of the film is artist Elmyr de Hory, a man who has spent his life painting fakes of famous masterpieces, sometimes selling them to museums as real works by the original artists. Interspersed among these stories are bits where Welles does magic tricks to illustrate points, etc., and he also addresses the fact that his career began as a fraud when he first lied on his resume and then created a radio sensation with "War of the Worlds".
I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly
I really wanted to love this film and find it profound since I am such a Welles devotee, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. Part of the problem lied with the fact that it was not just non-linear, it was completely scattered. While I appreciate stylish editing and quick jumps and zooms, particularly when used in an unusual format such as a documentary, there was simply too much of it going on in "F for Fake". They created a distraction as opposed to lending style. If the story had been more clear and comprehensive, I think that the editing probably would not have been as annoying. The scattered storytelling was made all the more obnoxious by the fact that these were truly interesting subjects, particularly Elmyr de Hory. His artistic fakery brings up the topic of fraud in the art world, and who is truly able to determine the authenticity of certain works; and if the works are not authentic, what does it say about those who admire the pieces in museums? This is one documentary that I would say to at least give a shot, but don't be afraid to turn it off if you're not enjoying it. It is certainly the most discombobulated documentary I have ever seen; it is a cross between a documentary, an art film and experimental film, none of which is properly represented or isolated. I don't have any lesser opinion of Welles after seeing it, but it certainly, in my opinion, doesn't stand out as a glowing specimen in his oeuvre. 4/10 --Shelly