F for Fake

1977 "A magician is just an actor playing the part of a magician."
7.7| 1h29m| PG| en
Details

Documents the lives of infamous fakers Elmyr de Hory and Clifford Irving. De Hory, who later committed suicide to avoid more prison time, made his name by selling forged works of art by painters like Picasso and Matisse. Irving was infamous for writing a fake autobiography of Howard Hughes. Welles moves between documentary and fiction as he examines the fundamental elements of fraud and the people who commit fraud at the expense of others.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 7-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Tedfoldol everything you have heard about this movie is true.
Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.
Alistair Olson After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.
Yazmin Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.
bradleyja Orson Welles's final major movie was met with criticism at the time of release. The critics were either confused and/or hostile towards the "documentary" if you could call it that. Orson Welles wanted to create a brand new genre of film which mixed documentary and fiction. He has (in my eyes) succeeded. F For Fake tells the stories of many fakes and forgers over the course of several narratives. It was fascinating learning about how De Hory carried out his art forgeries and how Irving fooled the world into thinking that Howard Hughes had written an autobiography. One interesting thing about this movie is that you don't know whether or not the narratives are true which keeps you interested. In addition, Orson Welles is an entertaining host and likable personality that helps carry this movie. This movie has now gathered a cult following that it deserves and I would recommend it if you want to see something truly original and groundbreaking.
popcorninhell What is art? What appeals to our senses and informs our worldview? What doesn't? What is considered forgery and how does that relate to artistry? Is there a link and if so, which is more legitimate? These questions and more are what Orson Welles attempts to illuminate in his irrevocable final finished film F for Fake (1973). It's a movie without equal and goes right into the heart and soul of the self-described charlatan of the stage and screen.This film is not a story, nor is it a documentary; it is an essay film, considered the first of its kind. F for Fake is a supposedly true film about falsity that examines the value of forgery to find deeper artistic meanings. It begins with Welles arriving at a train station doing magic tricks for kids, attention drawn on actress Oja Kodar. He makes a promise to the audience, "For the next hour, everything you hear from us is really true and based on solid fact." F for Fake is part autobiography of iconoclast Orson Welles who made a name for himself directing, producing and acting in "The Best Movie Ever Made," Citizen Kane (1941) (perhaps you've heard of it). Yet the film also encapsulates the life's work of Elmyr de Hory, arguably the most infamous art forger to ever live. Over his 71-year lifespan, de Hory had sold over a thousand forgeries to art galleries all around the world. His exploits are chronicled not only in F for Fake but the book Fake by Clifford Irving. As if things weren't strewn enough, the film also expands on Irving who served a prison sentence for attempting to publish an unauthorized "official" biography on billionaire recluse Howard Hughes.Hughes and Pablo Picasso are also in the mix but the film avoids clutter by throwing away a linear narrative in favor of stream of consciousness rumination. The editing jumps playfully from subject to subject while Welles makes the occasional on camera remark. He toys with the presumption of reality and scoffs at the pomposity of words like "art" and "experts". His main subject de Hory shares Welles desire to pull the wall over people's eyes and show that the emperor has no clothes but does so while asserting he had never had the passion to become a true artist. His exchanges with Welles and Irving remind me of the film Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988) when Michael Caine's character admits, "As a younger man I was a sculptor, a painter, and a musician. There was just one problem: I wasn't very good…I finally came to the frustrating conclusion that I had taste and style, but not talent." Yet all the people exposed in F for Fake do have enormous talent even if that talent is limited to creating fakes and forgeries. de Hory paints a Picasso within minutes then signs it with Welles's signature. Welles produced the "War of the Worlds" radio broadcast which caused a public panic and Irving produced fake letters and recorded hours of fake "interviews" with Howard Hughes. Did they do these things for recognition? Perhaps cash; de Hory does explain he got more money from fakes than his own original works. Likewise Orson Welles explains that the first time he joined a travelling theater show professionally he pretended to be a huge Broadway star to make it in.F for Fake is Welles's "Finnegans Wake" and I dare not try to analyze it anymore. I leave you with a quote from the film that I think captures the point of the film succinctly: "Our works in stone, in paint, in print, are spared, some of them, for a few decades or a millennium or two, but everything must finally fall in war, or wear away into the ultimate and universal ash - the triumphs, the frauds, the treasures and the fakes. A fact of life: we're going to die. "Be of good heart," cry the dead artists out of the living past. "Our songs will all be silenced, but what of it? Go on singing." Maybe a man's name doesn't matter all that much."http://theyservepopcorninhell.blogspot.com
Sean Lamberger A dissertation on liars, cheats, counterfeiters and forgers by Orson Welles that never settles on a subject, shooting style, genre or personality. Is it a documentary, a fantasy, a historical drama or an art film? Welles employs a crazed guerrilla documentary style, splicing half-conversations with notorious scammers on top of one another while concentrating on awkward close-ups, unflattering angles and incomplete thoughts. Orson handles most of the narration himself from a seat at the editing table, apparently in the process of chaotically piecing the final product together. It's a manic blend of jumbled thoughts that seems like something thrown together on a whim after filming every instant of a lavish European vacation, then poring over the resultant footage for its most quizzical moments. For what it's worth, I could watch Orson carry on conversation with nobodies for hours at a time, and on the few occasions the film delivers just that, it reaches a certain peak. If Welles could've let this story tell itself without overproducing every instant and later forcing himself into unnecessary dramatizations, it would have had my rapt attention. Instead, the second half nearly put me to sleep. A solid concept that's been overcomplicated and spoiled.
JoeB131 that Welles said was that he's been in decline his whole career.There was an interesting story here. Unfortunately, Welles seemed completely incapable of telling it. Instead, he was trying to tell a bunch of different stories, about Elmyr, about Clifford Irving, about his pompous view of critics and experts, oh, yeah, and trying to jump start his current girlfriend's career by giving her unneeded screen time. (Oja, honey, when they told you to sleep with the director, they didn't mean one washed up like a whale on a beach!) Welles was probably trying to cash in with a bunch of footage of Clifford Irving as Irving was becoming a household name with his role in the faked auto-biography of Howard Hughes. Unfortunately, it means the subject of his film, Elmyr, didn't get the time he deserved and he was probably the more interesting story.The great tragedy of Orson Welles was that he peaked early, and then spent the rest of his career sputtering, finally doing wine commercials and awful documentaries...