F for Fake is one of the most entertaining films, ever. Welles reclaiming all the dignity that was his. Beautifully sustains a gently mocking tone that implicates the viewer while delighting him at the same time.
Wonderfully well said.
It’s moments like when he asks the permission of the audience before reading “a bit of verse” that give me the greatest delight.
Thank you for reopening this conversation-starter, Justin.
i saw this film for the first time a few months ago. before that, i didn’t even really know anything about it until the criterion advertisement. it was such a surprise and revelation. for me, one of the greatest documentaries i’ve ever seen. a total work of art. postmodern way before postmodern cinema. if “kane” establishes welles genius, “f for fake” confirms it for me.
You’re welcome.
In a way, it’s of a piece with Kane — the mingling of documentary and fiction, and also that cheeky treatment of famous people. The idea that no one is above a bit of ribbing — tastefully done, might I add. This film gives you the feeling of what it would have like to meet Welles personally and be regaled by his stories.
ABSOLUTELY, to the both of ye.
The Wellesian persona is burst from every frame & soundbyte,
I especially love when he asks the audience permission before reading “a bit of verse”.
Speaking of prototypes for postmodernism in cinema,
i’ve made the assertation many times over that this film,
made in the early 70’s, pioneered the proliferation of such
editing memes which over a decade later would be called
“MTV-style” quick-cut editing.
By using classic avantgarde & his own innovative techniques,
Welles inadvertently influenced generations of TV viewers.
I have yet to find an example pre-1974 that utilizes this fast-paced style.
If there are any, i’d love to know.
This is my favorite Welles film, bar none.
It should be seen in tandem with “Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train” whose title comes from Francois Reichenbach, as those were among his last words.
i agree that “f for fake” displayed the mtv aesthetic very early. maybe “breathless” cleared the way for it though. but “f for fake” picks up where “breathless” left off and goes all the way with the aesthetic.
Bobby, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Although Godard utilizes jump-cuts in Breathless, that does not qualify as the MTV aesthetic, it’s actually the antithesis of. Quick-cut montage editing requires the viewer to remain alert & act as gleaner of images. Take in as much as you can; Try to figure it out as it goes; Put all the pieces together later. So many cuts you are entranced to forget there are cuts at all because the information is coming just fast enough to both comprehend & be surprised. Not the case with Breathless, where the audience is jarred by the (comparatively) slow-pace interrupted by sudden flashes of tableaux jolts. It is the precision, the smoothness, that gives F for Fake it’s ‘MTV style’; it is the pacing of the cuts, & not simply the cuts themselves.
we’ll certainly agree to disagree.
theres no way jump cuts are the antithesis of the mtv aesthetic. the mtv aesthetic is basically discontinuity, to put it in simple terms. the jump cut is the basic unit of discontinuity, speaking in terms of the language of cinema.
just to make sure we’re on the same page, a quick cut and a jump cut are two different things. though all jump cuts have a “quick” effect to them. and all quick cuts have a “jumpy” effect to them. actually, the difference between a quick and a jump cut is negligible. a quick cut cant be perceived as quick unless there is some sort of sudden break in continuity. but now that just brings us full circle. because all cuts, no matter how smooth, are by very definition breaks in continuity. therefore, all cuts are jump cuts. some are just quicker than others.
quick cutting doesnt require a viewer to remain alert any more than slow cutting does. our natural persistence of vision puts missing pieces together anyway, whether we pay close attention or not. again, this is the fundamental rule that cinema exists in relation to. unedited film consists of a series of “jump cuts” – a series of different images. looked at this way, one cant escape editing. like vertov said, montage occurs before you even sit down at the editing table, before you even begin shooting, before you even begin writing the script. the human eye is based on continuity, the cinema is based on fractures.
theres no way an mtv aesthetic can entice you to forget there are cuts at all. mtv aestheic isnt classic construction, which thrives off (perceived) seamlessness. again, the very basis of the mtv aesthetic is discontinuity. its not that it entices you to forget there are cuts at all, but that the absence of cuts itself is a sham. that a multitude of cuts should, and must be, accepted as the norm. this means in essence, the mtv aesthetic is reactionary! its not modern, but conservative.
“f for fake” is far from smooth in my opinion. that doesnt mean its sloppy or imprecise. just gloriously discontinuous, which should be considered the opposite of smooth.
i see your point. there’s been a divergence here. no worries. simple argument of terms.
i believe the proposed ‘jump-cut’ & ‘quick-cut’ are entirely distinct from one another.
it is a matter of pacing, because the tempo of the ‘quick-cut’ montage has a differing effect from that of a scene with ‘jump-cuts’.
‘Quick-cut’ editing implies numerous cuts, never just one, multiple shots careening the viewer, getting them swept up so they forget they’re watching a movie for a few seconds & as the images flash by do not consciously acknowledge the cuts.
Wheraes if we’re using Breathless as our example for ‘jump-cuts’, you are treated to a relatively slower pace, which is not ‘quick’, which gives us time to contemplate, which makes us notice when the ‘jump-cuts’ occur. Godard wants to distort us. Take for example (as a parallel to Breathless’ car driving ‘jump-cuts’) the ‘jump-cut’ sequence at the end of Malle’s Fire WIthin, this evenly paced drama now distorts us with brilliant cuts as the main character stumbles around the party, this, is something you don’t find in MTV-style, Dogville being another example of ‘jump-cuts’ we just don’t use in mass-media, you’re absolutely right that they are trying to dislocate you to get your attention, which is Godardian (as long as we don’t credit it to someone before him somehow, like Brecht) but their dislocation is not Brechtian, it’s a marketing tool, they don’t want you to be aware that you’re being sold something, which runs counter to Godard, this is where F for Fake is more akin to MTV than Breathless is, because F for Fake is trying to trick you, because of its faster pace it puts you in a series of lulls & highs, besides, no one watches every movie & every MTV commercial & thinks “cut, …cut, there’s another cut”, by the nature of perception we give in most of the time & pay attention not to the editing, but to what the commercial or movie is telling us/selling us/showing us… we want to get wrapped up in the story. That is what the Godardian aspect lacks, which F for Fake owns, the ability to get the viewer lost in images. Godard is busy reminding us we are looking at an image the whole time!
it’s true that F for Fake purposely wants to jar the viewer at many points, but the sequences where Welles desires/requires smoothness, while still keeping up-tempo, are as smooth as a baby’s forehead on an editing suite.
apologies for the run-on sentences.
NEH: I was impressed with a lot of portions of PERFORMANCE when I finally saw it for the first time last week, and couldn’t help but think about MTV editing (though it’s very different than F FOR FAKE).
Saw F FOR FAKE a month ago and was blown away by the editing to create fluid dialogues between interview footage, documentary footage, staged footage, still photographs, and Welles’ direct address material as ring-leader. Not only does he drastically shift visual tone from scene to scene, but he also cobbles all these disparate materials together within scenes to seamlessly tell his story. You’re not paying attention to the fact that it basically makes no sense to insert a still of Picasso amidst motion footage. Why? Because the emotional flow just clicks under the control of the carefully crafted and performed voice-over narration (a key element that really separates the film’s editing style from what we typically think of as MTV editing which lacks anything as literal to cohere the splices). Real illusionist’s work. Incredibly impressive. And also probably incredibly economical for a formidable directorial imagination who lacked access to any real budget….though I could be wrong, lacking any info about the production’s history. Anyone know more?
Performance is an interesting example, Ben. Mainly because Nicolas Roeg is a nutjob of a whizkid when it comes to editing. Although there are quick-cut & jump-cuts in the film, it is over a more medium pace than the main two examples. Though I wonder, in tandem with the wild editing, could thinking of MTV-editing while watch Performance be a result of a movie about a rockstar?
I know I thought F was wicked cool when I saw it some 5 years ago, but nothing stayed with me. SECOND VIEWING!
Sure F for Fake is good, but come on, we all know Well’s true genius lies with his work on the Transformers Movie.
No but really, this movie is amazing.
yes, this is just a divergence over the meaning of terms. i see what you mean about godard wanting to dislocate us with jump cuts and mtv wanting to assimilate us with them. i just think jump/quick cutting resists assimilation. you may get lost in a tidal wave of images, but that doesnt necessarily mean you get assimilated and ignore the cuts.
in any event, theres a line of continuity from “breathless” to “f for fake” to mtv. theyre all developments in a common line of thinking.
The editor responsible for “Performance” was Frank Mazzola. He did the final edit on the film long after Roeg left the project. It’s really cammell’s film, btw, as is made clear in Colin McCable’s BFI book devoted to it.
The editor responsible for “Performance” was Frank Mazzola. He did the final edit on the film long after Roeg left the project. It’s really cammell’s film, btw, as is made clear in Colin McCable’s BFI book devoted to it.
Good to know.
Thanks for the info.
NEH
Vérités et Mensonges
(Truth and Lies )
.
.
How is expertise justified?
Is it honorable to be a criminal in a corrupt society?
What is the nature of art?
“For my next experiment, ladies and gentlemen…”
I present to you a sound-collage essay on Orson Welles’
last completed masterpiece, released in English-speaking
countries under the ominous title F for Fake.
The lengthy movie trailer, edited not in function with the film but rather in spirit,
derails the viewers’ opinions as to what the film actually is about.
Which is surely one of the reasons (along with nudity involving a tiger)
as to why it was banned by American censors.
Press ‘PLAY’. Never have the words “hanky panky” been so convincing.
A child smiles. Welles’ muse Oja Kodar is shown in the flash of a black hat.
“We’ll get to her later…”
The art forger smiles.
Michel Legrand’s jazz score plays both impulsive & moody,
from ebb to eke inbetween whimsical & haunting.
Always hushed, even at its most playful.
Orson asks our permission, smirkingly,
We are taken into a hypnotic lull of Kipling verse.
What is the nature of art?
Rapid confusion. “Was Mr. Big, …Mrs. Big?”
Stories of con-men unravel with immediacy.
Everything slipped betwixt words.
“In the ear…” Magic tricks abound!
How is expertise justified?
Do art-experts “pretend to know something they only know very superficially”?
A tiny monkey shoulderdances.
“It’s pretty, …but is it rare?”
What creates value?
“Value depends on opinion.
Opinion depends on the experts.
A faker like Elmyr makes fools of the experts.
So who’s the expert?
…Who’s the faker?”
Is it honorable to be a criminal in a corrupt society?
“This takes us into murky waters,
where the lawyers tell us we’d be rash to go fishing.”
There are masterpieces all over the world that Elymr doubled.
Paintings that may bring people joy & awe. Is this a crime?
The answer is Yes, because he made money off of it.
He made a living. He sold beauty.
And to the highest bidder, no less.
“Naturally, to be Hungarian is not a nationality. It’s a profession.”
Who was Howard Hughes? Why did he seek hermitage?
Who was Orson Welles? Had his career been a hoax?
“The good people of Las Vegas kept their eyes peeled,
saw nothing, & believed everything they told each other.”
What is the nature of art?
68 minutes in Oja’s story begins.
Pass the eyecandy. Sex is on sale.
We’ll leave you, eager viewer, to find out about her mysterious relationship,
her curious transaction, with one, Pablo Picasso…
…& what about the tiger?
http://criterion.com/films/908
