Skip to content
 

F for Fake

(1974) dir. Orson Welles
viewed: 10/17/06

It’s kind of sad how few Orson Welles films I have actually seen.  He’s one of those thousand-pound gorillas of cinema and well worth his weight…uh, this moved into some bad puns somehow regarding his obesity in later years.  Not intended.

As a narrator, his voice is second to none.  He exudes erudition and cleverness.

This film, a non-narrative examination of fakery, forgery, and falseness is truly complex and playful, while driving at some rather profound examinations of authorship and the meaning of art.  Focusing for a long stretch on Elmyr de Hory, a notorious and playful art forger with a long and adept (if questionable history) and Clifford Irving, de Hory’s biographer and also a falsifier of a notorious “autobiography” of Howard Hughes.  These characters both appear as themselves but significantly as questionable sources of information about themselves, mythologizers and liars, but playful as hell about it.

Welles sees himself along these lines and draws his own work into the discourse.  It’s a seemingly rambling investigation, using lots of unusual editing techniques and visual effects that further disconnect it from an appearance of offering a definitive approach to documentary. 

The latter third of the film is the weakest, portraying a fictionalized story of Oja Koder, Welles’ longtime female friend, and her purported relationship with Pablo Picasso and some other falsified images.  It does add to the discourse, I guess, because it seems only important if its true.  Otherwise, it’s a somewhat interesting aside.  That is no doubt an aspect of the point of the film.

De Hory frequently asks if his art is less beautiful or important because he had painted it rather than Matisse or Modigliani.  When experts cannot tell the difference, does it matter who the artist is or was?  Doesn’t the piece itself matter?  And Welles’ response to this is the Chartres Cathedral, designed and built by unknown persons, its beautry transcends its authorship and depicts Welles’ most passionate opinion in an otherwise very playful film.

Leave a Reply