In case you didn’t read the title, this review will be full of spoilers. This is just the type of film that it’s really hard to have a conversation about without giving some really great stuff away. And I’m really much more interested in having a conversation about this than I am in just telling you how good I thought it is. In short, if you haven’t caught up with it yet, do so. Then come back and here and read THIS and we can start discussing it. Oh damn, I just created a link to this post in this post…... How oh so very Charlie Kaufman of me… Whatever you do, don’t click it. I’m pretty sure you’ll just get stuck in some sort of a time loop and dumped out onto the New Jersey Turnpike and forced to kill your own twin brother just to have some sort of ending. Ok that joke was kind of stupid but it was oddly appropriate for this film. Sort of like the fact that I bought this DVD from a street artist/bootlegger that goes by the name “Mr. Brainscan” and looked an awful lot like Edward Furlong…..
I should also mention that there is no shortage of theories about the authenticity or lack thereof of this film. I’m not usually one to be outdone (especially on the internets) so I’ll also be taking this opportunity to spout off my own brand of crack-pottery.
So let’s begin with a quick plot summary. The whole project began when this French-American entrepreneur (French word for facial hair) named Thierry Guetta started documenting street art and artist with his video camera. He was able to gain the trust of some famous artists such as Shepard Fairey under the guise that he was a documentarian working on a film about their scene. He admits that not only did he never have any intention of making a documentary; he would rarely ever even watch any of the footage he was constantly shooting. Eventually, he gets an invite to film a very elusive artist, Banksy. Banksy allows him access to his work and his process. This seems advantageous for Thierry and the artists alike. He is getting all the footage he wants and pieces of art that typically only last a few days were being preserved by film.
Then the film takes a turn. Thierry decides to start making his own art. He creates a new persona by the name of “Mr. Brainwash” and begins leaving his mark all over Los Angeles. It’s at this time that Banksy decides that the documentary needs to be finished. Thierry puts together a joke of a doc, Banksy tells him to leave the footage with him and go back to L.A. and work on his art. While Banksy is finalizing the film, Thierry is home becoming an overnight success with his art and planning a huge opening. His art is blatantly hollow, most of it horribly unoriginal and none of it is actually created by him. He basically subcontracted the entire design process to a team of laborers much more talented than himself. His lack of talent and originality has no bearing however on his success and popularity. His opening is a huge hit and the masses unabashedly sing his praises, much to the chagrin of those who originally propped him up like Shepard and Banksy.
At its core, real or fake, this film is a brilliant commentary on the creative process, eventual commercialization and even the very nature of art. How much does art’s value depend on the talent it took to create it? Is value dependent on talent at all? Does art even have anything to do with value?
As I alluded to before, this film does come with a bit of healthy controversy. Many believe in varying degrees of its authenticity. Most are in agreement though that ultimately, the actual percentage of genuineness does not really matter. I tend to disagree. It is my opinion that the actual authenticity of the events portrayed in this film and the amount of truth it reveals share a very indirect relationship. In other words, the less I believe this film as a narrative, the more it says to me.
The short of it is: this film is in itself a piece of Banksy street art. It has a perfect blend of practical jokery and social commentary you can find in all the rest of his pieces. It is my belief that Thierry is more than likely a friend of Banksy and an accomplice in the joke. Mr. Brainwash is a creation of Banksy and his art is very intentionally hollow and unoriginal. One of the purposes of this film was to prove the true value of the opinion of the masses. Of which there is very little. The idea that the film’s narrative came about entirely organically seems to sell its genius a bit short to me. It’s much more fun to me to believe that it’s a wonderful practical joke. Then I get to pat myself on the back for being on the inside of that joke.
Other than the nature of the film, I think there are a few pretty good examples of actual evidence in the film to support my theory. First of all, there is a scene towards the beginning, part of a montage, in which Thierry is filming himself with various cameras in the mirror. We are told, at that time that this was before he even started shooting the street artists. According to the timeline described, he was shooting the street art scene before he even met Banksy so this montage is supposedly footage from say ten to fifteen years ago. Most of it makes sense except for a few shot that we see him holding what seems to be a camera that I’m pretty sure didn’t exist or at least wasn’t available for consumer use that long ago. This is a little weak because you don’t really get a great look at it but I took note of and it stuck with me. The second oddity is simply the question of finance. Again, this might be a little weak but how does a used clothing boutique owner with a family afford take off work indefinitely and travel the world filming underground art? The last piece of evidence is what stuck in my mind the most. This is the thing that convinced me. When Banksy gets all the footage from Thierry, he sends him back to the states to work on his art and maybe have a small opening or something. These directions from Banksy seem pretty clear to the audience that he just wanted Thierry out of the way so he could try to make something of this footage. Then tell me, why is there all this footage Thierry in the weeks and months leading up to his art show? Either Banksy sent someone with him to keep documenting him or Thierry was taking the footage himself. Neither of which make any sense. Banksy says he was surprised when he heard how big Thierry’s show was going to be. And if he was editing, Thierry’s footage should have never made the film. In my mind, the only reason for that footage to exist was if that was the intention of the film in the first place.
Alright, I think I’ve had enough. I could probably write quite a bit more on this film but I’m hoping that this should be at least enough to get the conversation started. If you haven’t seen it… well why the hell have you kept reading?!?!? I told you I was gonna spoil it. No worries, it’s still worth watching. Check it out then come back and tell me what’s what and why I’m completely wrong.
And now I would like to categorically deny having just written this.
No comments:
Post a Comment