51 replies to this topic

[Tyler]

Banksy's identity is finally revealed.

[Persona]

LOL, you got me

[Tyler]

This showed up in Hulu's facebook feed today: "Elusive street artist Banksy took over The Simpsons intro last night and offered a dark take on consumerism. What'd you think of his message?"


[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX1iplQQJTo&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.c...player_embedded[/url]

You can watch the whole episode here.


EW.com weighs in. So does CNN.

Google "Simpsons Banksy" to find a bunch more stories.

Link to the Simpsons Movie thread, where Persiflage already mentioned the opening.

[Tyler]

DVD (and Netflix streaming) tomorrow (Dec 14).

[Tyler]

I watched F for Fake last week, which was a good primer for watching Exit this morning. They're fairly similar in the themes they're covering, but one big difference is that Fake looks back on events that "happened" several years in the film's past, while Exit gives the impression of capturing events as they're taking place (both in the street art footage at the beginning and

Spoiler

Guetta's gallery show toward the end). Another difference, of course is that Welles tells you what's real at the end of Fake, while Exit doesn't give a wink to the camera. Or winking at the camera is all it does, which is kind of the same thing.

Has anyone who's seen I'm Still Here compared it to Exit? It seems like there would be some interesting material there, especially about commitment to the bit. If Exit is a bit, of course.

Edited by Tyler, 14 December 2010 - 11:25 AM.

[Peter T Chattaway]

FWIW, A.O. Scott @ New York Times just wrote an article on the blurring line between fiction and reality in both documentaries and narrative films that may or may not touch on this. E.g.:

Other movies trod muddier ground, turning the question “Is it real?” into a kind of double dare. To ask the question is to risk seeming naïvely literal-minded; not to ask could make you a sucker. That, at least, was the trick attempted by Casey Affleck’s “I’m Still Here,” a multimedia publicity stunt wrapped around a transparently fake documentary. The subject of this carefully staged celebrity train wreck, Joaquin Phoenix, provoked much puzzlement with his infamously hairy and unhinged appearance on “The Late Show With David Letterman.” By the time he and Affleck revealed that the actor’s bizarre public behavior — rambling incoherently, growing a beard, announcing that he was forsaking acting for a career in hip-hop — was a put-on, and the movie a prank, pretty much everyone already knew and pretty much nobody cared. The attempt to make a point about the fungibility of identity in an age of shallow celebrity foundered because it was too obvious, too elementary. Pretending to be someone else, or a different version of yourself, in front of the cameras is no great feat or revelation. It’s a fairly normal mode of being, for the famous and the obscure.

And besides, the simple binary choice that Affleck and Phoenix offered viewers — earnest or ironic? hoax or not? — was much too unsophisticated. They were the ones who looked naïve for supposing that anyone would fall for their stunt. But “Catfish” and “Exit Through the Gift Shop,” two documentaries that premiered at Sundance in January, were more slippery. The credited director and, at least at first, the ostensible subject of “Exit” is Banksy, the artist whose conceptual graffiti are as recognizable as his face is unknown. But what begins as a tour of the world of international street art quickly becomes something else. A documentary about Banksy and his colleagues, directed by an amiable Los Angeles-based Frenchman named Thierry Guetta, turns into its opposite, as the would-be (and apparently incompetent) documentarian remakes himself into an art-world pseudo-celebrity known as Mr. Brainwash, whose rise to fame is dutifully recorded by Banksy himself.

Is Mr. Brainwash the perpetrator of a fraud, the subject of a prank or just an ordinary guy caught in the viewfinder of a crafty filmmaker? Similarly vertiginous questions surround the Michigan woman who turns out to be the title character in “Catfish.” . . .

[Tyler]

BTW, Shepard Fairey appeared on the Colbert Report last week. The segment was Colbert trying to convince "noted art critic" Steve Martin to buy one of the portraits they use for decorations on the show. Frank Stella, Fairey, and Andres Serrano helped make the painting more artistic.

[Overstreet]

That bit should have been really funny. In concept, it's awesome. As it played out, well... I thought it felt really awkward... even tense. Steve didn't seem to be enjoying it very much. I got the feeling he would rather have had the chance to talk about his book, which Colbert didn't ever give him an opportunity to do. (The "interview" was an odd one. Colbert usually gives his guests a chance to talk. But he seemed so giddy to have Steve on the show that he talked over him.)

[Overstreet]

I saw Exit finally and, having already seen F is for Fake, My Kid Could Paint That, I'm Not There, and The Gleaners and I, I didn't feel that this brought much to the conversation. It's an occasionally amusing ride while it lasts, but I thought it stayed in the shallows of the questions it raised. And my own questions about the artists' ethics were brushed aside at every turn. So much of it seemed contrived for the sake of the movie that I wanted something more than "Golly, aren't human beings gullible?"

I mean, is the power of hype such big news? Are we surprised that slapdash designs can sell for lots of money? (Little Fockers is #1 at the box office over True Grit. I can as much understanding about art, entertainment, popularity, and profit from that bit of information as I did from this whole movie. And I can't say I much enjoyed the time spent with a self-proclaimed artist and a poser in the process. It's like watching Amadeus, but with a bunch of pop-song melodies being played for us on a Casio keyboard instead of Mozart's music. That leaves you with annoying non-art and an obnoxious man.

Edited by Overstreet, 02 January 2011 - 04:11 PM.

[Persona]

Well, I haven't seen F is For Fake, so I can't comment on that. But the difference between Exit Through the Gift Shop and I'm Not There and My Kid Could Paint That is that Exit Through the Gift Shop is FUN, an element that, unfortunately, you missed. The comparison to The Gleaners and I, I simply don't get. Then again, that film was such a bore, I fell asleep within twenty minutes. I see all the love for it and sometimes think I should try it again -- it's been since it came out that I tried. But, alas, I've never gotten back to it, and I'm somewhat baffled at that comparison. Were the gleaners a fraud?

I'm not much of a street art fan, but I'd let Banksy paint my town. He is intelligent and witty, and politically biting, but most of all he's FUN. The film rather solidifies my interest in this mysterious figure I've admired for many years. It's as witty as anything he's done. I kinda hope we never really know his true identity.

[Ryan H.]

Persona, on 02 January 2011 - 08:43 PM, said:

Well, I haven't seen F is For Fake, so I can't comment on that. But the difference between Exit Through the Gift Shop and I'm Not There and My Kid Could Paint That is that Exit Through the Gift Shop is FUN, an element that, unfortunately, you missed.

I know you haven't seen it, but F FOR FAKE is mighty fun.

Edited by Ryan H., 02 January 2011 - 08:51 PM.

[Persona]

I'm voting tomorrow. I have one night and one morning left to squeeze in a couple of films. Is that the one I should see?

Might be fun timing considering I just watched Me and Orson Welles last week.

[Ryan H.]

Persona, on 02 January 2011 - 08:59 PM, said:

I'm voting tomorrow. I have one night and one morning left to squeeze in a couple of films. Is that the one I should see?

The one? Well, I am reticent to say that it is the one you should see given the amount of great films on our nomination list. But of my nominations, it's probably a good pick. It's a brilliant film. I'd also stand behind WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? and NETWORK, which would make superb additions to our list (assuming you haven't seen either of them).

Edited by Ryan H., 02 January 2011 - 09:07 PM.

[Persona]

I'm going to give F is For Fake a try tonight. I'm in the mood for FUN. Thanks for the suggestion!

[Thom]

Wow, I was a bit surprised the Jeffrey didn't take to it. I think the questions about art are better and more exhaustively framed than any of the other documentaries mentioned, with the possible exception of F for Fake. But F for Fake has a definite high brow feel.

In my opinion, I Am Still Here doesn't belong in such a conversation, at least not for having actually articulated anything about art. And I am not saying it didn't make a point about art but it was poorly done, inarticulate, poorly executed...

I am a fan of The Gleaners and I and I get the inclusion on many levels. Agnès Varda discusses how art is a gleaning process, on that she is partaking in by making the film. The documentary is about "gleaners gleanings" while the entire time she was "gleaning" from the "gleaners" in order to make a film. I have a headache but would enjoy discussing the parallels between Exit and Gleaners. Especially because the more I think about it the more similar they become.

Regardless of similarities Exit is also fun and mysterious and misleading and suspenseful - all things none of the others really contain.

[Peter T Chattaway]

Thom wrote:
: In my opinion, I Am Still Here doesn't belong in such a conversation, at least not for having actually articulated anything about art.

Well, in fairness, Jeff didn't mention I'm Still Here (the Joaquin Phoenix film), he mentioned I'm Not There (the Bob Dylan film).

[Overstreet]

Peter T Chattaway, on 02 January 2011 - 11:18 PM, said:

Thom wrote:
: In my opinion, I Am Still Here doesn't belong in such a conversation, at least not for having actually articulated anything about art.

Well, in fairness, Jeff didn't mention I'm Still Here (the Joaquin Phoenix film), he mentioned I'm Not There (the Bob Dylan film).

Right. I haven't even seen I'm Still Here. But I'm Not There is rich with discussion-worthy scenes about art.

If I found more merit in the work that the street artists were doing, I would be more interested. But I quickly tire of their Fight the Power mode, except in rare instances of inspired, whimsical expressions. In this film, the imagery was pretty ugly; and the art in question was rather brash and annoying. The disrespect for law; the revelry in lying; the adolescent rebelliousness of the people in question; and the general unpleasantness and irresponsibility of the film's central subject were... hoax or otherwise... rather wearying to me.

Edited by Overstreet, 03 January 2011 - 12:06 AM.

[Persona]

Overstreet, on 03 January 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

In this film, the imagery was pretty ugly; and the art in question was rather brash and annoying. The disrespect for law; the revelry in lying; the adolescent rebelliousness of the people in question; and the general unpleasantness and irresponsibility of the film's central subject were... hoax or otherwise... rather wearying to me.

It's hilarious you didn't see I'm Still Here, because you've described it pretty well here.

As far as Exit Through the Gift Shop goes, I think we saw two different films.

[Overstreet]

Persona, on 03 January 2011 - 12:35 AM, said:

Overstreet, on 03 January 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

In this film, the imagery was pretty ugly; and the art in question was rather brash and annoying. The disrespect for law; the revelry in lying; the adolescent rebelliousness of the people in question; and the general unpleasantness and irresponsibility of the film's central subject were... hoax or otherwise... rather wearying to me.

It's hilarious you didn't see I'm Still Here, because you've described it pretty well here.

I don't plan to see I'm Still Here for that very reason.

Quote

As far as Exit Through the Gift Shop goes, I think we saw two different films.

Well, it's been well-established since we first met that we are very different viewers. But I don't mind. I'm still glad you're around, Stef. I hope our paths cross in 2011. It's been seven years since I saw you last!

Persona, on 03 January 2011 - 12:35 AM, said:

Overstreet, on 03 January 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

In this film, the imagery was pretty ugly; and the art in question was rather brash and annoying. The disrespect for law; the revelry in lying; the adolescent rebelliousness of the people in question; and the general unpleasantness and irresponsibility of the film's central subject were... hoax or otherwise... rather wearying to me.

It's hilarious you didn't see I'm Still Here, because you've described it pretty well here.

I don't plan to see I'm Still Here for that very reason.

Quote

As far as Exit Through the Gift Shop goes, I think we saw two different films.

Well, it's been well-established since we first met that we are very different viewers. But I don't mind. I'm still glad you're around, Stef. I hope our paths cross in 2011. It's been seven years since I saw you last!

[Persona]

Overstreet, on 03 January 2011 - 01:31 AM, said:

Well, it's been well-established since we first met that we are very different viewers. But I don't mind. I'm still glad you're around, Stef. I hope our paths cross in 2011. It's been seven years since I saw you last!

You'll be surprised if you do see me. I've actually turned into a talking duck since last you saw.

It's funny, we do have a different take sometimes, but often we're right there with similar leanings. I've learned a lot from you over the years, and you've put up with me quite well.

I did watch F For Fake last night, and believe Exit Through The Gift Shop to be a much funnier, stronger, and less artier (is that a word?) work. Welle's frenzied editing, though, is a thing of sheer beauty. I can't imagine how much real film must have been hanging from the rafters. Incredible.