illusion and reality
by Douglas Messerli
Orson Welles and Oja Kodar (screenplay),
Orson Welles, François Reichenbach (uncredited), Gary Graver (uncredited) and
Oja Kodar (uncredited) (directors) F for
Fake / 1975
Orson Welles’ very last feature
film, F for Fake, is a highly
puzzling movie, or, as some critics have described it, “cinematic essay.”
In this work the great white and food
connoisseur, Welles, turns his focus first on the art world, filming, for
producer François Reichenbach, a story about the noted art forger Elmyr de
Welles and his crew seemingly present the now-open forger in his villa
on the island of Ibiza, where he seems to be hosting a large party with a
dazzling contingent of “the beautiful people” of the 1970s, including Welles
himself and Welles sexy woman friend, Oja Kodar.
At this party, we are also introduced to
de Hory’s biographer, who has recently “revealed” his subject’s forgeries,
Clifford Irving. Of course, Irving, we now know—which gradually comes to light
as the movie proceeds—has accomplished his own notable forgery, a so-called
“autobiography” by Howard Hughes, in which he and his co-writer Richard
Suskind, along with Irving’s then-wife, Edith, had forged Hughes’ handwriting
in numerous letters and his signature on the contract with McGraw-Hill
publishers.
Welles even admits to his own
“forgeries,” his lies, early in career, that he had done notable acting, and
his own “public hoax,” broadcast over the radio waves of War of the Worlds, which caused general panic throughout the US. As
if to add to his theory of forgeries, the director creates a poorly filmed
version of the production which, of course, never previously existed. And
throughout, F for Fake presents the
unknowing audience with images of his two central figures, often appearing to
be conversation at the same moment, but actually filmed at different events.
As if to further establish a series of amazing coincidences, Welles
offers up the story that his great Citizen
Kane began as the story that was originally to have been a history of
Hughes. And he ends his film with another totally “fake” story (but after the
promised deadline of one hour of complete honesty) in which he describes Kodar
as traveling for vacation to Picasso’s Spanish home. Intrigued by the beauty of
Kodar, the great artist finally meets her and paints several paintings, which
he gives her outright as a present.
But when he hears of Kodar’s intent to
show and sell them in France, the artist flies to the gallery, whereupon he
discovers them all to be forgeries, painted by Kodar’s grandfather. This
Throughout the work, Welles punches at the supposed art authorities and
at art gallerists willing to turn a blind eye in their search for money.
Although de Hory’s “fakes” made millions, he himself saw little of those
monies, and even his Ibiza villa, is owned, so we discover, by an art dealer.
De Hory claims he has never posted a single name to his hoaxes, although he
quickly proves he might have been capable of it by penning Welles’ own
signature to a piece of art.
In the end, however, Welles grand pronouncements seem hollow, since he appears,
himself, involved in a grand conspiracy of sorts, however charming it might be.
And he fails to make clear that there are punishments for de Hory’s and Iving’s
behaviors: just prior to this film de Hory had spent two years in prison (for
homosexuality, however, not because of his forgeries), and after the filming of
Welles’ work committed suicide when it appeared he might be extradited to
France. Irving and his co-conspirators all spent time in prison. And in his
last years—despite the obvious gifts of this “illusionist”—Welles could no
longer find funding for any of his projects, producers simply not trusting his
abilities to finish his projects or because of his demand of outrageous amounts
of money.
It’s true that these topics are quite fascinating, particularly given
our current sense of living in a time without “truth,” and the fact that many
New York galleries have recently been accused of selling just such forgeries.
But I’m not sure, other that its cursory criticism of the art world, that
Welles’ essay actually offers answers for the problem, or that Welles is even
recognizing the “hoax” as being a problem.
Los Angeles, April 1, 2017
Reprinted from World Cinema Review (April 2017).
No comments:
Post a Comment