Exit Through the Gift Shop

source: Exit Through the Gift Shop

I don't know if there is any definitive proof out there to suggest that this in fact a "mockumentary" or a "prankumentary", or whatever else it has been coined by critics for that matter - but - hoax or not, I thought it was well worth the watch! I personally believe it is fake. Straight from the off I began to to question aspects of the story; the validity of the storyline, the authenticity of the characters, and in particular, who was doing the filming when it was the film-maker in shot!? Anyway, that aside, Banksy does make a pretty convincing movie, and after surfing the web for just a few minutes, my findings have proved that many (dupes?) still firmly believe the material is 100% authentic. For me, this takes little away from my enjoyment in watching the film. Towards the end, I did feel a little cheated, as documentaries have traditionally been based on reality, and therefore a non fiction documentary does seem a little pointless. But like I said before, it is still worth watching. Admiring the many pieces of street art, alone, make the film worth a watch for me. Don't expect to be blown away, because this after all is just a documentary, (and lets face it, no documentaries are that exciting!) but it certainly does enough to maintain my interest throughout. I doubt this is ever going to exist as somebody's 'favourite movie ever', I think I can say that with conviction, however, it is one of those films that I recommend you watch - If only once.

An interesting film, speckled with humour, Exit Through The Gift Shop is an insightful look into a sub-culture of graffiti artists. The first half of the film is very watchable, and is mostly driven by the mystery of Banksy and his often witty and provocative artworks. Other artists are profiled, such as a chap called Invader who creates mosaics of characters from early 1980's video games and sticks them high up on buildings etc… Not sure what the point of all that is really, but it's quirky and colourful and preferable to another artist who simply stands by a passing train spraying truck after truck with a continuous stream of spray paint. However, when the focus shifts exclusively to Thierry ("Terry") Guetta, who until this point has largely been the man behind the camera doing the filming, the film remains watchable, but was less engrossing. On the advice of Bansky, Guetta is encouraged to hold a one-man show. He then goes into creative overdrive, with a set up much like Andy Warhol's Factory, producing masses of artwork often based on works of Warhol. There is an uncertainty as to the authenticity of Guetta, and it seems the film might be a blend of fact and fiction. The audience are shown childhood photos of the Frenchman Guetta and told tales of his formative years which explain why he has had to document everything on film ever since. Yet I felt the filmmaker was spinning a yarn here to create a background to a character, and I didn't quite buy it. So when the emphasis of the film turns exclusively to Guetta and his art show I lacked empathy and identification with him. Guetta is an anomaly, he has fallen into the art world by chance, not by talent or drive. This may well be the whole point of the film: he's a real-life artist because the film says so, and therefore it raises the question what constitutes Art, and does it become Art just because we're told it's Art and it sells for thousands of dollars? People I saw this film with were mostly baffled or just plain annoyed they hadn't seen something else instead. Without doubt it is worth seeing if there is an interest in Banksy, street art, or maybe the art world in general, but it is an acquired taste. It seems the appeal of Bansky to the masses (such as the hundreds of thousands who queued for up to six hours at a time to see his recent show in Bristol, UK) is that his work is like a witty one-liner, and the audience can quickly "get it" and smile at how clever the work is. Much like a maths student with scant regard for most art, but with an M.C. Escher or a Dali poster on their wall. Instantly they can "get it" and recognise that it's clever. And that is largely how I felt about this film. It is intelligent and well made, and although it didn't particularly engage my emotions, it raised a few smiles, and I left in a state of amused bafflement looking forward to what Bansky will do next.

Want to waste a couple of hours and then hate what you just saw? Welcome to hell. It's a particularly grating hell, because it sums up what everyone really hates about all pretentious artists, films, and films about artists. This one in particular glorifies a talentless French wannabe artist, Mr. Brainwash, ("MBW" for short, aka, Thierry Guetta) whose one claim to fame is that there are two other artists faking glorified reviews of his so-called art, which is just ripping off of many other more talented artists. He is undeniably the least talented of the bunch of artists portrayed here, a bunch of street artists who suddenly became famous when one of them, Shepard Fairey, did an iconic portrait of Obama during the run up to the election in 2008. Since he and Banksy both vouched for Mr. Brainwash, that was enough for the entire Los Angeles art scene to fall all over themselves gushing praise about his so-called art. The first half of the film is pretty useless, and overly padded with the worst footage of Thierry's home movies, and the only word to describe them is Unwatchable. Then what follows is a long section of MBW, still named Thierry, following a lot of street artists as they do their illegal tagging, nearly getting caught, and even at one point being held by the police at Disneyland. Quelle Suprise! The last part of the film is the worst statement about art and the garbage that passes for it in the Los Angeles scene. It sets up the city to be full of mindless sycophants, all of whom have no idea what they're looking at, and to add to their gullibility, pay enormous amounts for the privilege of owning a piece of the garbage. I cannot for the life of me understand what in the hell made this piece of crap film so worthwhile that it got an Oscar Nomination, but my guess is that Banksy's publicity machine may have had something to do with that.

This is a pointless and irritating mockumentary about nothing. All revolves around the most annoying, pretentious, vacuous French men in the world; a talentless guy with a grating accent doing nothing and talking forever without saying anything at all. Yes, I do get the satire on the world of contemporary art, but the 10 final minutes are more than enough (and I wish they were a bit meaner) and the previous 70 minutes are just very, very boring. Bansky's art is often great, but he should really stick to his guns and remain completely anonymous and invisible. If this movie shows his real personality he is just another snob East London twit

Greetings again from the darkness. Hoax or real? Documentary or Mockumentary? Fiction or Stranger than Fiction? Sorry, but I can't answer these questions. A quick Google gives the appearance that the characters and story are true - or at least real. I guess the main argument I would make is that, true or not, the film is entertaining and enlightening either way. It certainly makes a statement regarding the commercialization of art. This includes fads and the power of hype and marketing. I can't really offer up much commentary on the content of the film other than to say Thierry Gueta is a fascinating character, though I have absolutely no interest in owning his "art". I did love Banksky's line about Thierry being more interesting than his work. Couldn't agree more.

And while this is a common question you would expect a woman to hear, in this case the question goes out to this documentary ... or is it "mockumentary"? And furthermore: Does it matter? Would you think less of the movie if it wasn't "real"? Though an internet search seems to provide facts, that the guy we are seeing here is real (and I'm not talking about Banksy, whose identity remains hidden) ... but is he really? These are all questions that I cannot answer and even if some users here claim to know, I would second guess them. Could this be the most elaborate prank ever? As you can see the movie does leave you with many questions and it starts off as a normal documentary, which seems to be aiming to show us street artists. And who has a bigger name right now then Banksy (search him if you don't know who that is). He even says a few things here and there (although it is very probable, that it isn't him ... but then again who is him? And how would we know if it is him? Or if he even made the movie?). This movie is really out there (it really gets outrageous towards the end) ... so out there, that I can only deem it as one of the best documentaries I have seen. It is a real gem, that goes deep into questions about art and how we perceive it, how media sells it and many more questions. But it also can only be seen as a very funny documentary. Either way (and no matter how you feel about it), you won't be able not to talk about it. And yes I know it's a double negative and I used it, because I meant ... or did I?

I don't know quite where to start, I sit here at Euston Station in awe of my evening at Lambeth Palace. I have never seen, and I never will see, a film quite like that, in a setting such as that, ever again! I shall start with the setting. Imagine yourself in a dimly lit, slightly damp, disused tube tunnel. Sounds grim I know but hear me out. This tunnel is filled to bursting with beautifully lit original artwork in the form of paintings and installations. There is a bar, but no ordinary bar - drinks are served from a burnt out ice cream van. There are popcorn vendors selling to you from the furniture of a North American diner and countless red leather sofas scattered around, some of which gather round a huge canvas bonfire burning recognisable Renaissance classics. All these aspects are nothing new to Banksy fans however, although there is new art in a new location it has become expected of Banksy to display his work differently, the reason people were here was for once not to see paintings or installations but cinema. Eventually, a little later than scheduled due to the lure of a beer round the fire, what everyone had been waiting for began - and what an extraordinary piece of cinema it was. Without wanting to ruin it for anybody the story is about a French eccentric who's strange obsessions lead him to be involved with one of the most elusive groups of people in history...street artists. This inevitably leads him to Banksy and what happens to these two men when they meet is hilarious, disastrous, brilliant and astonishing all at once. Filmed almost entirely on poor quality hand-held cameras this film illustrates perfectly that the key to a brilliant movie is a strong story with engaging characters, not how clever the 3D effects are or the amount of money spent on special effects. I refer of course to Avatar which I saw last night - the first five minutes of which are interesting because 3D is a clever formula but after that you are left desperate for plot line, half decent acting and a hero to engage with. Banksy's film is so brilliant for exactly the reasons Avatar isn't. Charming, funny and insightful, I thoroughly enjoyed everything about this evening and I totally recommend Exit Through The Gift Shop.

Thierry Guetta runs a vintage clothing shop in Los Angeles and is obsessed with photographing everything he sees. When he visits his native country, France, and finds a cousin who is a street artist named Invader, his blood takes him on a tour where he meets other unorthodox graffiti painters on their controversial rounds, mostly at night, in order to avoid the law. Guetta meets the most notorious guerrilla artist of them all, a Brit who uses the name Banksy. They become good friends and the underground Englishman has managed to keep is identity a secret, even after becoming a financial success. So far, so good. The problem comes up when Guetta starts painting and somehow, with no apparent talent, becomes the toast of the Los Angeles art community with a show, followed by fame and fortune. The man is an insufferable ass****. By the end of the documentary, I hated the guy. Stay away from this pretentious bull****.

Whatever else I think about these self-reflexive mockumentary pranks like Casey Affleck's I'm Still Here and now, inappropriately nominated for an Academy Award for best Documentary Film, Banksy's Exit Through the Gift Shop, I have to admit they reflect their times in ways that real documentaries can't. How can I not admire filmmakers who create the reality they're documenting? Banksy's film goes steps farther by manufacturing the target demographic, as well. Pretty slick. Upon hearing initially about the "political" street artist's film, I tweeted something along these lines: If street artist Banksy really walked the walk he'd release his film for free under a Creative Commons license like Sita Sings the Blues. I said that because I hadn't seen it. Now that I've seen it and get the joke, I'm glad to confront its politics: Few films could be farther from the generosity and artistry of Nina Paley's film. I've never trusted the sincerity of Banksy's anonymous persona or the literal sincerity of his "politics." I thought his painting of the Gaza wall was glib self-promotion, at best. Now, after having watched this film, I have my doubts that a real, single person called "Banksy" even exists. Regardless, even if he did, I wouldn't believe a word he said. Exit Through the Gift Shop will probably win its Award, though, if my judgment of the American cultural milieu holds true. As an antidote, watch Ceský sen. It's just as mischievous and honestly political. I can't think of another film in which young artists wrestle with their generation's need for irony. You won't find that sort of self-awareness in Banksy's film. P.S. I've always found smug the art of Shepard Fairey so he certainly belongs in this film.