MovieChat Forums > Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) Discussion > Exit to the Gift Shop: Fact or Fiction?...

Exit to the Gift Shop: Fact or Fiction? A mystery solved...

posted 10 years ago by the-devil-boy
12 replies | jump to latest

A lot of people have perpetuated the misguided rumor that Exit Through the Gift Shop is a hoax rather than a documentary, and that ultimately the film is just a big fat joke on all of us, the audience[1,2,3].

Let’s put that baseless rumor, which may have cost the film an Academy Award for "Best Documentary Feature"[4], to rest.

What is it, exactly, about Exit that people think is a hoax? Let’s go through the possibilities:

1.) The whole thing is a hoax: the street art footage, Thierry Guetta (aka “Mr. Brainwash”), all of it. This claim asserts that it’s not a documentary at all; the entire film was staged.

2.) The street art stuff in the beginning is real, but Thierry Guetta isn’t real, he’s a fictional character.

3.) All of the events in the film actually happened, but it was all masterminded by Banksy.

There really aren’t many other options that would qualify the film as a hoax. It’s either one of those three, or some mixture of them, because if it’s none of those possibilities then there really isn’t much left to call a "hoax.” So let’s see if any of these three hoax theories could apply. The large and growing list of supporting citations is provided at the bottom of this post so you can investigate all of the evidence for yourself.

Here’s what the body of evidence says about the three possible hoax theories:

Claim 1.) “The whole thing is a hoax”
It’s very clear that the whole thing can’t be a hoax, for myriad well-documented reasons, including these: Banksy and Shepard Fairey are well-established and successful artists and not fictional characters[6,7]; “Mr. Brainwash” was on the cover of the L.A. Weekly the week before his “Life is Beautiful” show opened in Los Angeles[8,9]; the show actually happened and was covered by the mainstream press[10]; Guetta has shown his “art” following his Los Angeles and Manhattan debuts with another show called “Icons”[11] which displayed his “Celebration” album cover artwork which had been commissioned by Madonna[12,13]; Banksy did have a wildly popular art show called “Barely Legal” in Los Angeles in 2006, which featured an elephant painted like wallpaper[14]; the Disneyland incident with the Guantanamo prisoner doll actually happened and was covered by the BBC[15]; Guetta’s plagiarism recently got him into trouble with the photographer of Run DMC and he lost the resulting copyright infringement lawsuit[16].

Claim 2.) “Thierry Guetta isn’t real, he’s a fictional character”
Thierry Guetta is a real man who owned a “vintage” clothing store in Los Angeles (which was a French clothing import outlet)[17], who videotaped everything indiscriminately, and real people had real mental breakdowns having to sift through his mountains of awful video footage[18]. Many people have spoken to him and interviewed him in person for print and television[17,19]. He’s not Banksy, as some have alleged (Banksy is known to be English and the public records prove that Guetta immigrated to the U.S. with his family in the 80's[17], and the landmark legal battle Thierry Guetta recently lost regarding plagiarism charges is expected to have a far-reaching and macabre impact on contemporary art and artists[16]. He's still making boring and woefully-derivative "street art” and his shows have been fully covered by the mainstream press[8,9,10,11].

Claim 3.) “It was all masterminded by Banksy”
The idea of Banksy as a kind of "puppet-master" orchestrating the events of the film is somewhat trickier to refute, because this possibility concedes that nearly all or completely all of the film actually occurred as we're shown. In this scenario, we’re being asked to believe that it was all somehow masterfully orchestrated behind-the-scenes by the invisible hand of Banksy. Therefore, the film really is a documentary, but it’s a documentary of a secretly staged event. But upon close examination even this is difficult to accept. Why? For starters, the entire first half of the film shows the rapid rise of the underground street art movement to a glitzy mainstream phenomenon. It’s fairly obvious that this was a rather surprising transition to Shepard Fairey and Banksy, as well as the other street artists involved. And it would seem to be a rather audacious and Herculean task to plan and execute a global art movement on a short timetable. So the first half of the film certainly doesn’t appear to be staged for the purpose of making a film about it later on. So the only part that might have been staged is Guetta’s art opening: the sudden and eerily regrettable advent of the “Mr. Brainwash” publicity vehicle. Banksy did come right out and admit in Exit Through the Gift Shop that he was responsible for putting the idea for a show in Guetta’s head. But did he know that Guetta would turn his first opening into such a monstrous media-tastic mega-spectacle? Apparently not, because Guetta plainly states that Banksy had only suggested a small, fledgling show, rather than a monstrously ambitious and vapidly sensationalistic 500-kiloton implosion of the street art movement[20]. To the contrary, the other artists, Banksy included, all seem unanimously unsettled by the grim irony of Guetta’s creation of the pre-sold-out and pre-trademarked[21] “Mr. Brainwash” brand of extravagantly-priced and freakishly derivative "art-like products." Their reactions are akin to someone showing Michelangelo a complete line of plastic novelty mugs featuring bawdy approximations of David, La Pieta and the Sistine Chapel – aghast at the ultimate fruition of his labors, we might see him recoil in horror to reconsider his pursuit of a career in the arts. Even today, nobody involved seems to be gleeful about the outcome. They all seem to feel, well, somewhat sullied by it.

To finish up, let’s look at what the artists themselves have said about these hoax accusations. Shepard Fairey “swears to God” that the film is not a hoax[22]. Banksy states uncategorically that it’s 100% true[23], taken from real footage, and argues that this is simply a case of life being stranger than fiction[24].

So if we cut right down to the bone, it comes to this: are Banksy and Shepard Fairey (and Thierry Guetta and everyone else involved in the film) simply *liars?* That strikes me as a cruel and baseless accusation: Banksy has always laughed *with us* not *at us* and Fairey has always seemed like a straight shooter. And what motive would these men have to jeopardize their integrity by continuing to lie about this year after year? Money? Fame? A hearty chuckle? They already had all these things before this film was made. And even people who are angry enough to sue these guys stand by the assertion that the film is what it appears to be[17]: a comitragic documentary illustrating just how jacked up the art scene has become since Andy Warhol’s era of whimsical irony.

In fact in all my digging, I haven’t been able to find *one* piece of evidence that this film is in any way a hoax.

If someone can provide objective evidence to the contrary, I’m all ears. Til then, I’m labeling this issue “Case Closed.”

Cited Evidence:

[1] An awful article called "Here's Why the Banksy Movie Is a Banksy Prank" by Alissa Walker…this is what happens when journalism gives way to blogging:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1616365/banksy-movie-prankumentary

[2] An inaccurately-named article called “Exit Through the Gift Shop: The Truth Behind the Film” by John Hargrave, which is simply a podium for Mr. Hargrave’s unfounded suspicions, not a legitimate fact-finding investigation into the film leading to a sound conclusion (as the title suggests):
http://www.zug.com/live/84578/Exit-Through-the-Gift-Shop-The-Truth-Beh ind-the-Film-SPOILER.html

[3] A typically blog article called “Banksy Film Is A [Fantastic] Fraud” by Joshua Glazer, showcases the crucial distinction between a fact-based and reasonable argument, versus an entirely subjective opinion-based argument. At least this blogger ultimately admits that he hasn’t actually proven his allegation that the film is a fraud, as his blog title asserts:
http://www.chinashopmag.com/2010/04/banksy-film-is-a-fantastic-fraud/

[4] Exit Through the Gift Shop was nominated for “Best Documentary Feature,” but lost to Inside Job (which is widely regarded as an inferior film to Exit) amid a flurry of hoax allegations forwarded by bloggers and critics alike:
http://oscar.go.com/nominations/category/documentary-feature/synopsis/ exit-through-the-gift-shop/687163

[5] Banksy’s work is that of a provocateur, not a hoaxster.
http://www.banksy.co.uk/newoutdoors/index1.html

[6] Banksy is a real and well-established artist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

[7] Shepard Fairey is a real and well-established artist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Fairey

[8] “Mr. Brainwash” on the cover of the L.A. Weekly:
http://graffiti.graffhead.com/2008/06/mr-brainwash-on-cover-of-la-week ly.html

[9] L.A. Weekly article about Thierry Guetta’s first art show “Life is Beautiful” occurred in Los Angeles:
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-06-12/art-books/mr-brainwash-bombs-l-a/

[10] Guetta’s show “Life is Beautiful” generated independent reviews and interviews:
http://www.neublack.com/features/featured-artist-mr-brainwash/

[11] Video report by the BBC on Thierry Guetta’s second show called "Icons" which opened in Manhattan:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8548779.stm

[12] Madonna hired Thierry Guetta to create her “Celebration” album cover:
http://www.artrepublic.com/articles/149-mr-brainwash-creates-artwork-f or-madonna-album-cover.html

[13] Madonna’s “Celebration” artwork by Thierry Guetta aka “Mr. Brainwash”:
http://www.madonna.com/news/title/a-celebration-of-madonna-music--the- ultimate-greatest-hits-collection-september-28th-release

[14] Banksy’s show “Barely Legal” did open in Los Angeles in 2006, as seen in the film:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/5344676.stm

[15] Banksy tied a mock-up of a Guantanamo prisoner to a Disneyland park fence:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5335400.stm

[16] Thierry Guetta lost a copyright infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles, demonstrating that “Mr. Brainwash” is not a hoax:
“further evidence has emerged that Oscar-nominated documentary Exit Through the Gift Shop was not a hoax after a court ruled against its subject, street artist Thierry Guetta, in a high-profile copyright case.”

Glen Friedman, a well-known photographer, successfully sued Guetta for breach of copyright after a federal judge ruled that a photograph of the rap group Run DMC, which Guetta manipulated for his piece, could be protected by copyright. A further hearing will decide the extent of damages.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/08/banksy-thierry-guetta-lawsu it

[17] Los Angeles Times writer Jason Felch, through this exemplary and well-researched piece of investigative journalism, discovered that Thierry Guetta has had at least two clothing businesses in the Los Angeles area over the years: Vintage Supermarket, and Rugsaver: The Vintage Shop:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/22/entertainment/la-et-oscar-exit -20110222

[18] One of the editors of Thierry Guetta’s many years of maddeningly and endlessly meandering video tapes had this to say:

“In fact, if you want to replicate Thierry’s footage all you need to do is strap a camera to the hood of a muscle car, remove the steering wheel, hit record and drop a brick on the gas pedal.

All of this is to say that in the time I spent with Thierry’s footage I found that he is without a doubt absolutely fundamentally lacking any self-awareness.

Which is the exact reason people seem to think that he’s a character constructed by Banksy and Shepard. How could anyone possibly stand behind the work he does? How could someone keep a straight face while standing next to a painting of Larry King in a Warhol Marilyn wig? How could people believe him?

I don’t know, in fact I have no idea, but I know that Thierry Guetta is real because I spent weeks and weeks wishing he weren’t.”
http://sparrowsongs.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/thierry-guetta-is-real/

[19] Mr. Guetta had an interview in New York City shortly before his art show “Icons” opened:
http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/an-interview-with-mr-brainwash/163 21

[20] Guetta has said that Banksy suggested a small show, not an epic cultural bombshell: “He told me ‘do a small show.’ But I’m a person that is kind of crazy. I like to do things and when I think of 100 things I do 2,000. I do not stop.”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film /article7041650.ece

[21] Thierry Guetta owns the trademark for his “Mr. Brainwash” moniker:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=77164785

[22] Shepard Fairey swears to God that Exit is not a hoax:
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2010/04/shepard-fairey-swears- to-god-the-banksy-movie-is-not-a-hoax.html

[23] “’The film’s power comes from the fact it’s all 100 percent true,' Banksy said in a recent interview” conducted, as all of his are, by e-mail with the blog All These Wonderful Things. 'This is from the front line, this is watching an art form self-combust in front of you. Told by the people involved. In real time. This is a very real film about what it means to ‘keep it real.’’"
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/movies/awardsseason/06bagger.html

[24] “'I don’t know why so many people have been fooled into thinking this film is fake,' Banksy, or someone purporting to be he, wrote in an e-mail message from Los Angeles, where the film had a premiere on Monday night. 'It’s a true story from real footage. Does it bother me people don’t believe it? I could never have written a script this funny.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/movies/14banksy.html

[25] December 2011, Mr. Brainwash's second show in Los Angeles
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/12/mr-brainwash-is -back-with-another-mega-show-in-la.html

[26] August 1012, Mr. Brainwash show in London
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/mr-brainw ash-banksys-streetart-protg-and-his-latest-brainwave-8001407.html

Additional Support:

[27] A plausible reason why people would say that the film to be a hoax: “everyone’s quick to jump to the hoax conclusion as a defensive stance, since if we believe it’s a hoax, we won’t be revealed to be gullible or naive. We can be revealed to be cynical, but that’s not much of a knock these days.”
http://angryrobot.ca/2010/10/28/exit-through-the-gift-shop-hoax

[28] Robert Ebert rejects the hoax hypothesis:
“(1) Exit Through the Gift Shop is an admirable and entertaining documentary; (2) I believe it is not a hoax; (3) I would not much want a Thierry Guetta original; (4) I like Thierry Guetta, and (5) Banksy, the creator of this film, is a gifted filmmaker whose thoughts, as he regards Guetta, must resemble those of Victor Frankenstein when he regarded his monster.”
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100428/REV IEWS/100429978

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] bmw300 9 years ago

Dude, presently being a full time college student, I can fully appreciate all the work you went into putting this 'report' together. Great job. have not seen the film yet and since reading the reviews here at IMDB, I think I will keep it that way and rewatch gunga din.

[–] the-devil-boy 8 years ago

Thank you, bmw300. I really enjoy Banksy's art so it was a labor of love, but it did take several days to read everything online and dig out all of the pertinent facts. And they speak very loudly and clearly: [1]Exit through the Gift Shop[/1] is a documentary of real events, not a hoax.

But it's a damn amusing documentary - smartly directed, with the delightful wit that we've come to expect from Banksy. So I hope that you'll kick your heels up sometime and watch it - if nothing else it's good for a few belly laughs.

The truth, it turns out, is not only stranger, but also funnier than fiction.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] MoviemanCin 9 years ago

Wow! That is one hell of a post, devil boy. I just watched the movie, and have read opinions on both sides: hoax or not a hoax? I'm really not certain, but it was a fascinating movie.
I tend to agree with you simply because of all the people who would have to keep quiet if it really were a hoax.

Schrodinger's cat walks into a bar and doesn't.

[–] the-devil-boy 8 years ago

Much appreciated, MoviemanCin! I've never seen a documentary like this, but it certainly was fascinating, and amusing...yet also alarming and revealing.

It's sad that so many people are totally convinced that the film was a hoax, because there are real insights and lessons to be gleaned from this one. And people can't learn anything from it if they think it's fake.

And you cite one of the many strong reasons that we know this was real - after all of these years, nobody involved has ever suggested otherwise - including people like the assistant editor who sued Banksy and Guetta for not being credited.

I chock it up to the rise of "truther" culture - many people these days seem absolutely desperate to find conspiracies where none exist, like the "Moon landing hoax" truthers who say that we never went to the Moon, and the "Obama birther" truthers who still think that our president was born in a Muslim country.

Hopefully the wealth of citations here will save others from falling down the misguided "[i]Exit though the Gift Shop[i] was a hoax" rabbit hole.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] rowandriscoll 8 years ago

I used to have the DvD box and it said the whole thing is fiction, sorry but you sort of wasted your time.

[–] the-devil-boy 8 years ago

It’s both sad and chilling that you defer to the authority of an advertising copy writer over the empirical evidence. I wonder: if you bought a DVD about Auschwitz and the box said that it was fiction, would you believe that the Holocaust was a hoax?

One of two things has happened; either you misunderstood the text that you read on the (presumably now lost) DVD box, or some daft marketing guy got it wrong (lots of people got it wrong, thanks to the baseless viral rumor that this film was fiction). Because everything that’s come to light has only proven that the events portrayed occurred as depicted - albeit with the slight artistic license of any well-crafted documentary.

If you have any objective evidence that indicates otherwise, rather than a baseless and subjective assertion, then I think we’d all like to see it.

(It would also be useful if you read my post this time, so you could explain which of the three categories of hoax allegations that you're claiming)

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] rowandriscoll 8 years ago

Man dont get so agresive I was just telling you what I read.

[–] the-devil-boy 8 years ago

Sorry - it's just that this is how this rumor got started in the first place: "somebody heard somewhere that this film was a hoax" and then everyone jumped on board. I put this much work into the research to prevent that from happening again.

People should know just how utterly buggered the art world has become, because it's putting 99.9% of the actually talented artists in the world out of business.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

People should know just how utterly buggered the art world has become, because it's putting 99.9% of the actually talented artists in the world out of business.

devilboy, you are part of the problem.

Don't let the wool get pulled over your eyes. And MOST importantly, stop making purchases at the "Gift Shop" as you leave an art museum.

You may think you have answered all questions but you have not. You have cherry picked your own questions then answered just those questions, ignoring the more important and obvious choices.

Just to get yourself started:

1. How could a dweeby guy who was incapable of editing his own video footage into a comprehensible movie, able to suddenly, in the course of a few months, become a master artist, sculptor and social commentator?

2. How was he able to suddenly raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, when previously he couldn't make that much over the course of ten years?

3. If Banksy was so horrified by Mr. Brainwash's undeserved success, WHY would he then make a movie which provided the guy even more publicity.

4. Why did Mr. Brainwash's art resemble Banky's art so closely?

The answer is that this was all Bansky's art. Banksy had a grudge against the L.A. Arts community from his previous show there (as shown in the movie) and this was his way of making fun of them AND making pots of money for himself.

Who is/was Thierry Guetta really? Was he completely an actor or was he completely real, or some combination?

The answer is that it doesn't matter. Whether he was real, fake or some combination, he was the guy Banksy used to trick the L.A. Arts community into buying the artwork of some unknown person based purely on hype. The last 1/3 of this movie is the documentary of how Banksy pulled it off, exposing the fakeness of the L.A. arts community.

The final scene in the movie is "Mr. Brainwash" knocking down a carefully constructed brick wall. Read into that what you will.

[–] the-devil-boy 8 years ago

devilboy, you are part of the problem.

Clear and linear reasoning supported by facts and citations are always a problem for false assumptions. I’m okay with that, thanks.

1. How could a dweeby guy who was incapable of editing his own video footage into a comprehensible movie, able to suddenly, in the course of a few months, become a master artist, sculptor and social commentator?

Thierry Guetta aka “Mr. Brainwash” is none of those things, which is the whole point. He was just a nutty guy with a sharp business instinct who was in the right place at the right time, and cashed in big on the rising tide of street art fame. He’s a terrible, unoriginal, uninspiring “artist.” He relied entirely on the artists he hired to make his work because he has no talent. And everything he says is vapid gibberish hobbled together from fragments of things that others have said – just like his artwork. That’s why his meteoric rise is so troubling; it shows how much success in the art world has become about who you know, not what you can do or what you have to say.

2. How was he able to suddenly raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, when previously he couldn't make that much over the course of ten years?

This was explained in the film. He had a successful clothing store in L.A., and a home. He mortgaged both to fund his show.

3. If Banksy was so horrified by Mr. Brainwash's undeserved success, WHY would he then make a movie which provided the guy even more publicity.

This was also explained in the film. Banksy wanted to make a film about street art, and Guetta’s footage was all they had. Banksy suggested to Guetta that he put together his own art show, which seemed like an excuse to get him off his back while they sorted through all of that insane footage. That also gave them something to film to make this documentary about street art contemporary and relevant.

Nobody expected Guetta to turn the show into a monstrosity. But that’s what happened, and it was interesting (if also troubling), so that’s the direction the film took. This was also an excellent opportunity to hold a mirror up to the modern art scene, which no real artist could pass up.

4. Why did Mr. Brainwash's art resemble Banksy's art so closely?

This was explained in the film as well – when Guetta needed help to get his show ready, Banksy set him up with the artists who ended up doing all of the actual work. And Guetta used stencils because he’d been with Banksy and Shepard Fairey when they were making street art – he filmed it all. Of course he’d make the same kind of art – his whole shtick mimics what they do, but offers none of the substance behind it because he’s daft and derivative.

Anyway, we already know that Thierry Guetta is real. We have legal records, testimony from past employers, everything.

Your questions are not evidence. Show us one actual piece of evidence that this film was a hoax, because I’ve offered 26 pieces of evidence that it’s not.

The observer is the observed. - Jiddu Krishnamurti

[–] bsharporflat-50959 8 years ago

it shows how much success in the art world has become about who you know, not what you can do or what you have to say

When was this not true? Many hack artists in history lived like kings because they had the favor of the king. While a talented guy like Van Gogh died unconnected, unknown and penniless. Just think how many other Van Goghs there have been in history who remain undiscovered.

That’s why his meteoric rise is so troubling

Your "troubles" would be over by reversing your field of vision slightly. "Mr. Brainwash" had a "meteoric rise" because he was an already world famous artist named "Banksy" (Whom or whatever that mysterious presence might be, the talent behind it can't be denied).

.” He relied entirely on the artists he hired to make his work because he has no talent.

He relied on skilled artisans, not artists. He gave them detailed instructions on what to create, meaning "he" is the artist, not them. Who else is known for using this strategy?

Take those twisted and bent phone booths in London. Did one guy named "Banksy" really do all the skilled metallurgy and welding required for this? Of course not. "He" (whomever "he" is) got skilled artisans to do it for him.

He’s a terrible, unoriginal, uninspiring “artist.”

Taste in art is, of course, personal and subjective. You are free to feel that "Banksy" is a terrible, uninspiring artist. But millions feel otherwise, including me.

Go back and look at "Mr Brainwash"s artiwork. A can of spraypaint in the form of a Campbell soup can? I'm assuming you understand the Warholian satire involved here. The gigantic monster formed from working TV sets also makes for some potent social commentary. Likewise for all the other work in the show.

Go check out as much as you can of Banksy's previous work. It all uses the same pranksterish sense of lampooning of our culture. They even showed glimpses of Banksy's previous L.A. show in this movie. Remember the elephant which was carefully decorated to blend in with the pattern of the wall behind it? Are you familiar with the phrase "the elephant in the room"? (

The city of Los Angeles criticized Banksy for that (awesome) elephant trick, claiming it was cruelty to animals. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/sep/18/arts.artsnews

I personally have no opinion if it was "cruel" or not. But that criticism openly pissed Banksy off and he made his displeasure with L.A. known. With the Mr. Brainwash artshow and with this movie, Banksy has his revenge on L.A., exposing them as sheep who fall in line with whatever they are told to think.

This was explained in the film. He had a successful clothing store in L.A., and a home. He mortgaged both to fund his show.

If you used "facts" and "clear and linear reasoning" you would be able to how impossible this is. A bank will not loan a person hundreds of thousands of dollars on top of an already existing mortgage for the purpose of sponsoring an art show by an unknown artist. There is a federally regulated loan application governing this process and there is no way Guetta, as portrayed in the film, could have gotten through this process.

I don't know if you own a home but I do. It's worth about $300,000 and my income is significantly more than what Guetta, in the movie, was shown to make (his family was shown living close to poverty level). I have refinanced my home a few times just to get a lower interest rate. And they make you jump through several dozen hoops just to do that.

There is NO WAY I could go to the bank and get $400,000 in cash for my house and income because (rightly) the first question they would have is: "how do you intend to pay this back?" I couldn't. And neither could Theirry Guetta (as portrayed in the movie). Those are the "facts".

Who COULD afford this project? Internationally famous artis Banksy. Also a fact.

Banksy suggested to Guetta that he put together his own art show, which seemed like an excuse to get him off his back while they sorted through all of that insane footage.

That's what a disguised, dimly lit, world-famous prankster tells us IN HIS OWN FILM. First rule of film: Nothing you see in a film is real. It is all contrived images in one way or another.

Now maybe you see a National Geographic film and believe everything you see is "real" and "factual". It isn't of course, but they do have a reputation for TRYING to be as real and factual as possible. Banksy does not. Banksy is a KNOWN as a prankster and you MUST question everything you see in a Bansky film or risk missing the point.

Banksy IS fair with his audience. He always provides enough clues in his artwork that most people can (or should) understand the satire, trickery and tongue-in-cheek aspect to what he is doing. Banksy is not a "serious" artist (at least not superficialy, his deeper message resonates). Understanding the sense of humor is key to understanding Banksy.

Take the painted elephant. Is that REALLY the best, most serious way to call attention to "world poverty". It isn't. Banksy is poking fun at those who DO ridiculous, fake, insincere things supposedly to call attention to world poverty but who are really just calling attention to themselves.

With the Mr. Brainwash show and this movie, Bansky is making fun of people who take ART oh so seriously. People who get ANGRY because some people WITHOUT TALENT are actually making money in the artworld. As though these people are really in a position to decide for everyone else who has talent and who does not.

The "fact" is that this movie is making fun of people like that. People who consider themselves serious experts on what real art is. Because if there is one thing Banksy is NOT is "serious about art".

[–] thedevilboy (3) 6 years ago

Your view that Banksy *is* Mr. Brainwash...rather than Thierry Guetta (who is the real Mr. Brainwash - as depicted in this documentary)...is totally unsupported by any facts whatsoever.

You're advancing a baseless conspiracy theory.

The truth is that Banksy didn't need to create a hoaxed documentary, because reality proved to be even more warped than any hoaxed version could ever be - and sadly, more revealing of the true artistic bankruptcy of the modern art world. So he simply told the real story, just as it unfolded, because the entire modern art word proved to be the best possible and ruefully tragic commentary on itself. All Banksy had to do was to tell how it all went down with style, which is exactly what he did here.