MovieChat Forums > Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) Discussion > Thierry is a Great Business Man (Banksy ...

Thierry is a Great Business Man (Banksy doesn't exist)

posted 12 years ago by harlemblues
5 replies | jump to latest

Thierry was so obsessed to meet Banksy that having no success in that due to his elusive identity, he went on creating him. Think about it:

What proof we really have that Banksy is truly Banksy? His studio in London? Well, that might just be a stage. Who works in the movie industry (or really anyone that watches movie) knows that everything can be created and made it look real.

We see a Banksy's exhibition. Yeah, perhaps that was a real one where Thierry just happened to be around.

Banksy's identity is unknown, so how can you prove that Banksy is in the movie at all?

It is clear from the movie that Thierry might not be such an artistic talent but he is a GREAT business man. Have you, like me, kept wondering how Thierry could afford just flying around following artists and apparently doing just that? He owns a successful clothing shop. He set up an art gallery and managed to have profit for 1 million dollars. He has a great sense of business. Think about this: he knows how to make thousands dollars out of 50$ cloths. He is able to arrange an art gallery out of garbage and other people's work. Now, do you think that Thierry would give all of his footage to Banksy and allow other people to spot an opportunity for making good money by letting them use his material?

Here is another conspiracy theory for you (in which, just to be clear, I don't believe): This movie is another great product by the money-making and opportunist Thierry Guetta. Banksy has nothing to do with it and Thierry is just fooling you around. He is a smart man and knows exactly what he wants and how to manage people. You see that towards the end where with all the stress for the opening event, him not even able to walk, Thierry shows us his authority and clearly tells his collaborators (not literally quoting): "Now you listen to me. I run this thing here. I want you to do this, this and that"

The point is that you can make up whatever conspiracy theory you want, but if you don't present evidences, you are talking of "fried air" (do you have this saying in English?)

The conclusion?

This is a great documentary and whether you want to call it mockumentary, prankumentary or conspimentary, that doesn't really matter. While watching some street art pieces shown in the film, it occurred many times to me thinking:"Wow, that's very good!"

It's an enjoyable documentary and many observations made so far are overall true whether you believe this film is a hoax or not: the commercialization of art, the struggle of real artists, the idiocy of the mass that just fall for the hype, art dealers that care more about the money they can make than the art itself, etc.

[–] Uberlim 11 years ago

"cospimentary" lol, i watched this right after this new cosplay syfy tv realiy show :] or u meant "conspimentary".
anyway, this theory of yours is interesting but i'm not sure it's valid, maybe he truly does know Banksy, having a cousin involved in street art & Banksy using rats is inspired by Blek le Rat, a french artist, so there is connections.
also i don't think Banksy would have let this fly, if someone stole his artistical identity, dude painted gaza wall fgs, he has balls & an internet site.
maybe the editing of this movie makes it look fakish, but 99% of it reeks of truth (i love that smell, believe me.)

also in what language is "outta fried air" used, just outa curiosity ?:] (english uses "out of thin air" i believe, i'm french).

''As Imbecile examines finger, Wise man sees who's watching Imbecile, & Moon gets intimacy.'' H.E

[–] harlemblues 11 years ago

Yes, I meant "conspimentary". It was a mispelling.

My new "conspiracy" theory was just to provoke and prove that it is easy to make up new conspiracy theories. And that is why I was referring to "fried air", which it might not be an English expression at all, but I used it to mean "fried air" = "pointless argumentation" :)

[–] Uberlim 11 years ago

Ooh ! so yu came up with it all by urself !? i tught it may be som creole thing, or even deutsch or something.
But nah, i like it, it's cool, "fried air=pointless argument", next we b cooking sausage of the asphalt :] do u believ in global warming ;]?

or maybe it's arabic pun: "air frit" => al' irfr'it! ne pas confondre avec air frais (frsh air)

[–] bsharporflat 11 years ago

Good Lord!

Well, you are on the right track, but you have it backwards. Bansky was infamous in London long before the rise of Thierry Guetta, "Mr Brainwash" (think about what that name means).

The movie will make a lot more sense if you realize that it was Banksy who invented Thierry/Mr. Brainwash, not the other way around.

Assuming he is real (I think he is) Thierry Guetta was a talentless guy who loved filming street/graffiti artists but couldn't even edit and assemble a coherent video.

What better person for Banksy to recruit for his project of fooling the L.A. art community (whom he had hated since his last show there, with their self-righteous concern for animal rights, because he had painted an elephant). He took the biggest loser, the least talented person he had ever met and turned him into an art star and then made a movie about it.

Pure genius.

[–] drei85 10 years ago

Hey, it's entirely possible it's a movie in the same vein of that movie about lemmings jumping off cliffs.

It could be a Disney fabrication, and it's either pretentious art snobs are the lemmings, or artists themselves.

They'll do what they'll do, and here's what we think they do. It would then be a satire of documentaries as well as of art.

What if Banksy does exist, and this thing is part of a secret deal with Disney as well as an admission of a secret deal existing. Admitting it like this seems like the sort of thing a street artist would do. Because he does it while saying something like anybody can try to make a movie. In a movie where he also seems to be saying maybe not anybody can try to make art. The movie says things and then contradicts the same things a lot.

But really, Disneyland has no security cameras? They'd at least be pointed at entrances and exits, at bathrooms where people can change and/or leave things, and at the "Good spot for photographs" spots.

Disney totally would have no need for Thierry's footage to prove anything. They know exactly who Thierry came in with, and where the guy went even if he changed clothes, because they'd know which clothes exited but didn't enter a bathroom, probably.

Especially because they bought the two tickets together and then he talked to the ticket lady, in his French accent. They know he went there with another person. And they'd have footage of them. Do we believe Disney really let him go because they didn't have proof? And we're not told he's banned from Disney parks either.

And at the end of the movie, we're told Obey is being sued by AP for the Obama image. During Banksy's show, they show art pieces that use pieces of Disney trademarked characters. Banksy also uses Mickey Mouse in some of his work.

It's completely possible that he's been sued by Disney and part of the settlement is Banksy promote Disney in the documentary/film they hear he's making. In exchange, they'll let Banksy use footage of Disneyland in the movie. Also, make people think there are probably no cameras in Disneyland.

That could also be why it's titled Exit Through the Gift Shop. Sure, it's a metaphorical name for Mr. Brainwash's apparent selling out of the entire art movement, but it could also be a completely literal reference to Disney parks.