MovieChat Forums > Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) Discussion > I CANT BELIEVE YOU GUYS DON'T GET IT

I CANT BELIEVE YOU GUYS DON'T GET IT


The movie is a satire. It is a critique of the contemporary art world. The over-commercializtion and exploitation of street art. why do you think its called exit through the gift shop? that should tell it all right there.

It is not a documentary.

They set everyone up with the stupid Mr. Brainwash Show in LA and convinced a bunch of sheep that the BS 'art' they made was brilliant. all those people, thousands of them were there because they bought into the hype machine and turned a joke into a success.

I am not quite sure if the art really sold for as much as he said. It could have, or maybe its an exaggeration, but it doesnt really matter.

what matters is that all those people didnt look at the crap on the walls and say 'this is not art, this sucks', they bought into the hype and loved it. Why? cuz they go with the flow, they dont develop their own opinions, but rather follow popular opinion.

The experiment proves that if you take a bunch of garbage, throw it on the wall in a huge 'gallery' and have big artists say its the real deal, people will show up and love it cuz they are idiots.

the movie just chronicles this. who knows if guetta is a real character or not. it doesnt matter. he was in on it weather thats his real name or not. The whole thing is a farce. I can't believe no one gets it. I mean by the end of the movie its almost as if they are not even trying to keep up the guise of the documentary going. it gets so out of whack that it should be obvious that its all a joke.

Guetta supposedly started filming in like 2007. he wasnt documenting the birth of street art. he was documenting the death of street art. this has been going on for years. and no i dont mean grafitti. i mean street art, stencils, print outs wheat pasted up. all of that filming happened over the last few years after all of those artists were well established. that footage wasnt home movie footage. it was shot for the purpose of the mockumentary, to make it seem like this guy was a filmmaker documenting street art (i didnt see any old school footage of old school grafitti. how can you tell the story of the birth of street art without telling the story of grafitti. just shows that wasnt the point of the movie). all of the footage was shot to etablish the creation of a fictitious character. this is what creates the whole story. this is the foundation for this supposed documentary. if guetta is the filmaker then why is the camera on him the whole time, even before banksy flipped it on him. who is the guy really behind the camera? ever think of that? the whole storyline about guetta's youth and how he filmed everything in life etc- its all made up.

you think if you show a bunch of video cassettes scattered around a room in boxes that that means its all full of actual footage, years of footage? of course it isnt. it helps to create this ridiculous character and this ridiculous fake movie that he was making (or not making as he shot and shot and didnt edit)so that Banksy could takeover the project. It was all a plan from the beginning.

sorry, maybe life remote control was weird and insane, but it was supposed to seem like that. again, to create a reason for banksy to take over. a guy who has never edited video in his life can not make that movie. it was strange but the editing was no amateur *beep* that was professionally made to look kinda crappy. why? to give a reason for banksy to take over. Why? so he could 'turn the cameras on guetta', who was supposedly a far more interesting story.

he wasnt an interesting figure that needed to be filmed. it became an interesting story after they started filming him , once he became a star. So why did they start filming him in the first place? why would banksy take so much interest in this guy? cuz he didnt give him up to the uber dangerous Disney Land security??? No it was because the clever, unpredictable ending was planned form the beginning. he was a cartoon character. the whole point from the beginning was the build up to the big art show where everyone gets duped. guetta is a symbol of all thats wrong with art. the way he acts on the day of the show, not giving a damn where any paintings go, just telling people build me this build me that. and thats's his art? this is a criticism of an art world in which many artists dont even create their own work. they conceive the piece and have assistants actually make it. yeah, artists dont even paint their own paintings these days (obviously not in all cases but this is prevalent in art culture).

i thought it was obvious, but now the moviegoing crowd is getting duped too. all of these people think its a breathtaking view of the birth of a genius street art form and the birth of a great artist which no one could have predicted. yeah, because hes not an artist. (unless he really is banksy, which i doubt. the french accent is too good. unless banksy really is a french englishman. ha. yeah right)

this is banksy's prank on the world. this is his original piece of art. everyone kept copying his style and it became all commercialized and all the money got involved, so banksy flipped the script on the whole thing. its a joke on fake artists, unoriginal copycats, bogus art critics, the hype machine, fickle 'art' fans who cant make their own opinion, and now the movie-going public that doesnt get it. i thought he made it pretty dam obvious, but not obvious enough.

reply

looks like u figured it all out..

reply

[deleted]

So can you please take a moment to share your take on the movie? I am curious.

reply

[deleted]

To: the-devil-boy,

I heart you.

From: astrix

reply

[deleted]

Most art is subjective anyway. There are always going to be gullible people in the world, that is nothing new. Idiots pay millions to buy a piece of Jackson Pollock art. All he does is drip paint on a canvas. My dog can paint better than him. Your assumption that claims without supporting evidence are religion is nonsense. Christianity is based on a plethora of facts. Do some homework before you start criticizing creationism something you obviously know nothing about.

reply

[deleted]

Great comment, just one thing:

"A lot of Frenchmen are, actually. It doesn’t mean they’re fictional, it just means that a lot of humans are freaks. "

Thats just silly and you can really just switch out Frenchmen with Americans, italians, south americans etc...

reply

[deleted]

Thank you for taking the time to write all this. I must admit at first I had fallen for Csenoner's theory as something we may agree is that Banksy would have been the ultimate genius if he had really made all this up.

However, as you brilliantly explain, there is a big difference between just a (conspiracy) theory and a "scientific theory".

reply

Devil Boy - Great job. Thanks for taking the time to type that up.

I agree entirely with you. And I think the film is masterful because it's true. It would impress me less as a set up.

I think Banksy has made brilliant social and artistic commentary in this film, and he willingly threw himself under the bus to do it. I mean, he effectively mocks LA for getting duped by Theirry...but then he got pretty duped by Thierry, too, didn't he?

And if Theirry is just a simpleton, a mimick, and a poser - well, then the film tells us that if you are a poser, but do it hard enough, well then it may come true. Perception is reality - certainly with art and personal relations. And if we all clap our hands, Tink will come back to life.

reply

[deleted]

Troll.

reply

childish twit

reply

[deleted]

Ignore list. Is that so you can stay ignorant? Scared of something, huh. I think this guy is right.

reply

Yes, and good on him, no? Is he supposed to be as ignorant as almost everyone else here?

reply

Haha. Nice. I'd be very interested in someone actually giving me a definitive definition of what exactly is to be considered art and what is not...he tried, but...epic fail

Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit?
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

reply

[deleted]

He started filming street artists in '99. Did you even watch the movie? It may very well be a hoax, but you have a lot of the details wrong.

there is a very loud amusement park right in front of my present lodgings

reply

[deleted]

the details arent wrong. they SAY he started filming artists in '99. that doesnt make it true.

so, they show a montage of a few graffitti writers at work and we are to believe that it happened in '99? why?

thats part of the set up. to create a fictitious character that is in love with street art and has been filming it for years. there is no way to know if this is even true, ever think about that? you take him at his word, but if his word is designed to mislead you, then you get sucked in and fooled.

just because there is a shot of him in a room full of video cassettes doesnt mean there is any footage on them. at least try opening yourself up to the idea, im not the only one saying this. if you were to watch the movie with this in mind it would make all the sense in the world.


reply

and if you are saying that i got so many details wrong, please inform me of my errors. maybe thers a type here or there, but i think in essence i understood what the movie was all about.

and at least address some of the points if you are going to say its nonsense.

do you think an amateur who had never edited film would be able to make 'life remote control'? if you do, then you have never edited footage. its tough to do and that footage shown to us was obviously the work of a pro trying to look like they were making some hard core inaccessible boundrey-pushing chaotic art film.

have at that to start. then have at the fact that there is no info about who this guy guetta really is, no proof that he even exists.

look at his wikipedia page. no birthdate, no info except what is shown in this movie. i think if he were a real person and there was a documentary made about him, and he became a huge sensation, for real, then we would at least maybe know his birthday or where in france he comes from or have a lil backstory. but we have nothing except what is said in the movie. why? because he only exists in the movie?


reply

[deleted]

and to say that it is 'easy to edit film' means nothing. the fact that you've done it means nothing.

its like saying that playing the guitar is easy because youve done it. anyone can edit film, anyone can play guitar. but not anyone can do it WELL. It is not easy to do it WELL. if it was easy, then everyone would be a professional editor.

all of that editing may not have been tasteful or for the masses or enjoyable, but it was done by someone who knows how to edit film. not a newbee.

and to say that the movies you edited surpassed the quality of LRC means nothing. that is your totally biased opinion. your first edit probably sucked as everyone;s first edit sucks. ust like the first time anyone picks up a guitar they suck. you are so proud that you dont realize it.

and here comes another logical fallacy: you think that because I cited the lack of available information about a supposed artist is information that supports my theory, that that means i 'believe everything on wikipedia'. wrong again. that was quite a conclusion you jumped to there. i did not say' if hes not on wikipedia then he doesnt exist' . that is support to the argument that I have constructed. alone it means nothing. when looked at in conjunction with all of the evidence it is a worthy supporting point.

and to say that I think that no photos of jesus means jesus never existed is ridiculous. after all there were no polaroids back then. ha. good job losing credibility by attempting to attribute that logic to me when you made it up yourself. If I wanted to tell you I believed that, I would have.

and sorry bud, i dont believe in big foot and have never discussed the validity of using a photgraph prove existence. more crap you made up. interesting to see how your mind works. I dont mean to insult you, but I am begining to believe that you are a child. is that the case? I dont mean to insult you if you aren't a child but you are making rather childish points.

reply

No, but the fact that there are literally dozens of stories that are nearly identical to that of Jesus dating back to at least the Egyptian god Seth (virgin birth, performed miracles, died to pay for man's sins) as well as massive historical anachronisms within the Gospels, to say nothing about the parts of ancient Judaism that those books just get dead wrong would seem to imply that Jesus didn't exist.

Oh, and magic doesn't exist. So, that doesn't help the "Jesus was real" angle.

I'm just messing with you. But seriously; dude's an invisible friend.


Also, the original poster is pretty right on with his interpretation, methinks. The whole point of the movie is shown in the early scene where Banksy puts one of his pieces up in MoMA (iirc).

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

reply

"No, but the fact that there are literally dozens of stories that are nearly identical to that of Jesus dating back to at least the Egyptian god Seth (virgin birth, performed miracles, died to pay for man's sins)"

I'm not a Christian and I know this is irrelevant to the discussion, but whenever people repeat this I've got to call them out on it. As far as I know the identical-to-Jesus origin story myth was invented by the "documentary" Zeitgeist (talk about fake documentaries). If you look up Seth or any other stories that are supposedly "identical" to Jesus's in any published, credible book that points to real sources for its information, you'll find that the stories are far from identical. Saying there are any similarities at all is a stretch.

reply

whoopseee!!!! Double post!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH~~~~~!!!!!

reply

Obviously the guy who started this thread is totally in on it. While I agree that the movie facetiously created a documentary perspective to springboard its point, I never saw your brilliant analysis coming. God you're awesome.

Think About It. Think about how awesome you are. I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE DON'T GET HOW AWESOME YOU ARE!

Dude you totally figured it all out. How dumb everyone else is! You are hereby awarded permission to create useless threads in all-caps. Have fun.

PS: You're probably stupid.

reply

SO, what are you saying!? He is just telling it like it is, as many people don't get that it is a grand hoax. And the movie can not and is not facetious. That is you. It is a brilliant, funny, too true, joke.

reply

I have to say it is NOT hard to edit video, now editing film possibly if you're actually talking about cutting the film with a razor blade, splicing it, using an old school film editing machine, etc..

Other than that, it's mostly about setting narrative tone, timing (either for drama or comedic value, etc..).. the editing done in "Life Remote Control" requires absolutely no skill, get a copy of Premiere Pro or Final Cut, throw some random video clips in there, start slicing and there you go. I could literally train a 5 year old to do it, and yes I've edited tons of video & "films", both on my own projects and professionally on paid assignments.

..or maybe not, lol - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PSVP9LuRhU

reply

I got your back with this loser. See how upset he is that he was fooled - now he wants to make someone else pay for his ignorance, and live in denial, of course.

reply

I agree with you that I didn't think this guy would be able to edit the video. But when I saw that part he wasn't editing it by himself. There was somebody else at the computer doing the editing and he was only telling him how he wanted it. This guy got a lot of help from many more experienced people through out this movie. So you may be completely right about the movie but I don't think the editing of the "Remote Control" video proves anything.

reply

lol you're dumb...
and Jim Norton is funny for 3 year old retards who watch Redeye.

reply

So, I'm gonna go down this list, and see how ignorant and fock ing arrogant in their ignorance you all are. Good on this guy, he is correct. Think about it fool, you lame fock er, it is obviously a hoax - maybe the most brilliant one ever, but still, a HOAX. They are all in it together, Guetta probably is Banksy, at least they are best mates . . . so, why is the guy dumb?

reply

Man, you are SO outta line. Because YOU were duped, you wanna be AGGRESSIVE, to defend your ignorance! Who are you, Bush III!?

reply

He says right in the film that he had help editing the footage.

The fact is, you don't remember basic details from the film.

there is a very loud amusement park right in front of my present lodgings

reply

[deleted]

So, I'm gonna go down this list, and see how ignorant and fock ing arrogant in their ignorance you all are. Good on this guy, he is correct. So, what's your point?

reply

I came to exactly the same conclusion after watching the film last night!

Banksy has already shown his ability to control the media after getting them all to talk about the "elephant in the room", a brilliant piece that showed the ability to camouflage something obvious that is right in front of you. The veil of documentary is the perfect tool to camouflage this film, you can't help but associate documentaries with reality, even though they are far from it.

I find it hard to believe that "A Banksy Film," the next piece of art that he has put his name on, is simply a nice little documentary with a hell of a lot of coincidences. This is the guy who brought Disneyland to a halt by putting a Guantanamo prisoner blow up doll by one of their rides. He doesn't do half measures, he goes for the big stunts.

This, in my opinion, is his greatest work of art yet. He uses hype to reveal exactly how easily the media can be manipulated. He shows how street art has become subverted into the "next big trend" and how people are willing to spend so much on something that, as soon as you take it out of it's street setting, looses all context and becomes another meaningless picture hanging on a wall.

Banksy is a genius at making us all look like idiots!

reply

heh. I thought this was implied. People really think this is reality? The whole movie is designed to show that these artists are jokes.

reply

"do you think an amateur who had never edited film would be able to make 'life remote control'? if you do, then you have never edited footage. its tough to"

He paid someone to help him edit some of his tape into crap. There is nothing unlogical about this.

"have at that to start. then have at the fact that there is no info about who this guy guetta really is, no proof that he even exists. "

Yes there is. Have you even tried to look him up? Evidence is everywhere. Don't be such a lazy fool.

"i think if he were a real person and there was a documentary made about him, and he became a huge sensation, for real, then we would at least maybe know his birthday or where in france he comes from or have a lil backstory. but we have nothing except what is said in the movie. why? because he only exists in the movie? "


....Did you even read the comments made to you earlier in this thread? It looks too me like you are only trying to save face. "I can't belive you guys don't get it"....I can't belive how lazy and dumb you are, here is a little help on the way:


"Guetta was born in 1966 in Garges-lès-Gonesse, a seedy suburb a half-hour drive north of Paris, the youngest of five children of Tunisian Jews who had moved to France to escape persecution.

His mother died when he was a child, and when Guetta was 15, his father moved the family to Los Angeles. Public records show his Social Security number was registered in the early 1980s. For months, they stayed in a cheap hotel on Fairfax Avenue — today's boutique Farmer's Daughter Hotel — before settling in a nearby apartment. His father soon returned to France and passed away, leaving Guetta and his siblings to fend for themselves.


He attended Fairfax High for about a year, despite speaking no English. After dropping out, he said he started organizing nightclub parties in Hollywood that became popular with the celebrity set.

"I was trying to be an adult right away," he recalled.

He also got a job at a vintage clothing store in Venice, starting out on a ladder to keep an eye out for shoplifters. But he showed up early and stayed late, was promoted to manager and eventually bought out the owner, he said.

Between 1985 and the late 1990s, records show Guetta launched a series of businesses with names such as Vintage Supermarket and Rugsaver: The Vintage Shop, his store on La Brea. Guetta said he imported cheap used clothes from France and repackaged them as designer vintage, occasionally selling them as templates to high-end designers like Ralph Lauren."

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

So, I'm gonna go down this list, and see how ignorant and *beep* arrogant in their ignorance you all are. Good on this guy, he is correct. Think about it fool, you lame *beep* it is obviously a hoax - maybe the most brilliant one ever, but still, HOAX.

reply

So, I'm gonna go down this list, and see how ignorant and fock ing arrogant in their ignorance you all are. Good on this guy, he is correct. Think about it fool, you lame fock er, it is obviously a hoax - maybe the most brilliant one ever, but still, HOAX.

reply

you were p nk ed
idiot

reply

Sigh.

I keep hearing your argument that this documentary is fake and can only be a satire. Why? Well, it seems people have a difficult believing that the art world functions like this in reality. I can't prove Guetta is real but if it's a farce it has been going on for some years and Guetta has certainly played the part well. I live in L.A. near many of the spots Guetta put up his work. I live down street from his exhibition shown in the movie. It was all real and not a random series of events over the span of a few months. This activity transpired for years around this area. I've been increasingly (although slightly) stepping into the street art scene and have a friend who even discussed Guetta's *beep* film a while back ago with other street artists. An actual trailer was made for "Live Remote Control", way before the movie.

Listen, don't mistake the film's intimate details of a troubling art world as "satirical" commentary. It's REAL commentary. Portions of the art world do work like this today. In fact, what Guetta has done in the movie is nothing new. Warhol helped legitimize that kind of practice and many other artist's today still hire expert people to build and develop their work. The way Guetta conducted himself is really nothing unique or unusual for a guy with too much money.

If it's satire I would argue there's no way to prove it as the entire story can equally be true.

There's nothing absurd about the prices Guetta was able to charge for his work -- considering the hype. There's nothing uncommon about that in the art world. There's was a REAL trailer released for his crappy film possibly years ago. And the only people duped were the people who paid those outrageous prices for his work.

reply

Oh man. More miscommunication.

I am not saying that because its a mockumentary, its bad. I am not judging the quality of the film in saying that. I think if anything it makes the film more successful

I'm not sayin that it is "fake" as you put it. Its a real movie, I saw it in a movie theater.

and you think you've been 'stepping into the street art scene"???????? this film is made to make fun of people like you. its not about the SCENE buddy. and you going to galleries for sarcastic shows and lauding the artist is not stepping into the scene and it does nothing to give you credibility so dont bring it up. and your friend who discussed guetta's film with other street artsits is another BS claim that has no merit. everyone has a friend who knows something. your friend supposedly having a convo about a fake film means nothing.

banksy hates fakers like you who think you are in the scene and he is making fun of you to your face and you eat it up. its hilarious.
you said:

"It was all real and not a random series of events over the span of a few months"

I never said it was fake. if it was fake it wouldnt have been as effective. the fact that those people drooling over his work is what makes this so funny. if it was paid actors it would mean nothing. he is criticizing the real world.

I also never said it was a random series of events. no, it is actually a directed campaign that was well thought out. thats why it worked so well in tricking you.

You said:
"Listen, don't mistake the film's intimate details of a troubling art world as "satirical" commentary. It's REAL commentary. "

Iam not sayin that satire has any less validity than any other criticism.

YES SATIRICAL COMMENTARY IS REAL COMMENTARY. You seem to believe that if a work is satirical it is not to be taken seriously and it's 'comments' are not to be taken seriously. satire is a great form of criticism. you just don't seem to be able to see it when its right in front of your face.

I know the art world works like this. thats why i get it. i know the exact phenomenon he is criticizing. it is real. I know that this is nothing new. if this wass not something that existed in the artworld it would not be much of a criticism. he is criticising something that is real. i know the way guetta acted was not unique and that many artist act in such a way. thats whats so great about the movie. he is making fun of the art world. artists who are copy cats, dont make their own work , and who dont put much thought into their work. and the losers who love their crap. if that didnt exist then what would the film be criticizing??? nothing. then it wouldnt be much of a statement. the fact that this goes on in the real world is what makes the criticism apporpriate.

and now you are forgetting the details. you said this is the way people with too much money act. well at this point in the movie he had not yet sold a painting and had mortgaged his future on the show. so he was at this point not someone with too much money, but rather someone with no money. wrong again.

yes i know that all of this ridiculous stuff is not uncommon. thats what banksy is criticizing. if it didnt exist, there would be no reason to make the movie.

man, you really are sticking to your guns and have not even thought of this possibility. you're a real critical thinker

reply

Wow.
With your constant attack on others, it seems you're trying to convince yourself that you actually get 'it' - 'it' being life.
The film is merely a construct for your childish proclamation that you know 'it' better than the entire world..
You are the all-knowing, all perfect, know it all, street wise, mister awesome and everyone else are fools if they don't see that you really do get 'it', maaaan... - and how special you are, in your singular awesomeness...
We bow down to you, o he who sees all, o he who fathoms all...

reply

Say if he is wrong or not. *beep* u. If you think he is like a child, why are YOU the one throwing sand!

reply

You have it 100%. These people are idiots claiming their "in the art scene" that's why the film includes all the comments from the idiots at MBW's show.

reply

So far, we are 3? I always avoided clubs, but here online, there is an abyss of ignorant, nasty people, sometimes leaves me feeling too lonely - at least I could count the hundreds of them at high school, - here, no way. There have been some who even seem to agree, but then have to throw some nonsensical criticism, I don't know why?
But Nicholas . . . who knows, those art fans could have been in on it ??? Great, great hoax, huh.

reply

csenoner gets it. The rest of you who don't are BRAINWASH'ed.

reply

It's worse, they are ready to fight and kill, in denial, defending their ignorance, even though they now realise that the Weapons of MD was hoax :)

actually :(

reply

2 thumbs up, my c man. There are just 2 many a holes in the world, and many, many come to IMDB . . .

reply

What you say is definitely plausible, but there is still no concrete evidence that this is a mockumentary. It very well could be, but unless you provide real, indisputable proof, it will remain a mystery. The film is just as effective either way.

reply

Everything up through "Life Remote Control" was real, then it became an Andy Kaufman style joke.

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

reply

none of it was real . . . dude. When will you stop living in denial. You were fooled, you don't have to keep playing the fool.

reply

No. I'm pretty sure they didn't have the budget to Benjamin Button those guys. So, they were indeed filming for years. MBW is just one of the members of the crew. I just don't buy that they planned this doc for 10+ years. That's insane. They assembled the footage, and then worked it all into a meta-joke. But it IS still a documentary. It's just documentary real life events that the filmmakers were manipulating.

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

reply

[deleted]

I am sorry if I was rude. I guess I don't need to be sorry if I'm wrong, it's so rare for anybody to do that.
I guess there is a first for everything. I haven't been long online on IMDB getting passionate about talking, arguing, sharing or swearing about film. So, but, I let myself get twisted around in the head with this. By no means am I obsessing, at least I only spend a bit of time, and then disappear and forget for some time . . . but I was sure it had to be a hoax - I just didn't realise the world is so lame that MBW and his work would be taken seriously. That a real guy could be like that - innocence is great when it IS innocent, not when it is an "old" man who doesn't understand any line between prostitution and something a bit more ideological or political. If it is true that he puts a show together like that, he is also no innocent slave-driving, unimaginative f uk.
And IF it is true, Banksy said he stopped encouraging people to "realise the artist within" due to Guetta, that is very sad, and again, to me, that makes him a total cu nt (Guetta) . . . I've licked cocaine out of a martian shemale's glory hole (not completely literal of course), I swear at my mother because the bitch swears at me, and even though I may be guilty of many crimes; this doco was extraordinary, my confusion and disbelief, I guess it shows me that I might still have some innocence :)

reply

This is one of the most stranger IMDb posts I have ever read.

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

reply

What is so strange.
Mine, or the thread in general? Because I was too personal, open?
Maybe, again, I am COMPLETELY outta synch - that would be the fault of receiving your post to my inbox and answering without context. I won't read over these threads.
Are you unaware of the context, the thread? All's good.

I would like to be friendly online, but I also don't care about having the messiest arguments.

Please humour me. Why was it strange?

reply

I think it's just a language barrier. Are you multilingual by any chance?

,Said the Shotgun to the Head--
Saul Williams

www.myspace.com/ohhorrorofhorrors

reply

You know, it's funny - I was online since b4 the internet - when it was only email, and not called email. Yet funny I only started using google searches (for example) a few years ago, and entering any online "discussion", only this year. *Oh yeah, there's the funny syntax thing going - put it down to an inherent poetry in my way of expression. . .
So I am a newbie here, for whatever (strange) reasons. And particularly here, I would only enter and shoot off replies in a manic state, unable to sleep. So there's that.
The IMDB reply alerts go to an email that I opened to send things that I thought would attract spam - I haven't looked for quite a while - for that I am sorry I didn't reply earlier, as it's considerably gracious that you replied at all :)
Yes, I currently use a language other than English in day to day - however my control over English is of a pretty high standard, far higher than any average, granted I could use editing!
Again your reply showed insight, and a certain respect in bothering to reply at all. Thank you. Maybe now, I wish to avoid giving my all to a (very) late night, misguided passion. Is it possible I stop throwing my head away every now and again at IMDB?
Much love.

reply

If those people at the art show were real - you certainly prove to be as Lost and Arse holish as them, LA must be the city most full of dik sucking fools in the world. Hollywood's fault, not yours.
Have you ever seen Guetta and Banksy together? If they are 2 different people, they certainly plan the shows together.

reply

I believe it is a hoax, and that Banksy and others planned it for years specifically to confuse people. They created Mr. Brainwash to see if the hype machine would buy it, and it did. The movie is ABOUT all the things you are mentioning--the big money, the artists hiring assistants to create art for them, the commodification and imitation. Warhol is present in the film though the soup can/Marilyn Monroe imagery--one might say he started all of this.

reply

This post is 100% correct

Everyone can dismiss him, but its the truth.

reply

[deleted]

Trailer park boy, you're so dumb I wouldn't be surprised if you were a Banksy hoax yourself. Please remove the 420 out of your name because you are making us fellow stoners look terrible.

I saw the film earlier today and before going in, heard that whoever Thierry Guetta is might actually be Banksy, so the whole time watching basically there was a 50/50 chance running through my head whether Thierry is, in fact, a real person and his own artist. Now, I'm not trusting csenoner with my life, but everything that he's said so far brings up extremely good points and puts into question most of the mysterious happenings in the film. In fact, I think you confirmed all my suspicions and furthered my doubts more. So, good arguing.

Also, when has Banksy ever done anything that hasn't served a message in some sense? Do you really think that for his first film he would decide to just make it about a random guy, plain and simple, no real quirks or satire or anything, just about the life and the rise of a fellow artist? Think again.

reply

[deleted]

ok, finally some people talking sense.

I agree that the scene of banksy in the moma putting up his own work gives a glimpse into banksy's perspective on the art world.

take a random painting, put it up in a great gallery (hype) and the audience will buy into the hype and judge the art in this new context. weather then hype is the moma or banksy himself and fairie hyping up guetta its all the same. the art is not judged on its own merit, but rather based on some bs.

reply

you're absolutely spot on. everything banksy has ever done is pure satire, and this is a banksy film. i think banksy made it quite clear himself: "mr. brainwash is a phenomenon (think in the cultural sense) -- and i don't mean that in a good way."

now, buy your overpriced gift shop knockoff and get the *beep* out.

reply

I think there's a lot to what csenoner is saying. Most of Mr Brainwash's "art" is garbage (although I did like the monster made out of TVs) -- obvious, second-rate rip offs of work by Warhol and others. By the end, the "interviews" with Shephard Fairey and Banksy felt like scenes out of a Monty Python bit.

Mr. Brainwash has a show in NYC right now called ICONS. "I con"...

reply

[deleted]

The motif is about perceived power creating real power as Shep says, the fake money, the scene in MoMA that you point out. It's about how *beep* it all is. Banksy is a genius and it's hilarious to read all these comments from fauxhemian/hipsters claiming to be involved in the "art scene"--that's exactly what he was spoofing! That's why he included all those from the morons at the art showing. Lemmings.

reply

Banksy is a genius. Whether he had help or not (first documentary?!). Whether Thierry is a Banksy stooge or a bona fide wanna-be artist is irrelevant, the doc works either way. This doc is right up there with Grizzly Man imo, as one of the best (or at least most entertaining) documentaries ever made.

reply

but it all does get a little post modern boring at some point. I would say that this doco is a high point in the analysis, art is elitist, that is worse than dead.

reply

A WANKER? Answer it yourself, you haven't been short of bad ideas so far.

reply

MBW 4 lieF bich

reply

seidman are you an alex jones junkie?
You'd fit into that world really well.

This line speaks so totally to your level of completely non self-aware gullibility: "...and before going in, heard that whoever Thierry Guetta is might actually be Banksy..." - and then you accuse others of being "dumb"?

What childish, 'we-know-better-than-everyone-because-we're-so-cynical-yet-what-we-believe-is-true-because-we-"heard it"-and-we-believe-it-so-it's-true-therefore-you-all-should-just-understand-what-we-say-to-be-true-and-if-you-don't-then-you're-dumb' twits you and the OP are.

Maybe try to think outside of your own arrogant little self-substantiating teenage sociopathic world for a change.

reply

Listen here, Cinesimon (is that short for cinema simon? nice!) - you're wrong. You've taken a couple minutes out of your day to write a post which does nothing but insult me...INACCURATELY. Your lack of accuracy is especially humiliating given the fact that I've explained myself and my stance on this movie in full, all within just this one simple topic, yet you argue the opposite. Have you read my words? It doesn't seem like it, because if you had you'd know I defended all the reasons which I believe point out this movie as being a hoax. Never once during my arguing did I tell anybody that they were dumb or wrong simply because they didn't agree with me, the only exception were the words I had for Trailer Park Boy, who had it coming since he is a troll who initiated the disrespectful name-calling game.

In concern to your belief that I am "gullible," I'd like for you to also point out where I said that every single one of my theories on this movie stem from what I heard out of the mouths of other people. Cinema simon, I have eyes, ears and a brain, and I've seen many movies, and I consider movies a big part of my life, and most of the time I find other people to be flat-out wrong about things, so when I saw Exit Through the Gift Shop, I decided to do what I always do - come to my OWN conclusion. This is regardless of the fact I heard it might be a hoax before I had gone in to see the movie. But I'm familiar with Banksy and I know the kind of work that he does. Even if I never heard the word "hoax" mentioned once, I would STILL have doubts that the movie is what it appears to be on the surface, because I know Banksy is behind it and he doesn't strike me as the type of artist who only has simple things to say; he is a complicated artist. It was exactly when I left the theatre when I was at the height of my confusion? I simply sat down and I thunk it out, and I thunk it to be fake, and then I came here and read the logical opinions of some posters, and I agreed because they made points, points that made sense to me.

And it all goes from there.

I have to admit, returning to this message board a full 3 months after I had originally posted in it, and I come here and see your post toward me, I'm a bit creeped out. Your entire post is not even about this movie, it's not about proving my arguments wrong, it's just about proving me to be a terrible human being. The substance of your post is disturbing. You call me a sociopath, but what is a better example of sociopathic behavior than your single-minded judgment of me as a person?

reply

They do not seem to have the same body size or shape, at all . . . but then again. Guetta is Banksy, and the guy in the shadows could be . . . Shephard? His Mum?

reply

you are DE MEN TED. Why aren't you over there in Iraq, hunting down Winnie the Pooh, already!?

reply

Great thread, OP. I loved the movie, and I am absolutely aghast at how many people came out of it absolutely clueless. I was the only one in the theater laughing my ass off when MBW started showing off his work, produced in the his factory-studio by poor, innocent art school grads. Check out Metacritic and you can see how many critics remained in the dark. Even the usually bright Anthony Lane completely missed the point.

I was considering your same theory that Banksy is the guy playing Guerra, but yeah - the accent.

The sad/weirdest part is that Mr. Brainwash is apparently still going strong even AFTER this thing played at Cannes... whether he is a hit or a flop in the art world, the prank is still awesome. One potential problem I have is that the victims of the movie's joke are not really the high-brow art snobs that I (perhaps incorrectly assume) are the antithesis of the street art movement - but rather the common people who are just trying see something interesting. Do you think the blonde, middle-aged art dealer woman was a fake? Because she was the closest thing to a legit part of the art world who made any comment on the MBW show. Anyway, like you said, it's aimed against bogus art critics, and it succeeds on that front.

HAIL TO THE CHIMP! http://i35.tinypic.com/1zoxa4m.gif

reply

i dont remember the critic you are talking about, but i dont think that many of the people in the movie were acting. in fact it was prolly just guetta fairie and the banksy sillhouette. even the people working for them setting up the gallery for the show and the people hired to make his art were unaware of what was going on.

and for an art dealer to comment on the show or even hype it up does not mean that she was in on it to me. i think that she probably realized that even if the art is crap that maybe she thought it was relevant and possibly expensive crap. that would make it notable for a dealer.

and i dont really think the movie was necessarily aimed at art critics per se, becaue most of them probably hated the work. to criticize you have to actually evaluate the work. i think it is more aimed at those who dont think about the art. they want the art to be cool and fun and awesome. and tey happened to be the young people who seemed realy cool. the ones who are getting into the street art scene. hipsters and wannabees etc. they are the ones who really fell for this and rightly so.

i think in a sense banksy probably wants the attention/respect/praise of the "high brow art snobs" as you put it. he wants to be legitimized. this movie helps. and people who actually are into art probably see that.

reply

I think he would have done it, more to have the most fun of his life, while making fantastic criticisms (if not obvious at times) about art/ world, media, etc. and . . . craft.

reply

Another paradoxical twist: even if the entire art world realizes that MBW is a satirical hoax crafted by Banksy... MBW's deliberately crap art will STILL be worth a fortune - possibly even more than before - once it's considered to be Banksy's work, indirectly.

Check out the comments section here - one of MBW's artist craftsmen comments on the project - no matter how real/fake the rest of this stuff is, I don't think this guy was in on the joke.

Steven Spielberg gets credit for Jaws but only someone without any common sense would assume that he created every aspect of the film. Likewise, no one should think that MBW created every part of his show himself or hired outside help in secret. As far as the sculptures and installations go, which is what I was involved in, some were designed and created from the ground up by me and/or his other team members. Some were requested by him specifically. The great majority were collaborative with us and MBW bouncing ideas back and forth. Mr. Brainwash has stated himself that we were hired to “make his ideas better” with the unique perspective and expertise we each bring to the table. No matter what the design, we always kept MBW’s playfulness and sense of humor in mind. “Life Is Beautiful” is a show that could not have happened without collaboration, cooperation, and a mutual desire to make something that people are going to want to come to see. In three months myself and a group of around 5 other artists, MBW included, were able to turn a desolate, dusty studio into a vibrant, happening place. I think I can speak for everyone on his team when I say that we are as grateful to have found him as he is to have found us. He couldn’t have found a better team to help him out and we certainly wouldn’t have been able to find a better venue to display our work. As far as Craigslist goes, yes. That is how I, at least, got my position. Keep in mind that as an artist who is brand new to LA (I moved here barely three months ago) I can’t say that I am terribly bothered by the fact that I got here just in time to immediately start working on what would be the biggest show in Los Angeles AND get one of my sculptures in the LA Weekly (which mentioned that there was a “team” involved). For the record, we were videotaped and interviewed at all times as we built our sculptures for a documentary being shot by someone not associated with the project. Also, MBW is currently planning a book about the show which he told us will include names and photos of everyone who helped bring it to life as well as descriptions of what each person did. When I update my web site I will include photos from my work at the show in my portfolio and you can already see some at http://www.derekwalborn.blogspot.com. My advice is to come to the show and not take it too seriously. Put away your cynical, presumptuous, pretentious notions about what you think art should say. The show is fun, easy to look at, and not meant to reveal any gut-wrenching truths about society. Are you pissed off because you can’t find the poignant social implications of Elvis Presley holding a toy gun? Relax. There aren’t any. Have fun, enjoy some complimentary organic beverages and if you are really that annoyed that MBW hasn’t given you the kind of imagery that you are so desperately looking for then use that energy to go create something that you can relate to. Create an artistic response instead of a negative, uncreative one. In closing, MBW does indeed have a team of hired artists. Anyone who comes to the show can find us hanging out wearing staff passes and you are welcome to approach us with any questions as to who did what and how it was done. We are more than willing to discuss the show and we are proud of our achievement. Thanks. Oh, and by the way, it’s a huge SPIDER I built on the ceiling, not an octopus. Maybe we’ll do that next time and thank Juan for the idea.
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-06-12/art-books/mr-brainwash-bombs-l-a/

reply

[deleted]

If, by "conspiracy theorist," you mean "people who understand films the way the filmmaker intended, because the filmmaker himself in question is definitely not a moron and is an inventive artist who is always bringing something fresh to the table, with his first film being no exception as it simply offers audiences an interesting way of looking at an issue that is very important to him, in an attempt at helping us better understand what the issue is, so that we now see his point of view on the matter, with the hope of putting an end to the type of morons who believe an artist such as Mr. Brainwash is real," then yes, you are very outnumbered. I'm sorry.

reply

[deleted]

Can I study you?

reply

"The movie is a satire. It is a critique of the contemporary art world. The over-commercializtion and exploitation of street art. why do you think its called exit through the gift shop? that should tell it all right there. "

Oh I know. I totally got that. It'd be strange to see people walk away with any other view.

---------------
Do the internet a favor and proof read your posts.

reply

[deleted]

You're utterly retarded if you can't explain to me how Mr. Brainwash came up with the insane amount of funding that would be necessary to exhibit a gallery of his art work, while also hosting a gigantic party for its opening.

reply

[deleted]

A team doesn't come for free. Did you see the amount of people he hired to work for him? There was more he had to pay for than just an empty building, more than just his employees even. I have no idea how much it costs to fund an art show, you're right (I also have no idea how much it would cost to clean-up the oil spill in the Gulf, but anybody who knows of that situation could make an easy guess saying it's not cheap). But, this may have been a plot hole in the film, there was a part where Thierry's wife worried he was spending too much time filming regardless of supporting his family. I don't see why she'd be worrying of such a thing if his funds from owning a business were vast enough to cover the costs of his show. Besides, I lived in LA for 10 months from 08-09. Trust me, his store was not unique. There are so many independent clothing stores on "the main strip" that are just like his, charging an arm and a leg for crap clothing, even the vintage shops that sell garments on the cheap have special sections where t-shirts are falsely branded, or tweaked the tiniest bit, and are sold for dozens of dollars more than their actual worth. Add onto this the fact that there are many, many more popular streets in LA than this "main strip" you're talking about, and that's a lot of competition.

You explaining to me why this guy is such a good businessman is only reminding me of how perfect a character he is. The film ends with him being an accomplished artist whose values are completely contradictory to the street art culture, mostly because of the seemingly endless pieces of art he was producing at the flick of a wrist, charging thousands for each. A good businessman makes a lot of money and he knows how to do it. How did Thierry do it? He started off as a businessman, how perfect.

Now, why would Banksy devote his film -- the film branded with his name on it as the filmmaker -- to somebody who would go ahead and do exactly the opposite of what Banksy believes in? Better yet, why would Thierry allow Banksy the right to use all of the footage he taped, if Banksy was only going to end up using the footage in a film that ultimately proves Thierry to be a poser?

I guess that will be my last question.

reply

[deleted]

Anybody who says, "I bid you all a fondue," cannot be, will not be, and has never once in the past been, considered a person who is not stupid. Now that I've been to this message board, I realize why I never wanted to associate myself with it before. Confirmed by the observation of anti-intellectual people who are incapable of carrying on a discussion with somebody without name-calling them every synonym of IDIOT the moment they realize they aren't as smart as the person they're talking to; meaning, the whole time I argue with this person, I wonder in the back of my head, What really is the point of this? I'm talking to a monkey.

reply

[deleted]

HA.
for a while there, i was like, 'this kid's a fu*k nugget'. but that was good.

The Man in Black fled across the desert and the Gunslinger followed.

reply

Its funny that at first I made this post and a bunch of people were making fun of me. now it seems that more people have seen the movie and understand whats going on here. now this 420 trailerpark guy is just being stubborn and trying to fight everyone without even taking a second to think about it and really determine the likihood of both theories based on the evidence and arguments.

at this point i cant tell if you are a troll or what, but the whole defense of thierry as a great business man was kind of strange considering all you have to go on is a soundbite you saw in the mockumentary.


reply

[deleted]

I haven't read through this whole thing because it seems to be quite circular and it is doing my head in but I just wanted to respond to a certain type of argument an example of it is this from 'seidman-jonathon':

"Now, why would Banksy devote his film -- the film branded with his name on it as the filmmaker -- to somebody who would go ahead and do exactly the opposite of what Banksy believes in?"

Lets just, for arguments sake, say that that is what this film does. I can't argue why Banksy has done that. But the fact remains if he has made the film with or without fabrication that is what he HAS done! Even if all the theories that this is fake are true, it at least has to be admitted that Banksy has presented the film in a way which he wants people to believe its true. Why would Thierry let Banksy use footage that proves he is a poser? He obviously doesn't think he is a poser. Its clear he thinks he is the *beep*

The reason I don't think its a hoax is I feel the film would make the same point either way so the whole fabrication thing seems pointless. Yes Banksy will have duped the world but it it will have been a hollow, cheap trick with no greater meaning because we would get the idea that art is all about status without the trick. I personally don't really believe that's Banksy's style. When he does *beep* he tells people what he's done. If it is a fake though I laud Mr. Brainwash for committing to something that means he will have to act out a character for the rest of his life and to Banksy who will now have commit to create another whole inferior body of work along with doing his own stuff for as long as MBW is active. Which he still is.

------------------------------------------
What you just read was probably a bit of a rant. Sorry

reply

"If it is a fake though I laud Mr. Brainwash for committing to something that means he will have to act out a character for the rest of his life and to Banksy who will now have commit to create another whole inferior body of work along with doing his own stuff for as long as MBW is active. Which he still is.
"

At some point it will all come out that Banksy made up the Mr. Brainwash character that Guetta is portraying. I don't know how long they will keep this up but I imagine that now that the DVD is out we won't see much more of Mr. Brainwash (perhaps Guetta will go back to making movies, LOL).

reply

lol That he sold junk clothing and put designer prices on them should tell you all you need to know about the intent and authenticity of the movie. Brilliant I'd say, all around.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"a business where he said he took a used shirt with bad stitching out a of a bag of used clothes worth $50, take that shirt say its designer, sell for $400"

This is laughable and shows just how easy it is to BRAINWASH people. Everybody hears how crazy LA people can be so it was easy to throw out this story and convince them that it's true. I live here and even though people do waste much on crap they aren't going to buy some old shirt for $400. That whole scene was just a setup so you would buy into a guy having the finances to be able to travel around the world with artists.

reply

One of the most appealing aspects of this movie to me was that I wasn't (and still am not after three viewings) sure where the line between reality and fiction lay. There's a joke being played on the public, but I'm not sure what the joke is precisely. Regardless of all that, it's my favorite movie I've seen this year for it's a true work of art.

-Who do you think you're trying to fool?-

reply

Okay children, go to your rooms until you can speak to each other nicely ... ah, that's better. A little bit of peace and quiet.

Thanks, Bruiserx, for bringing a little decorum to the discussion. I saw the film last night with my partner and 12 year old so; we all absolutely loved it. We're all keen street art fans (and sometime collectors), and we too discussed at length its brilliant tearing down of art's superficiality and massive consumerism, subjects close to Banksy's beautifully subversive heart. One of the biggest thrills was seeing Banksy and other street artists in action (how good are his stencils??) and hearing him speak. He's a funny bastard . You just need to check out his book to know that.

But is the film an elaborate hoax? Personally I don't think so. If it is, Banksy's an absolute genius, is incredibly patient and able to shoot incredibly authentic looking footage over a number of years with an actor (Thierry) who must go down as the most believable character actor ever. That's not to say the film doesn't blur every line possible between truth and fiction, in the process challenging the viewer to question, question, question. That's not necessarily a mockumentary, just a brilliant film.

reply

well said, bruiserx & reezy.

reply

[deleted]

this guy is still talking as the consensus has come in.

sorry bud, never used the word mysterious, not sure where you got that one. Its easy to label an argument paper thin when you can misquote and take ideas of context.


at this point its pretty obvious that you are no more than a troll, so do your trolling elswehere. the funny thing is you have never even addressed any of the arguments.

you made numerous logical fallacies when jumping to every conclusion you have set forth. I would list them but I dont have a week to tear down all of your BS.

leave it at this. you can believe its real if you want, others will realize the genius of the movie in a different light, and every guy like you who doesnt get it will continue to make the film even more successful in its deception.

not once have you thought about the possibility of the film being a hoax. at this point you are too proud to be self critical and therefore you cling to your statements even after most have come out and explained it to you.

reply

I know that this film is a carefully constructed film and not a documentary because I'm from LA and just like many things and places in the movie, I know that Tierry's vintage shop was shot at in Santa Monica vintage shop that my ex's gay friend worked at.

And for the past two years, I've seen his art, particularly the silk screen prints of his face and I would think to myself how much this guy is a poseur.

reply

[deleted]

Thanks for putting this post up, Csenoner, I completely agree. I just saw the movie and found it an amazing experience and it has made me a bigger Banksy fan than ever before. What you're saying makes a LOT of sense... and I was duped too! I knew a lot of it was wacky but I think I was hypnotised by the real street art in the movie and I left a lot of things unquestioned until I read your post. Now a lot of stuff that I accepted when watching the film now seems so ridiculous, I can't believe I was so easily fooled. Why would a film about Banksy become a film about a ridiculous try-hard copycat artist? Thank you so much for making me think more deeply about what i have just seen. What an amazing, intelligent movie. :)

.....
"No time for the old in-out,love-I'm just here to check the metre" A Clockwork Orange

reply

I couldn't have said it better. 100% agreed!

reply