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

posted 15 years ago by csenoner
256 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] willard86 15 years ago

Quoting from another post: "Just looking through a Los Angeles street art gallery and came upon this picture:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/true2death/226745492/in/set-553085/

Note it was posted in 2006. Also you can look him up, Thierry Guetta is a real person.

Now whether the opinions of Shepard Ferry and Banksy on Guetta are 100 percent serious are open to speculation but it's pretty clear this isn't a hoax. If it is it would be one of the most elaborate hoaxes ever put together and at that point you have to ask yourself: why?" (-wierdteaparty)

I would add, if it were a hoax, it would cost such a stupid amount of time--years--, energy, plane tickets, *money*, with very little in it for Banksy, it wouldn't be worth it to make.

Yeah, csenoner, "the movie is a critique" of the shallow hype-buying-into that a lot of people fall for, and yeah, "the movie just chronicles" how a non-artist can make a gangload of money and be considered an artist.

Critiquing and chronicling MBW's clumsy attempt at art is *not* making a satire.

No one ever claimed MBW caught the birth of street art on film. He himself said he just carried his camera everywhere and started pointing it at these street artists.

You think the movie going audience was duped because you believe the movie going audience thinks MBW is an artist! No, son, the audience got it that Guetta was simply being shown to be a nonartist (who made a crapton of cash) selling his "art". A good critique on the lowest common denominator of what art is.

Banksy didn't HAVE to hoax this. He just pointed to it, on film.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hnewstadt 14 years ago

Agree with the OP. This is what I thought coming out of the theater. Otherwise, it doesn't make much sense. Remember, Banksy even admits that he sent his own production people to LA to help set up the show. Who do you think was filming when Thierry fell and broke his foot, and where did all the video come from after Thierry came back to the US, and supposedly stopped videotaping? A brilliant piece of video art created by Banksy, Thierry, and all the others. Their feigned jealousy and remorse at the end of the film for educating then helping promote Thierry is hilarious.

Either that, or Thierry was the true genius of the film. It's either one or the other.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] billumberg 14 years ago

You've started with a long-winded exposition on an interesting idea.

Too bad it then degenerated into a crap thread rife with name-calling and pointless arguments.

I no longer care whether the documentary was "real" or not. All I know is that it was infinitely more entertaining than this thread.

[–] doughazelrigg 14 years ago

I agree with the OP. If the movie was "real" the whole fabric of the film unravels. It's satire, a joke.

However, I take issue with the OP's idiotic "you guys don't get it" as if ALL of us are too stupid to understand like he does. We get it, dude

[–] csenoner 14 years ago

Buddy, I don't think that you can actually assume that when I say you guys I am referring to the whole world except for me. In fact I was referring to the hundreds of indivduals who have been posting on here and who didnt get it. look at the responses.

I never said anyone was too stupid to understand. thats you putting words in my mouth. In fact I am not saying people are too stupid to get it... In fact I am saying the opposite. I am saying that I can not believe how few people got it. I felt that it was pretty obvious what the film was trying to accomplish. Only when i came on IMDB did i notice that I am actually of the minority opinion on here, hence my disbelief.

And yeah bud, you get it, but most of the people on here don't including many of the film critics. So don't think that my statement that you guys dont get it is unneccessary. in fact thats what these boards are for.: to promote discussion. if everyone agreed with me, then this thread wouldnt be 7 pages long.

I must say its a bit disconcerting to see all of these people say that this movie is about the birth of a beautiful street art culture and how they are now street art fans. i felt these people needed an alternative opinion that was not expressed much on these forums. so you can try and talk *beep* to me if you want, but really if your point was correct this board wouldnt exist. the fact remains most people dont GET IT at all. and sure maybe the capitals letter were over the top but i wanted to get people's attention and I think it helped accomplished that.

[–] team_gas 14 years ago

I was finally in on the hoax about 3/4 in to the movie. When Guetta starts putting up stencils of his face (when every single street artist takes such pain hiding their identity - for the most part)all over the city, I just laughed out loud. Banksy was so subtle, yet so blatant with this film. It was little moments like that that made this movie outstanding.

[–] All_Seeing_Fly 14 years ago

Why wouldn't he put up posters of himself. The whole joke was that he was, as 'Bansky' put it, "a total retard."
The film made a funny!

[–] dignan88 14 years ago

This whole thread is both hilarious and sad. I feel your pain, csenoner. This thread is playing itself out exactly the same way the Life Is Beautiful show played itself out. And all the posters on here other than csenoner and those who agree with him, are mirroring the MBW "fans" who came to that show and spoke so highly of him and his work.

I was shocked at first to see people so vehemently disagreeing with the original post, and then I remembered the people in the film who came to the art show, and realized what a sad state the large majority of the population is in with their ability to think critically and think for themselves, or lack there of.

Great post, and loved this film. I have an enormous amount of respect and admiration to Banksy after seeing this film. He's really quite brilliant, it seems.

[–] queerever 14 years ago

You are so wrong.
This post modern master piece, is brilliant for twisting people in knots.
This kind of argument is like the "nascent" of a river, maybe intelligence can be built from it. Dialectic, my friend, (calling people names is just a passionate overspill - some guy will pay hundreds of dollars to other guys to bang his wife, another will kill a guy who looked at his wife . . . only that swearing has nothing to do with killing, the point is the difference of where passion leads to, fool. So swearing, name calling are not particularly childish. Control and repression are good things maybe if you were gonna kill, otherwise they are generally, unnecessary obstacles. . . get the point?)

PS. I defend the original post. He is very smart, and has drawn fire from some true, big time wankers.

[–] StanhopeFan 14 years ago

Oh yeah? Well that's just like....your opinion, man.

[–] AngusYoung 14 years ago

ORIGINAL POSTER IS A MASSIVE DOUCHE BAG. the people that go on about how it's fake are the ones being duped.

the only reason people think it's fake is because they don't believe the art world can be like that, there is no real evidence to suggest it's fake. OP is a massive gullible hypocrite.

[–] domhancock 14 years ago

Mr Csenenor, could you please explain exactly what 'art' is?

"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. "

Who is to say that the 'crap on the walls' is not art? Are Marcel Duchamp's 'Readymade' pieces not art because the most famous one is just a urinal on it's side? Is Damion Hursts "Mother and child divided" not art 'cos its a cow cut in half? Surely one mans definition of art is different to another?

...and who exactly are you to label anyone an idiot for expressing an opinion, wether the opinion is theirs or not?

[–] tmarcus 14 years ago

Thankyou domhancock. Art is not a definite science, where 2+2=4 and where there necesarily is one right answer. This leaves room for trends, coincidence, fashion, relativism (& subjectivism as domhancock puts it in his question above). My point is that when there in art are no right answers many irational factors shape the views of what is good art and what is not. Groups or cliques agree on one truth or interpretation over another groups interpretation. This point is niether revolutionary nor a bad thing. The discussion between these advocates is in my opinion often fruitfull (as it is everynow and then on this board eg Csenenor and trailerpark boy) as long as people contribute with bright arguments and dont just repeat themselves. However people that dont make their own opinions and just follow the "God" that they find hot and hip, are what this movie in my opinion is about - a point examplified by the discussion in this thread.

Truth be told we are all going with the flow everynow and then (as I am with domhancock;)).

Also when the all so idolyzed bunksy can see how quickly people apreciate thierry, what is he then thinking of his own fanbase? Or is it really the other way around?

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maxadocious 14 years ago

I am going to see the movie again this weekend with this thread in mind! I thought it seemed like there was more going on than I realized upon the first viewing, and I am convinced that it is likely "a hoax" and that Thierry is not real.

Why would Fairey latch on to him as he did?

In terms of Banksy's work, it all seems to be conceptual in one way or another. My opinion is that creating a slew of "bad" art pieces to demonstrate the commercialization of the art world would definitely fit his MO.

After all, what's more ironic than creating a "bizarro Banksy"

I kind of hope that Guetta is Banksy; and although I doubt that's the case, I bet he's in on the joke at least!

[–] mk_doogs 14 years ago

I watched this movie not knowing anything about anybody involved, watching this movie as an outsider it strikes me that Banksy is an excellent self publicist who deliberately contrived to make a film that was misleading to both the believers and the skeptics.

Viewing it from the point of this being a satire about the crass commercialization of (street) art seems trite, as this is not exactly a revelation and has been covered numerous times before. The underdog story of Thierry seems more likely but still doesn't quite ring true. (I won't mention why as others have mentioned these points elsewhere).

It appears to me that this is an excellent double bluff, it is too convenient that events play out as they appear, for example why would Shepherd Fairy ask Thierry if he knew of any walls to paint on when he probably could show Banksy himself? However, Thierry is still putting on exhibitions. I believe there were seeds of doubt planted quite deliberately to start alarm bells ringing.

Could it be possible the joke is on the viewer? That Banksy is relying on a public persona to engage people to talk about this in a way that will prompt more to go and fork over cash to watch it and to perpetuate the myth? Could it be Banksy is the hoax?

Of course these are only theories, whatever the truth might be, I felt that the film was entertaining viewed either as a work of fiction or a documentary, but face facts - documentary film makers have been known to fabricate events for the benefit of a good story, and a good story it was.

[–] Diagoro 14 years ago

I like your post,, it conjurs up images of Banksy as some sort of post-modern Kaiser Soze!! Good stuff

[–] maxadocious 14 years ago

Okay. So I saw it again, and absorbed more;

It seems like Banksy's main points about Thierry is that he gets into making a documentary without knowing anything about filmmaking and his documentary sucks, and then he attempts to become a street artist without knowing anything about street art and his street art sucks. Instead of honing his craft, and presenting a small exhibition, he plays the hype machine at full blast and produces and sells hundreds of works in a kind of art "Wal-Mart" kind of environment.

Fairey and Banksy both give Thierry the benefit of the doubt; and they like having him watching them. Maybe this is meant to represent the consumer of art, a viewer who likes their works even if he doesn't fully understand them. At the beginning, they like that he is so excited about being a part of their "team", and as a film maker, he is recording the temporary nature of street art much like the people who see it and love it and remember it.

When he decides to throw his hat in the ring, they assume he will be like them and be thoughtful and work on making something personal and meaningful to himself. Instead, he loves the notoriety and celebrity of being a street artist, and as his first major effort he puts images of himself everywhere. I think that this is meant to characterize him as an egotist in some sense. An idea that is only reinforced by his Life Is Beautiful exhibition. Everything that Thierry makes is patently derivative; from the cliche'd Warhol knockoff style of all of his stuff, to the Banksy "barely legal" style presentation.

In the end, he is really just doing what he did with vintage clothing but with art, repackaging nothing as something and getting people to pay top dollar. In the end, there is no nuance or personality to his works; it is just an addition of fragments of other entities.

IDK if it's real or not; ultimately, the speculation made me think about it more; making me think that it likely is not "real" at least not in the strict sense of the word. It would add an extra delicious layer of irony to it.

</ramble>

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Peramoure 14 years ago

Thierry is real, but the last 30 minutes of the movie are set up for mockumentary purposes. He did get Madonna's art on her CD done, that is a fact, but Banksy is showing the hypocrisy of the art world. I bought some Banksy prints (a real artist) and people always ask me what they are because they have REAL SUBSTANTIAL VALUE AND INSIGHT. The guy in the link below always cuts me a good deal and emails me free *beep* if anyone gives a crap. Take it easy. It is the link below.

http://www.etsy.com/shop/daveyknew84

[–] Gloede_The_Saint 14 years ago

I did like a lot of the work the the exhubition tough, and I'd hardly call any of it garbage. I suppose it's a taste thing. Though it was hardly brilliant and I do agree with your overall point.

Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyle

[–] Dannunzio 14 years ago

I guess hoax is the best way to describe the film. Not just the film but the whole "scene" created around Thierry, and all the hype necessary to make him blow up like he did.

But to say it's fake isn't really accurate. It's not completely mockumentary, and it's certainly not completely documentary either. It's a hybrid really. There are "scenes" that are staged, but only in the sense that one or two people know what's really going on. Everyone else (Thierry's assistants, the art critics, the people going to his show) doesn't know what's going on. They're not acting. So filming those people is documentary in a sense. It's documenting how people are reacting to the show (the art show, and the show being put on by the "actors" (Thierry and the Space Invader artist). But is it really a show if they don't know it's a show ? Well, maybe partly I guess. It's more like an experiment, to prove a theory. I mean there are many shows going on here, shows within shows. Quite complex when you think about it. But at the same time, after the initial script/story is laid out, I would think the execution is fairly straightforward. I mean it's just acting really.

I didn't know what to expect from this film when I watched it. I had no idea. I was not clear on the filmmaker's intention. Later on in the film I got the feeling that he was making fun of Thierry, and of his fans....a bitterness there. But thinking about it afterward, it just becomes clear that there is more to it. For example, the name "Mr. Brainwash". I mean what a horrible name. Nobody would pick that name just by chance. And so obvious. Banksy just cutting them up viciously.

It really is quite brilliant. I have to watch it again to see what I missed. It is so well done, the way it all unfolds, slowly. To someone that doesn't know what to expect it is really cleverly put together.

And now, Thierry is continuing with his shows, after the filming of the movie....you talk about having the last laugh !! He and Banksy straight robbing people !! ahahahaha

[–] Starkart 14 years ago

spot on- i think you and csenoner have got it right. What strikes me, is that if you know quite a bit of Banksy's work over the years, the film blends in very nicely. It is also multilayered very much like most of his stencils are crafted and also the "satirical" content/composition is striking on many levels. Banksy is very clever and it is really a big relief to me (with all the *beep* going on in the art world) having such a cool dude kinda criticizing it and at the same time making such a hilarious movie and hitting the streets.

[–] speakerbox-850-129752 14 years ago

agreed wholeheartedly.

film is genius and his greatest prank yet.

thankyou for your intelligence.