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

[deleted]

[deleted]

I dont have time to read all of this now, and i am not sure i will.

I read a few of your retorts and I think you are the one who is being illogical. For instance, the fact that people were paid to operate camera's to shoot the film doesnt prove that the film wasn't meant as a hoax. that is irrelevant.

I never said thierry is not real. i said mr. brainwash is.

the fact that he has done art shows after the film was distributed does not invalidate my claim that the whole point of the art show in the film was to dupe people.

All it means is that they have continued with the hoax, ridden it out. the film is not the hoax. the hoax went on in real life and the film just documents it. the hoax was being orchestrated before the film was made. they set it up. they developed the story. they shot crappy documentary footage etc etc. they found the perfect 'character'.

the show has continued into real life. the fact that modonna used his art for her film cover just shows how successful the hoax was. people really fell for it. they basically proved their thesis which was people will pay huge money for *beep* and people will flock to shows full of *beep* if there is a little hype behind it.

it proves people are sheep. they dont question anything. they dont respoind to the art, the respiond they way they think they are supposed to respond based on what the hype machine tells them to do.

this movie documents a great piece of performance art.

some people just cant wrap their heads around it and dont want to admit that they were wrong. no one likes being duped, most people dont like to admit they were wrong. so you get defensive. i undertand.

al of your points have to do with the aftermath of the movie and what has been done since the movie came out. so thierry was involved in a lawsuit? what does that actually prove? it doesnt prove that he didnt work with banksy to develop this character and act out a story in the real world while documenting it.

sorry, you are just wrong.

If you notice, over the last few months, people have caught on and the majority of posters on this forum have seemed to come to the correct realization - that it was a set up.

reply

and for the record, you post the imdb link for the film and show the cast and crew. you say it is 'absurdly lazy' to not look up the cast and crew.

sorry buddy. if you look at the thread, you will see that this has been brought up, it has been discussed in this thread. it was debated. and if you werent being lazy you would have noticed that many of the film's creators have produced virtually nothing to speak of in their careers ( a few bs tv productions, no films, nothing of note). more evidence that they were hired to bring a fake sense of validity to the film by having 'real filmakers' involved to impress people like you. again. it proves nothing. because banksy is not a professional filmmaeker, he used filmakers to shoot and edit footage etc. why does that prove that this wasnt a hoax? it doesnt.

look through the thread and read posts where this was discussed before assuming i never looked at the cast and crew.

quit being lazy when you are the one who didnt do dilligence before making accusations.

and no the reason i may not read the rest of your post is not out lof laziness. it is because i dont want to waste any more time reading you bs when i have read enough to determine that you are being illogical and have proved nothing. you are just taking stabs in the dark. i dont know what you think you are accomplishing with those links. again, they prove nothing. all they prove is that more people were duped.

reply

[deleted]

If you read Devil Boy's extensive remarks, you should start to grasp that the issue of it being a hoax is, ultimately, a moot point.

You guys essential share a common vision of Banksy's critique.

The only issue is whether this tragic satire of a fallen art world is fictionally constructed (to best reveal the truth) or faithfully documented (to best reveal the truth).

And really, this is a slight and insignificant issue. The underlying revelation of social truth is the creative achievement.

reply

Nicely put, Twain. Succinct and true, and one of the surprisingly delightful aspects of this film.

But one still has to enjoy their debate. A mountain of evidence lined up in an epic battle against an equal amount of conviction! Who shall prevail!

reply

Soooo...Banksy made this incredibly elaborate, time consuming and expensive hoax just prove a point about people being sheep and following trends? Oh *beep* that is some groundbreaking insight. I'd like to think Banksy would be more in touch with the world than that. If he really did that, I can't think of a bigger waste of time, except for possibly this thread.

P.S. how do we know you're one of one Banksy's henchmen trying to flip the script on the public again? See this could go on forever :p

reply

[deleted]

thanks God someone like csenoner is here and has enough energy to try and explain people what this movie obviously is all about...

It is very obvious that this is a hoax and all those people in this thread who don't see it that way (they just don't get it), those are people banksy is making fun of...

reply

[deleted]

Banksy even gives little clues: he says Thierry is just so "unlikely", he's just not like anyone else, he's a phenomenon, not in a good way etc. His pseudonym is Mr Brainwash!

reply

[deleted]

Whether it's real or fake, isn't "the message" the same?

reply

[deleted]

You are right on the money. Its all in the name "exit through the gift shop" = satire. But you people go on believing its real, and go out and buy of $1000 piece of MBW's art work lol
I mean Mr Brain Wash? lol. umm, Mr Brain Wash? he go ya alright...
Great movie tho, really clever.

reply

Even the name Mr Brainwash should be enough, heh.....

reply