MovieChat Forums > Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010) Discussion > Why is this so hyped?

Why is this so hyped?

posted 11 years ago by Makarov-324
10 replies | jump to latest

I had heard a lot of buzz about this movie. As a lover of documentaries though, I don't see why. I was geared up to learn about this graffiti culture.

Strike 1: Annoying narration - the best documentaries use editing to tell the story rather than a cheesy sounding narration. This just feels slapped on without care.

Strike 2: The main character is an unlikable paparazzi. This becomes a problem when the movie increasingly becomes about him. Which means the documentary became less and less interesting.

Strike 3: The movie seemed shallow. I never felt like I was getting into the lives, culture, or motivation behind the art.

* I also have to note that the disneyland thing is beyond stupid. Abusing a place designed for kids for their own gain. BUT this is not a reason to dislike the documentary. I don't have to agree/like the subject if it's still interesting.

I'm very glad I just got to see it free on prime. Regardless of the hoax/not hoax thing, I didn't think it was very good on it's own right. I've seen a lot of documentaries that are more satisfying which don't get much recognition.

[–] bsharporflat 11 years ago

Regardless of the hoax/not hoax thing, I didn't think it was very good on it's own right.

You are missing the point. This was not a real documentary. You can ONLY understand this movie if you understand it for the hoax that it was.

Pay attention to the title: "Exit Through The Gift Shop". This is Banksy's way of making fun of the modern art world. The whole movie is how he fooled the L.A. art community into worshipping an unknown, untalented dweeby guy based purely on hype. The message is that the art world can be tricked into spending vast amounts of money on ANYTHING or ANYONE if the show is properly hyped and they are told they are in the presence of genius or whatever.

[–] Makarov-324 11 years ago

And my point is that hoax or not, it's not a very good movie.

Whether or not people were tricked into buying crappy art, or they actually thought it was good, or if the whole thing was fake and no one bought anyting - what difference does it make? Insight into the graffiti world is far more interesting than a comment on marketing/art sales.

Now if the event itself was a hoax and the movie went into some analysis of that, it would be interesting. But the documentary itself being part of a hoax doesn't make it any less bad. Or is the crappiness of the documentary part of the hoax?

[–] buchowski 11 years ago

I was geared up to learn about this graffiti culture.

And my point is that hoax or not, it's not a very good movie.

When you are expecting a documentary on the history of street art then of course you are going to think it is not a good movie. LMAO DUDE.

[–] tyrexden 11 years ago

I loved the doc, but then again, i love narration. In fact, i can't even THINK of a documentary that doesn't make use of at least some narration.

[–] Makarov-324 11 years ago

Many documentaries use clips of the subjects talking in place of a narration. Let the people speak for themselves. Or they just some text on the screen. This movie just uses some cheesy sounding narrator who sounds like he's from 80's doing a generic educational video. Or something that would be on a crappy TV show.

[–] tyrexden 11 years ago

This film definitely used interview sections to narrate the film... like Bansky talking the camera, then cutting away to what he's describing, and Brainwash talking to the camera, then cutting away to what he's describing.

I don't recall a generic narrator, so it must have been used mimimally... but regardless, its not necessarily a bad thing.... Remember, Bansky directed this,... he's not a film director... The most important thing is getting the story across.

I thought the story was entertaining, interesting, cool music, competent editing, and made the viewer 'think' about issues. Thats what a documentary should do.

[–] gnome-5 11 years ago

The problem with "using clips of the subjects talking" is that this doc is largely constructed out of footage shot well before the idea of the doc ever formed. So the actor providing narration is covering that limitation.

Also, Banksy explained that he had hoped it would be a traditional doc about street art (something more in line with what you wanted to see), but once he got his hands on the footage, he realized that something more interesting was going on (Thierry as rogue "artiste").

I wonder if you had certain expectations going in, and since they weren't met, you assume that the film isn't any good.

[–] big_kmc 10 years ago

Also, Banksy explained that he had hoped it would be a traditional doc about street art (something more in line with what you wanted to see), but once he got his hands on the footage, he realized that something more interesting was going on

see that's where bansky went terribly wrong.

[–] gnome-5 10 years ago

Not in my opinion. How this odd guy buys a reputation as an artist is way more interesting than a bunch of guys painting on walls in the middle of the night.

[–] plumlogan 10 years ago

For a phenomenal example of narration free documentary, check out many episodes of espn's 30 for 30 series, or another sports related series you can only find on vimeo called rain city redemption.The latter, especially, does an amazing job of telling a fully formed story with no narration.