(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesonline.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00678%2Fse_banksy_385x185_678405a.jpg&hash=5a52cba589a40d71e8ac85204db9e392739aaafe)
Synopsis: Sundance has shown films by unknown artists but never an anonymous one. Banksy turns the tables on the only man who has ever filmed him, creating a remarkable documentary that is part personal journey and part an exposé of the art world with its mind-altering mix of hot air and hype. In the end, Exit Through the Gift Shop is an amazing ride, a cautionary modern fairy tale . . . with bolt cutters.
Buzz: Chud 9/10 Review (http://chud.com/articles/articles/22324/1/SUNDANCE-REVIEW-EXIT-THROUGH-THE-GIFT-SHOP/Page1.html)
Teaser: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTlm6dU2xHk
Fuck yes,
i've been waiting for this...
I regret not seeing the Banksy show when I was in Bristol. It was raining and there was an incredibly long line of people standing in the rain. I probably would have gotten sick if I stood in the rain for 2 hours, but now I regret not doing it.
This is the (burp) regret that you make.
amazing title.
and matt havn't u heard of umbrellas and a coat?
and mod great new template for upcoming films, EVERYONE LEARN FROM HIS TEMPLATE.
loved it! who else saw it?
I did, loved it too!
This is probably the favorite of the year (so far, but it'll be hard to top). It's informative without being condescending, incredibly entertaining and hilarious.
If you have the opportunity to see this, I would highly advise not missing it. It's such a poignant example of what the value of art and expression is, but not in a degrading "art is hardly worth anything" way. It examines the worth of art and how it should be available to everyone and also how those with money who are slaves to hype machines will look at art as bragging rights in ownership, not necessarily having any real relationship to the art itself.
Any other street artists here other than 03? (He was a street artist, right?) I can hardly claim to be one myself, but I frequently go on tagging runs with my graffiti artist friends who are much more proficient. I've yet to decide on a name, so for now I just do small cartoonish designs.
at once a definitive street art doc, an essay on art vs. the art world, and meta-film con job (or was it all real?!) pulled off with uncanny finesse. hilarious and addictive -- i found myself wishing it would never end i was having so much fun. would make a great double feature with kiarostami's close-up.
as for where it lies in the scheme of my favorite films of the year, i'd have to give the edge to a prophet, though it benefits from having held up extremely well through multiple viewings. vincere is also a great film.
a somewhat spoiler. i guess.
it was especially amusing to me that thierry resembled a frenchy hipster incarnation of kubrick.
Quote from: samsong on May 07, 2010, 01:57:55 PM
vincere is also a great film.
Yes! I was really surprised by the lack of thread for this. I just assumed I couldn't find it and didn't want to make a new thread to say I liked it just to get redirected. A bit much of the stock footage, but at times it really made the scene. Powerful performances all around, though.
Quote from: // w ø l r å s on May 07, 2010, 02:12:34 PM
Quote from: samsong on May 07, 2010, 01:57:55 PM
vincere is also a great film.
Yes! I was really surprised by the lack of thread for this. I just assumed I couldn't find it and didn't want to make a new thread to say I liked it just to get redirected. A bit much of the stock footage, but at times it really made the scene. Powerful performances all around, though.
well now that you know there's no thread for it maybe you can make one so we can know what the hell you're talking about.
This isn't even my favorite artdoc of the year (Art of the Steal) but I agree with everyone who says it's entertaining (in the beginning). The contributors were too self-aware and the story was too superficial for my tastes, for me to love it. I felt a little sick at exactly the moment when the CBS studio was rented out, from there until the end of the movie, because from there on it's thematically repetitive anyway. I yawned some.
Quote from: Captain of Industry on May 16, 2010, 04:58:06 PM
I felt a little sick at exactly the moment when the CBS studio was rented out, from there until the end of the movie, because from there on it's thematically repetitive anyway. I yawned some.
This half of the film raises some questions that are only explicity brought up at the end and not really explored. Like Banksy mentioned at the end, Thierry's art ended up looking like everybody else's. And people ate it up. Is it that easy? Make stuff that's an amalgam of Warhol and a bunch of street artists and open a gallery? That would have made an interesting doc on its own if it had explored these themes. As it is, the subjects (both the street artists and Thierry and his tendency towards obsession) are fascinating, and the film is entertaining, but its missing something that would have pushed it into greatness.
But the film mostly attempts to chronicle Mr. Brainwash's rise to fame. I think the questions it provokes are more solid than the answers it would suggest. Even in the end, the interviewed people still can't make heads or tails of MBW's acclaim. He just had a knack for the game and he played it. In a sense, he exposed the stupidity and arbitrary power doled out to artists based more on hype than any sort of merit.
Which works incredibly with street art and how you essentially are paid nothing for it, and to do graffiti is illegal (or as Banksy says "a legal gray area"). These are true artists paying for supplies that don't pay back for themselves and ultimately putting themselves in jeopardy to produce some art and put it up for people to see for only a couple days.
Is art only what people have thoroughly critiqued and learned to appreciate through hive mind mentality or is it something that can simply be appreciated for what it is on a person by person basis?
Saw this tonight at the local art house. Epic trolljob.
Quote from: Ravi on May 31, 2010, 07:40:40 PM
And people ate it up. Is it that easy? Make stuff that's an amalgam of Warhol and a bunch of street artists and open a gallery? That would have made an interesting doc on its own if it had explored these themes. As it is, the subjects (both the street artists and Thierry and his tendency towards obsession) are fascinating, and the film is entertaining, but its missing something that would have pushed it into greatness.
I work at a coffee shop, and there is art on the walls curated by a local gallery. Recently, a guy took hundreds of paint-by-numbers portraits of Jesus and other kitschy stuff (sad clowns, happy clowns, women with big hair, scene views of lakes) and wrote in bubbly childish scrawl things like "Christ loves a crackhead" or "Gob is goob" or "Nothing harder than a preacher's dick" or "Got wood?" and other really, really, really meaningless stupid shit. The overall scope was pretty massive, interesting to look at, but even as a whole, the show was fucking atrocious and a real cheap, lazy display of childishness and a lack of intelligent analysis of religious images.
And people fucking ate it up. All the suburbanites who come down on the weekends laughed and loved it. Even local people thought it was real controversial and 'edgy'. He sold a few, thankfully not too many.
But yes, after seeing this movie tonight and fucking loving it, I was reminded of this shitty artwork and I 100% believe MBW could have built that hype and sold those pieces on his own. Maybe he had a little funding from Banksy, more than just a push. But it seems very much like MBW's motivations were still his own and his awful vision was still fully his. His art seems like a big 'fuck you' to Banksy and folks without meaning to be necessarily, so I guess this movie is their 'fuck you' back to him.
I definitely think Banksy is MBW and the work of BW is Banksy's fuck you to the art establishment.
Werd. It's an epic trolljob. It's awesome.
Quote from: cinemanarkissed on July 18, 2010, 09:47:08 PM
I definitely think Banksy is MBW and the work of BW is Banksy's fuck you to the art establishment.
Yeah, I've come to agree with this since last night after seeing it. There are only red flags going up if you try to think that MBW is really acting on his own. And then when Madonna has her Greatest Hits cover done by MBW, it really just seems like further evidence that it's Banksy doing intentionally shitty work and is essentially 'tagging' anyone with bad enough taste to buy it.
MBW is clearly a businessman. Look at how successful his vintage clothing store was. Don't you think he's getting some of the revenue from the film? It's primarily his footage.
THIS MOVIE WAS HILARIOUS. i laughed out loud more times than with four lions (i film i admired more than i enjoyed) ,it's too funny. it's funny for the people who's supposed to get it. fuck it. this movie is in the vein of pubrick's recent epiphany concerning other people's intelligence. it's a morality tale, and a good example of how vilified and pointless even the word art is.
Let me ask you guys (and girl(s)?) this. If this was all put on by Banksy, do you believe the whole camera fetish thing with MBW, and how he's been recording all this random shit for years???
Where are you getting this info that says it's all a big "fuck you to the art world by banksy"
It's just hard for me to believe that this was all a set up by banksy, please enlighten.
The dead giveaway that it's fake is when Shepard Fairey admits to doing the plug for MBW and not even knowing why he did it. Plus, it's almost common knowledge by now in terms of word of mouth that Banksy is not one man but a team of taggers who all identify as one name, which is their way of achieving an underground brand.
I do not have information readily available to prove it because that's how slippery the whole enigmatic identity game is played.
If this is a hoax. It is actually the most brilliant maneuver pulled on Art and the idea of art since its birth in my opinion. The layers of brilliance behind this scheme is unreal. Seriously.
I thought he plugged him because he walked in on shepard at like a kinko's or something and was all like, "hey can i film you?" and then that happened?
Saying that your example is proof or a dead giveaway is like saying loose change is a dead give away to showing that 9/11 is an inside job.
I'm not doubting that it wasn't a banksy creation or whatever, but i'd just like some better evidence.
Finally, your whole statement about banksy being several people isn't really relevant to this discussion. Thanks though, you've done your homework.
Quote from: Neil on November 30, 2010, 10:59:13 AM
Let me ask you guys (and girl(s)?) this. If this was all put on by Banksy, do you believe the whole camera fetish thing with MBW, and how he's been recording all this random shit for years???
Essentially you are choosing to believe the story that's presented in the film. Besides certain news items that can be verified there's not much in the film that could not be invented or manipulated. Right?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zug.com%2Fdaily%2Fjournal%2Fgraphics%2F042310_banksy_08.jpg&hash=11779e1f7aeffd130d59578a2a692ca96e8583fc)
WARNING! SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't seen the movie Exit Through the Gift Shop before reading this article, we encourage you to watch the movie first (you won't regret it), then read our opinion -- and share your own thoughts below!
Much of the controversy surrounding the street art documentary Exit Through the Gift Shop surrounds whether the movie is real, or a prank. At ZUG, pranks and hoaxes are our business; after careful analysis, here's our best guess.
IS THE MOVIE A PRANK? Yes and no. We think it starts out as a legitimate documentary, with Guetta intending to create a film about street artists. But it eventually becomes clear that he is a very bad filmmaker, and that is where the story begins to diverge from reality.
IS GUETTA FOR REAL, THEN? Yes and no. The beginning of the film is likely accurate, until he meets Fairey, who determines that Guetta means well, but will never be able to produce a finished documentary. Fairey enlists Banksy to help turn it into an actual documentary. The second half of the film, starting from when Guetta meets Banksy, is loosely scripted with the help of Fairey and Banksy. In other words: a prank.
It's unlikely that Banksy would give Guetta freedom to film his face, then let him keep the tapes. Much of Banksy's power comes from the fact that no one knows who he is -- why would he let a bumbling filmmaker jeopardize that?
There's also the matter of the film quality. The first half of the film is a jerky mess that's painful to watch, while the second half is smooth and professional, suggesting that the first half is truly amateur, while the second part was directed by Fairey.
IS GUETTA AN ARTIST? Yes and no. It's incredibly unlikely that he could produce the enormous art show at the end of the movie, even with help -- too much time, money, and talent would be required. It's more likely to be Banksy, Fairey, and perhaps other artists producing this work with Mister Brain Wash as a frontman.
The giveaway is the quality of his work, which is both good and bad -- that is, technically excellent but conceptually cliched. The art is derivative of both the pop art and the street art movement -- a typical installation is an eight-foot spray can with a Campbell's Tomato Soup label, referencing both graffiti artists and Andy Warhol. Even Banksy quips at the end, "His art looks quite a lot like everyone else's."
At the same time, Mister Brain Wash successfully fronts the art show, which probably does make him an artist -- perhaps a con artist!
SO IF GUETTA IS SINCERE IN THE FIRST PART, AND ACTING IN THE SECOND PART, IS HE JUST A REALLY GOOD ACTOR? That part, admittedly, is a bit of a mystery.
BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN? Like all good art, there are a number of interpretations. During the film, Banksy refers to his painted elephant piece as a statement "that we ignore things right in front of us -- the elephant in the room." We think the thing right in front of us is the title of the freaking movie, which is never mentioned once in the film.
"Exit Through the Gift Shop" is, of course, the way that art museums try to route visitors to generate additional revenue. It highlights the place where art and commerce meet, much as we see Mister Brain Wash cashing in on his newfound fame at the end. But perhaps the entire film is an attempt to build a personality that can be cashed in -- Banksy recently commented that MBW's works are selling for more than his own (although that too may be a statement intended to drive up the value of MBW's work).
There's also the matter of Mister Brain Wash's name. He even tells us that art is about brainwashing: Banksy and Fairey admitting to us, perhaps, that they are brainwashing us into thinking that MBW is an important artist. Perception dictates reality.
We believe Exit Through the Gift Shop is ultimately a prank on the art world, reinforced by the art lovers at the end of the movie who rave about MBW's work -- and shell out money to buy his "important" work.
IS GUETTA ACTUALLY BANKSY? No. It would be awesome if that were true, but it's unlikely Banksy would put his identity on the line like that. But if we're wrong and it actually is Banksy, you have to admit that would be the greatest prank of all time
If i believed what was presented in the film i wouldn't have asked mod.
That article is a piece of shit, much like most journalism. It sounds like the response walrus gave, just in the online media print form.
answering "yes, and no" is just piece of shit journalist move.
Let us not forget MBW turned everything over to banksy and fairy. So, maybe that is how the footage got considerably better because these serious artistic figures were backing the whole thing, i don't know.
The biggest flaw in that article is that they say the same thing as everyone else. "Well, if it is fake MBW is a great actor." There was nothing added to public discourse that one of you all haven't suggested. I don't think he was acting anything other than genuine.
based on what i know about banksy he's smarter than the average bear. Which is to say that he is too smart to let someone, "pull one on him if you will." So he obviously had a hand in this production. I just didn't know if it was all put on by him (him being banksy).
My take on the art was that it was a guy who thought he was really great who had the ability to say, "yeah, i'm a pioneer who knows all about the latest movement known as Street art." Meanwhile all the popular, "true artists" just laughed at the attempt and fueled it because they know just as well as we do that if you pretend something is important for long enough the populace will think it's important (see also any name brand). Meanwhile MBW really thinks he is doing some for art. Graffitti is pop art because it serves as the exact same purpose as an ad. So, i don't find it a clue for anything with metaphoric value, just said to me that he is dumb enough to make art that really isn't doing anything. At all.
Not trying to argue. Essentially the makers of this film (whoever they may be) are winning, because here we are debating about it, which i love.
Either way
Great movie.
I'm not sure if it's just your charm or that you're just snide without realizing it, but cool it.
Look, he was already filming Shepard Fairey. Shepard didn't owe him anything. There is no reason for Shepard to plug his show, he even acknowledges it saying "This is something I wouldn't ordinarily do." Yes, you're right, that doesn't PROVE it, but it is a helpful giveaway that this is a hoax because it's a flimsy pretense to do something. There wasn't like a "I wanted to support MBW, so I gave him a plug." He did something out of his character for a reason that he didn't even state. So, this is not the crux of my argument, but a point I figured would help lead you to believe it was a hoax, since it's been repeatedly claimed to be a hoax. It was the first example that came to mind, I'm sorry I can't further shatter your disillusionment because you want to believe in an artist who was fabricated for the sake of a mockumentary.
And yeah, my statement about Banksy being several people isn't totally relevant to your naivety that could've been answered by looking anywhere online instead of asking a message board to do your homework first, but it is helpful in elucidating that Banksy as a hooded figure is not a solo artist. It is a big collaboration of artists making a point, much like the work of this mockumentary. So, was it totally relevant in terms of being a direct answer to your question? No. Was it an interesting thought I was trying to share with you? Who gives a shit, right? It didn't totally answer your question, so I guess it should be ignored.
Why are you so insistent on believing in this? Banksy made a movie through MBW, who is not necessarily a real artist, but one paid for and supported by MBW. For instance, Banksy's plug for him being "MBW is a force of nature. And I don't mean that in a good way." Let's analyze the word choice here. A force of nature and not in a good way. Something that happens, almost utterly beyond anyone's control, much like, oh I don't know, the immediate balloon of success that MBW had.
If you knew anything about art in recent memory or anyone involved in art, you'd probably be surprised to find out that no one knew who MBW was, despite the fact that he apparently had SUCH UNIMAGINABLE SUCCESS SO IMMEDIATELY. Plus, where do you really think all this money came from? Where do you think MBW really came up with the ability to do all this?
In fact, I'm starting to doubt you're even one person. I feel like you're a collective of people who just post inane phrases and offbeat questions and get upset when people don't answer your question in your own personal understanding of totality. It would be much more excusable of your pathetic, erratic personality on here. I know this is Xixax and sometimes people get shitty, but I wasn't shitty to you from the start, I attempted to answer your question and not only were you glib in your first response, but then you just negatively referenced me again, and I just don't get it. When have I ever been rude to you before? Not everything said here is a personal attack on you, buddy.
I mean, fuck.
In any case, I'm glad you liked the movie, this is probably one of my favorites of the year, too. I saw it in the theater five or six times, taking different friends each time, and I loved it each time. It's very entertaining and deftly dissects the backwards nature of the art community and its relationship to hype. Aside from its brilliant construction, I think the real strong suit of this film is its brilliant soundtrack.
The actor who plays Banksy has my favorite voice at the moment. He better do voice work.
QuoteIn any case, I'm glad you liked the movie, this is probably one of my favorites of the year, too. I saw it in the theater five or six times, taking different friends each time, and I loved it each time. It's very entertaining and deftly dissects the backwards nature of the art community and its relationship to hype. Aside from its brilliant construction, I think the real strong suit of this film is its brilliant soundtrack.
Wish you would have stopped/started there.
Gee guys, thanks for doing my homework!!!! I guess these brilliant artists have no problem being dead giveaways to the other brilliant artists.
Walrus, for some reason your post was snippy at me and it said the same things that I had mentioned. Thanks again though for doing my internet homework though.
Quote from: Stefen on December 03, 2010, 04:40:23 AM
The actor who plays Banksy has my favorite voice at the moment. He better do voice work.
YOU MEAN IT WASN'T THE BANKSY I'VE HEARD SO MUCH ABOUT?
WHERE AND HOW CAN I GET MY HANDS UP ON SOME ORIGINAL MISTER BRAIN WASH PRINTS?
jsyk this is netflix streamable.