A film blog for students of my classes at Santa Clara University. Use this blog to discuss the films we are studying, classic films, current releases or production issues you encounter while making your own films.
Monday, October 26, 2015
Exit Through the Gift Shop - documentary class post
Many people brought up ethical concerns regarding how this film was made, it's authenticity and the manipulation of facts by the filmmakers. What are your concerns? Any? Why or why not?
14 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Personally I don’t see where there are any ethical concerns over the filmmaker (Bansky) of “Exit through the Gift Shop” but I do see ethical concerns over Thierry and his footage. As I read this title I could only think of how conveniently placed gift shops are at the end of any tourist attraction, museum, play ect. Though art is beautiful it is also mainstream. I asked myself, “Who decides what art is beautiful, and which artist deserves our attention ?” How in the world did Thierry get so famous over copying and morphing someone else art? (Andy Warhol, Bansky and Shepard Feiry) I feel that the filmmaker only brought to light how easy it is to manipulate a culture where people are dying to follow something and to have the next “it” piece hung up in their living room. I have never been a fan of street art, but somehow Bansky, Space Invader and more artists had a lot to say about society on the sides of buildings. It concerns me that Thierry fooled so many people with his crazy, hard core filming frenzy. He didn’t even watch any of his footage after it was shot. He learned so much from all the people he followed and help but was he really an artist on his own? Again, I don’t believe the filmmakers manipulated the authenticity because one they had great coverage: Thierry, street artist, audiences, workers from the gallery, friends and family and past footage. Secondly they are exposing multiple sides of street art that many didn’t know about and thirdly it’s important to know when we are being brain washed.
Upon first watching this film, I was immediately frustrated at the fact that there was never a discussion about the morality of defacing other people's art. Preston, our friends, and I spent hours removing empty spray paint cans from Topanga State Park one Saturday during the LA shadow trip. The artists spray their art over buildings and other structures - - are they claiming that architect's art as their own? Thierry, takes this idea further by copying the street artists and imposing his own views. The theme here seems to be that it's OK to copy and interpret art at all levels. I feel, that while morally and legally questionable, this is the truest expression of art. Anyone can create art.
I really like this film. I can see how other could be uninterested and angry with street art, however, things like graffiti allow for new movements to begin. Art is constantly transforming and artists are inspired by one another, and I think there wave of art form that we saw happen in the film wouldn't have happened if it were not for street art. Do I think that there are some ethical boundaries crossed? Yes, but I think the stores behind the artists was very interesting and I know it will interest many others. The hard part about the doc was that Thierry just filmed and had no intention of doing anything with what he filmed. It was almost like you wanted to reach through the screen to grab all of the footage and make the documentary yourself. This is one of the reasons why I liked Bansky so much. I found him hilarious and inspiring in a weird way since he was so confident in who he was and what he wanted his are to represent.
You kind of got that Thierry was a little off, but towards the end of the film he was just going crazy. I bet his art show was amazing, it was just a little over the top for me and I would agree with Bansky that he was just copying everyone else work and just spicing it up a little with his flavor. I don't really know if there is a theme here, but I liked hearing the story from the artists perspective and understanding how their viewed art.
This is my favorite documentary I have watched so far. I think it is really interesting because I feel like the viewers perspective of the film and Terry is constantly changing as the film plays on. I think the interactions between Banksy, Terry, and the other street artists were genuine until Banksy found out that Terry is a terrible filmmaker and has absolutely no idea what he is making. Terry to this point seems off and crazy but he is filming everything because of a past experience and the audience can sympathize. However, once Banksy finds out Terry does not have the filmmaking skills he made it seem like he did, I think Banksy turned it into a project and created an artist whose art literally is valueless and sold it for thousands of dollars as a critique on this street art movement for money. This is when the camera work shifted from Terry filming everything to now someone else filming Terry. It seemed much more staged and done purposefully and even the events were being planned or pushed by Banksy for Terry to do.
Let me start off by saying that this documentary is awesome; by far the best and most entertaining documentary we have seen in this class. I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was absolutely hilarious. I went into this film knowing it was made by Banksy, so I thought it was going to be a film about Banksy. I was pleasantly surprised to see it was about this guy Thierry who proved that you don't have to be smart at all to be a millionaire. I can see how many people would see some ethical issues with this film. For starters, Banksy is never shown, we just see some guy (or girl) with dark clothes on and a face hidden and a voice speaking that is very distorted. Obviously this is to protect the identity of the speaker, which is why we are meant to believe it is Banksy because he has never been seen in person and wants to keep his identity private. This obviously could be an authenticity issue because how do we know it isn't some random person speaking? Next, because we don't know if that is the real Banksy or not, we don't know how accurate any of this information is. Many of the clips show people with their identities hidden as well, so we don't know if these are the actual people being spoken of or just more random people. Banksy is never shown with Thierry, and many people believe Thierry is an alter ego of Banksy, so we can't believe anything he says or not. The fact that Thierry was able to scam all these people and become a millionaire literally overnight was hard to incredible, but believable because it has happened before. However, even with all these concerns, I didn't have a problem with the film. I think the filmmakers decided to make the film in this sort of funny, satirical fashion, which made it a very entertaining and very controversial film, which cult fans always love. Overall, I immensely enjoyed the film and the fact that it could all possibly be true or false makes it even better.
I found this film to be hugely entertaining. I was constantly surprised by the direction the narrative as it shifted and focuses from the underground street art world to Thierry's story. The only concern I had with the film was Banksy's blunt criticism of Thierry's art, yet that concern is what makes the film interesting by causing the viewer to question what art is? Banksy as the filmmaker developed Thierry as an unoriginal, mentally unstable character which immediately makes the viewer skeptical and unimpressed by Thierry's work, which may be better than the film makes it seem. The film is heavily influenced by Banksy's view of Thierry, so we may not be seeing a full picture of who Thierry is as a person. That being said, this one-sided perspective of the film is what makes this film so hilarious and entertaining. No documentary is ever an unbias reprentation of reality, but this film does not try to portray an accurate representation- it is a film about how Banksy's portrayal of Thierry calls into question what "actual" art is from both the viewpoint of the street art community and the general public.
I do not have any concerns with the making of this film because of its authenticity to the street artists. The fact that one man took the chance to follow these street artists all day and all night wherever they went to capture how they create their art and why they do it was the best part about the creation of this film. But in the end it turned around to be a film about him, Mr. Brainwash. I think this film brings up a really good point. The fact that Mr.Brainwash took ideas from other street artists and basically copied them. Most artists are influenced by others, but no one is ever the same. Mr. Brainwash used the techniques that he saw when filming the other artists and made millions on an art show that he had no idea what he was doing. This is a serious problem in this world. Misconception is huge. I was listening to the radio yesterday and somebody sold a cracker that was apparently on the Titanic for millions of dollars and it most likely was no on the Titanic. Not only that, but also on the same radio station I heard that in the New York MOMA, there was a piece of Bubble wrap that was framed and put up on the wall. People find the craziest things and turn them into art. The reason why these people are so famous is because they made a name of themselves and the public seems them as these great artists and they can make millions from anything.
Throughout the film I was incredibly curious about where the narrative would go, or who Thierry would turn into. In the first scene, Bansky basically sets the stage that the film is really about Thierry. Until second half of the film, I didn't understand why. I loved having Thierry's footage as the majority of the B-roll when the story was set up. I enjoyed seeing the variety of street artists and their risky adventures. It gave me a different perspective of how passionate many of these street artists must be-- in Bansky's case, it was never about money. Banksy's work made a statement (like the Guantanamo Bay/Disneyland fiasco). Their stories were much more interesting to me than Thierry's until we got to witness extreme changes in Thierry's character toward the end of the film. Thierry begins as a strange, innocent man with a passion for capturing footage (not making films, capturing footage). However towards the end of the film he wants a piece of the street-art lifestyle. His personality and life-focus drastically changes when he creates his own art show, in which many of his pieces are deemed "unoriginal" by Banksy. The concern that I have relates to the "manipulation of facts by the filmmakers", to make Thierry look like an overnight sensation. Then again, it was Banksy's perspective. Perhaps this is the new statement Banksy wanted to create. He used film as a new his new art medium to mock himself. Here we have an infamous street artist who has worked to create a name for himself, assisting some random french dude reach raging artistic success in his first art show. Maybe it is ridiculing the idea of (successful) art in general? One interviewee mentioned, "I don't know who the joke is on. I don't even know if there is a joke".
Many people brought up ethical concerns regarding how this film was made, it's authenticity and the manipulation of facts by the filmmakers. What are your concerns? Any? Why or why not?
This documentary has an undeniable shift in the way it is told just about half way through, as it shifts from Thierry's background and beginnings with filmmaking and "finding Banksy" and suddenly shifts once Banksy realizes that he is not the filmmaker that he thought he was. Many people have speculated that the film is actually another piece of work by Banksy, a typical Banksy actually, as the film in the end becomes a social commentary on what makes an artist and a celebrity. At the moment that Banksy realizes that Thierry has valuable footage, but not the talent to turn it into a documentary, he takes over the project and guides it in a whole new direction. From this point forward Banksy literally directs Thierry to start his own street art, and then has someone else filming the whole event going down. In this way it shifts from being a doc into a semi-planned doc, as Banksy leads it into a direction in which he wants it to go and even hypes up Thierry's event. The doc even then manipulates the telling of Thierry's character, as he shifts from a lovable oaf who love to film things into a controlling and clueless artist that has no idea what he is doing. The effect is rather comical, as the people who then buy into the idea of Mr. Brainwash being a talented street artist become the butt end of the joke, being called out for supporting someone who appears to have little idea as to what he is doing, nor the skills to actually do it himself, employing others instead. Ethically, it can seem contentious how Banksy portrays Thierry at the end of the film, but it also seems likely he would be willing to take on this image for the great popularity Banksy gave him. Whether or not this film was a documentary-turned-Banksy-prank or completely authentic will remain a mystery, but it's not difficult to speculate.
This film explored the art of graffiti and "street art". This topic itself can be an ethical concern, but overall in my opinion it was not unethical in the way it was made. The film itself was originally not intended to be a film. Thierry enjoyed watching these street artists (Banksy, Shepard Fairey, Space Invader) and was filming them because he was interested in it, but he said he had no intentions of making a film out of it and even admitted to not watching any of his footage after he shot it. Halfway through the film is when he decided that he had something unique and a story to tell and decided to turn his footage into a documentary. Once Thierry started doing street art himself, I felt like he wasn't being authentic/original. He copied many of the other street artists techniques and got all his ideas from them (mainly Shepard Fairey's style with his decal of himself holding a camera). However, in the art world, many ideas come from other artists and then an artist will put his or her own touch on it and call it something new. I don't believe this film manipulated the facts, as majority of it was actual footage of the street artists and interviews with them and Thierry. It was geared towards a lot of what Banksy said and how he felt, but in reality he was the main character.
Wow, this was an interesting film, one because I had just watched a film on Banksy coming to New York for 30 days. In that film, Banksy, was not able to be seen or caught and they used other people's videos from YouTube how he was not able to be seen. The fact that Banksy made this film about his work and this random man was very cool. I think that street art is all around us and it is hard for people not to notice it, and with how secretive it is the filming and following these artist we are able to see what they have to go through to show everyone the process of their art. But, to answer your original question, I think that film makers need to have an idea of what they are going to film and the people who are being filmed by them should know what the idea of the film should be if they want to be kept a secret like Banksy. Thierry had no prior knowledge of filmmaking or really any idea as to what he was doing...he really was just helping these street artist with their projects and having fun following them. There was no thought process into the film. After Banksy had been working with Thierry and realized that there was actual great footage of this underground art community, he had an idea of how to show the world what street art really was and how it is a beautiful thing. Thierry did produce great footage that, like Banksy said, could never be reproduced, he just didn't know how to put it all together.
I found 'Exit Through the Gift Ship' to be a very interesting and unique film. The footage that Thierry Guetta took of his early days with his cousin Invader and later Shepard Fairey is exciting and at times exhilarating, especially when the police are chasing them. I can see why people questioned their morals and ethics while filming, such as when Banksy and Thierry place the Guantanamo Bay doll in Disneyland, but I do believe that every person and filmmaker has their own moral code that they choose to abide by. To them, street art doesn't go against these morals, even if it is at times illegal. My biggest problem with this film was how Banksy kind of created 'Mr. Brainwash' out of Thierry. It didn't seem very believable to me that this comical Frenchman could turn into the "next Banksy" practically overnight. We don't even see Thierry making any art besides him spilling some paint on a canvas. He is very unprepared for his first art show, and while that is normal for a first-timer, it seemed to be heavily influenced by Banksy who sends in professionals to help Thierry out. It's hard to say if Thierry became a true artist or not, since the film was put together by Banksy himself and thus we don't get to see much more than his version of the story. Is Thierry an artist in his own right or merely another creation from Banksy? With that said, the entertainment value of the film itself isn't diminished, and the artwork is visually appealing and fun to look at. I definitely think that this documentary brought the world of street art and the artists that create it into the forefront, and although questions about its authenticity remain, 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' still stands out as a one of a kind film.
Many people brought up ethical concerns regarding how this film was made, it's authenticity and the manipulation of facts by the filmmakers. What are your concerns? Any? Why or why not?
A legitimate concern is that the film clearly shows that Thierry is not really an experienced artist and that he used Banksy as a way of legitimizing his role as a true artist. One could argue that if it weren't for those connections that led to that publicity, his art would have never made as much. However, this is more of an issue of the worth of art and not one about the how the film was made. Yes, the film involved a lot of entering and shooting of illegal activity but I don't believe it crossed any ethical lines (at least not mine). If street art is illegal, then making a documentary on an illegal activity does raise some concerns, but I think it's all relative. Some might see this film as glamorizing graffiti and others might see it as showing an art movement sprung up from the streets. Banksy does shift his focus to Thierry as he is transformed into Mr. Brainwash. One could argue that Thierry is in a sense glorified as this great artist by the film but I think Banksy wanted to show that anyone could do be an artist, so why not this crazy French "filmmaker." Thierry has definitely earned his place in the street art world just because he's covered it for so long and worked with it's major players. One concern I have is Banksy's role in making of the film. He essentially took over Thierry's footage and made his own documentary about Thierry himself. Since Banksy is taking over the role of filmmaker, he has the power over what to show. A street artist trying to make a film about street art gives us one perspective. How much of the footage and stories about Banksy himself did we not hear because he was trying to protect his identity and methods? In the end, it's an incredible documentary and yes the film is all over the place and hectic at times, I think it reflects the nature of street art and those who participate in it.
I personally don't find myself questioning the ethical nature of this film. It's hard to say what facts were manipulated and what is and is not authentic, however, I think that due to the subject matter of the film, it totally works. I find that this film questions art, questions the authenticity of art itself. We see Thierry as a "filmmaker" who is making a "documentary" about street art, we see actual street art with an acclaimed purpose, and then we see Thierry again try to mimic what he thinks is art and in doing so, he tricks thousands of onlookers because it looks like what they've seen in other street art exhibits. At the end of the movie, Banksy says something along the lines of "I don't know, maybe art itself is a joke." And I think this film really dives into that sentiment... I think the vague nature of authenticity and factual information actually enhances the point the movie is trying to make and I really like that.
14 comments:
Personally I don’t see where there are any ethical concerns over the filmmaker (Bansky) of “Exit through the Gift Shop” but I do see ethical concerns over Thierry and his footage. As I read this title I could only think of how conveniently placed gift shops are at the end of any tourist attraction, museum, play ect. Though art is beautiful it is also mainstream. I asked myself, “Who decides what art is beautiful, and which artist deserves our attention ?” How in the world did Thierry get so famous over copying and morphing someone else art? (Andy Warhol, Bansky and Shepard Feiry) I feel that the filmmaker only brought to light how easy it is to manipulate a culture where people are dying to follow something and to have the next “it” piece hung up in their living room. I have never been a fan of street art, but somehow Bansky, Space Invader and more artists had a lot to say about society on the sides of buildings.
It concerns me that Thierry fooled so many people with his crazy, hard core filming frenzy. He didn’t even watch any of his footage after it was shot. He learned so much from all the people he followed and help but was he really an artist on his own? Again, I don’t believe the filmmakers manipulated the authenticity because one they had great coverage: Thierry, street artist, audiences, workers from the gallery, friends and family and past footage. Secondly they are exposing multiple sides of street art that many didn’t know about and thirdly it’s important to know when we are being brain washed.
Upon first watching this film, I was immediately frustrated at the fact that there was never a discussion about the morality of defacing other people's art. Preston, our friends, and I spent hours removing empty spray paint cans from Topanga State Park one Saturday during the LA shadow trip. The artists spray their art over buildings and other structures - - are they claiming that architect's art as their own? Thierry, takes this idea further by copying the street artists and imposing his own views. The theme here seems to be that it's OK to copy and interpret art at all levels. I feel, that while morally and legally questionable, this is the truest expression of art. Anyone can create art.
I really like this film. I can see how other could be uninterested and angry with street art, however, things like graffiti allow for new movements to begin. Art is constantly transforming and artists are inspired by one another, and I think there wave of art form that we saw happen in the film wouldn't have happened if it were not for street art. Do I think that there are some ethical boundaries crossed? Yes, but I think the stores behind the artists was very interesting and I know it will interest many others. The hard part about the doc was that Thierry just filmed and had no intention of doing anything with what he filmed. It was almost like you wanted to reach through the screen to grab all of the footage and make the documentary yourself. This is one of the reasons why I liked Bansky so much. I found him hilarious and inspiring in a weird way since he was so confident in who he was and what he wanted his are to represent.
You kind of got that Thierry was a little off, but towards the end of the film he was just going crazy. I bet his art show was amazing, it was just a little over the top for me and I would agree with Bansky that he was just copying everyone else work and just spicing it up a little with his flavor. I don't really know if there is a theme here, but I liked hearing the story from the artists perspective and understanding how their viewed art.
This is my favorite documentary I have watched so far. I think it is really interesting because I feel like the viewers perspective of the film and Terry is constantly changing as the film plays on. I think the interactions between Banksy, Terry, and the other street artists were genuine until Banksy found out that Terry is a terrible filmmaker and has absolutely no idea what he is making. Terry to this point seems off and crazy but he is filming everything because of a past experience and the audience can sympathize. However, once Banksy finds out Terry does not have the filmmaking skills he made it seem like he did, I think Banksy turned it into a project and created an artist whose art literally is valueless and sold it for thousands of dollars as a critique on this street art movement for money. This is when the camera work shifted from Terry filming everything to now someone else filming Terry. It seemed much more staged and done purposefully and even the events were being planned or pushed by Banksy for Terry to do.
Let me start off by saying that this documentary is awesome; by far the best and most entertaining documentary we have seen in this class. I thoroughly enjoyed it and thought it was absolutely hilarious. I went into this film knowing it was made by Banksy, so I thought it was going to be a film about Banksy. I was pleasantly surprised to see it was about this guy Thierry who proved that you don't have to be smart at all to be a millionaire. I can see how many people would see some ethical issues with this film. For starters, Banksy is never shown, we just see some guy (or girl) with dark clothes on and a face hidden and a voice speaking that is very distorted. Obviously this is to protect the identity of the speaker, which is why we are meant to believe it is Banksy because he has never been seen in person and wants to keep his identity private. This obviously could be an authenticity issue because how do we know it isn't some random person speaking? Next, because we don't know if that is the real Banksy or not, we don't know how accurate any of this information is. Many of the clips show people with their identities hidden as well, so we don't know if these are the actual people being spoken of or just more random people. Banksy is never shown with Thierry, and many people believe Thierry is an alter ego of Banksy, so we can't believe anything he says or not. The fact that Thierry was able to scam all these people and become a millionaire literally overnight was hard to incredible, but believable because it has happened before. However, even with all these concerns, I didn't have a problem with the film. I think the filmmakers decided to make the film in this sort of funny, satirical fashion, which made it a very entertaining and very controversial film, which cult fans always love. Overall, I immensely enjoyed the film and the fact that it could all possibly be true or false makes it even better.
I found this film to be hugely entertaining. I was constantly surprised by the direction the narrative as it shifted and focuses from the underground street art world to Thierry's story. The only concern I had with the film was Banksy's blunt criticism of Thierry's art, yet that concern is what makes the film interesting by causing the viewer to question what art is? Banksy as the filmmaker developed Thierry as an unoriginal, mentally unstable character which immediately makes the viewer skeptical and unimpressed by Thierry's work, which may be better than the film makes it seem. The film is heavily influenced by Banksy's view of Thierry, so we may not be seeing a full picture of who Thierry is as a person. That being said, this one-sided perspective of the film is what makes this film so hilarious and entertaining. No documentary is ever an unbias reprentation of reality, but this film does not try to portray an accurate representation- it is a film about how Banksy's portrayal of Thierry calls into question what "actual" art is from both the viewpoint of the street art community and the general public.
I do not have any concerns with the making of this film because of its authenticity to the street artists. The fact that one man took the chance to follow these street artists all day and all night wherever they went to capture how they create their art and why they do it was the best part about the creation of this film. But in the end it turned around to be a film about him, Mr. Brainwash. I think this film brings up a really good point. The fact that Mr.Brainwash took ideas from other street artists and basically copied them. Most artists are influenced by others, but no one is ever the same. Mr. Brainwash used the techniques that he saw when filming the other artists and made millions on an art show that he had no idea what he was doing. This is a serious problem in this world. Misconception is huge. I was listening to the radio yesterday and somebody sold a cracker that was apparently on the Titanic for millions of dollars and it most likely was no on the Titanic. Not only that, but also on the same radio station I heard that in the New York MOMA, there was a piece of Bubble wrap that was framed and put up on the wall. People find the craziest things and turn them into art. The reason why these people are so famous is because they made a name of themselves and the public seems them as these great artists and they can make millions from anything.
Throughout the film I was incredibly curious about where the narrative would go, or who Thierry would turn into. In the first scene, Bansky basically sets the stage that the film is really about Thierry. Until second half of the film, I didn't understand why. I loved having Thierry's footage as the majority of the B-roll when the story was set up. I enjoyed seeing the variety of street artists and their risky adventures. It gave me a different perspective of how passionate many of these street artists must be-- in Bansky's case, it was never about money. Banksy's work made a statement (like the Guantanamo Bay/Disneyland fiasco). Their stories were much more interesting to me than Thierry's until we got to witness extreme changes in Thierry's character toward the end of the film. Thierry begins as a strange, innocent man with a passion for capturing footage (not making films, capturing footage). However towards the end of the film he wants a piece of the street-art lifestyle. His personality and life-focus drastically changes when he creates his own art show, in which many of his pieces are deemed "unoriginal" by Banksy. The concern that I have relates to the "manipulation of facts by the filmmakers", to make Thierry look like an overnight sensation. Then again, it was Banksy's perspective. Perhaps this is the new statement Banksy wanted to create. He used film as a new his new art medium to mock himself. Here we have an infamous street artist who has worked to create a name for himself, assisting some random french dude reach raging artistic success in his first art show. Maybe it is ridiculing the idea of (successful) art in general? One interviewee mentioned, "I don't know who the joke is on. I don't even know if there is a joke".
Many people brought up ethical concerns regarding how this film was made, it's authenticity and the manipulation of facts by the filmmakers. What are your concerns? Any? Why or why not?
This documentary has an undeniable shift in the way it is told just about half way through, as it shifts from Thierry's background and beginnings with filmmaking and "finding Banksy" and suddenly shifts once Banksy realizes that he is not the filmmaker that he thought he was. Many people have speculated that the film is actually another piece of work by Banksy, a typical Banksy actually, as the film in the end becomes a social commentary on what makes an artist and a celebrity. At the moment that Banksy realizes that Thierry has valuable footage, but not the talent to turn it into a documentary, he takes over the project and guides it in a whole new direction. From this point forward Banksy literally directs Thierry to start his own street art, and then has someone else filming the whole event going down. In this way it shifts from being a doc into a semi-planned doc, as Banksy leads it into a direction in which he wants it to go and even hypes up Thierry's event. The doc even then manipulates the telling of Thierry's character, as he shifts from a lovable oaf who love to film things into a controlling and clueless artist that has no idea what he is doing. The effect is rather comical, as the people who then buy into the idea of Mr. Brainwash being a talented street artist become the butt end of the joke, being called out for supporting someone who appears to have little idea as to what he is doing, nor the skills to actually do it himself, employing others instead. Ethically, it can seem contentious how Banksy portrays Thierry at the end of the film, but it also seems likely he would be willing to take on this image for the great popularity Banksy gave him. Whether or not this film was a documentary-turned-Banksy-prank or completely authentic will remain a mystery, but it's not difficult to speculate.
This film explored the art of graffiti and "street art". This topic itself can be an ethical concern, but overall in my opinion it was not unethical in the way it was made. The film itself was originally not intended to be a film. Thierry enjoyed watching these street artists (Banksy, Shepard Fairey, Space Invader) and was filming them because he was interested in it, but he said he had no intentions of making a film out of it and even admitted to not watching any of his footage after he shot it. Halfway through the film is when he decided that he had something unique and a story to tell and decided to turn his footage into a documentary. Once Thierry started doing street art himself, I felt like he wasn't being authentic/original. He copied many of the other street artists techniques and got all his ideas from them (mainly Shepard Fairey's style with his decal of himself holding a camera). However, in the art world, many ideas come from other artists and then an artist will put his or her own touch on it and call it something new. I don't believe this film manipulated the facts, as majority of it was actual footage of the street artists and interviews with them and Thierry. It was geared towards a lot of what Banksy said and how he felt, but in reality he was the main character.
Wow, this was an interesting film, one because I had just watched a film on Banksy coming to New York for 30 days. In that film, Banksy, was not able to be seen or caught and they used other people's videos from YouTube how he was not able to be seen. The fact that Banksy made this film about his work and this random man was very cool. I think that street art is all around us and it is hard for people not to notice it, and with how secretive it is the filming and following these artist we are able to see what they have to go through to show everyone the process of their art. But, to answer your original question, I think that film makers need to have an idea of what they are going to film and the people who are being filmed by them should know what the idea of the film should be if they want to be kept a secret like Banksy. Thierry had no prior knowledge of filmmaking or really any idea as to what he was doing...he really was just helping these street artist with their projects and having fun following them. There was no thought process into the film. After Banksy had been working with Thierry and realized that there was actual great footage of this underground art community, he had an idea of how to show the world what street art really was and how it is a beautiful thing. Thierry did produce great footage that, like Banksy said, could never be reproduced, he just didn't know how to put it all together.
I found 'Exit Through the Gift Ship' to be a very interesting and unique film. The footage that Thierry Guetta took of his early days with his cousin Invader and later Shepard Fairey is exciting and at times exhilarating, especially when the police are chasing them. I can see why people questioned their morals and ethics while filming, such as when Banksy and Thierry place the Guantanamo Bay doll in Disneyland, but I do believe that every person and filmmaker has their own moral code that they choose to abide by. To them, street art doesn't go against these morals, even if it is at times illegal. My biggest problem with this film was how Banksy kind of created 'Mr. Brainwash' out of Thierry. It didn't seem very believable to me that this comical Frenchman could turn into the "next Banksy" practically overnight. We don't even see Thierry making any art besides him spilling some paint on a canvas. He is very unprepared for his first art show, and while that is normal for a first-timer, it seemed to be heavily influenced by Banksy who sends in professionals to help Thierry out. It's hard to say if Thierry became a true artist or not, since the film was put together by Banksy himself and thus we don't get to see much more than his version of the story. Is Thierry an artist in his own right or merely another creation from Banksy? With that said, the entertainment value of the film itself isn't diminished, and the artwork is visually appealing and fun to look at. I definitely think that this documentary brought the world of street art and the artists that create it into the forefront, and although questions about its authenticity remain, 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' still stands out as a one of a kind film.
Many people brought up ethical concerns regarding how this film was made, it's authenticity and the manipulation of facts by the filmmakers. What are your concerns? Any? Why or why not?
A legitimate concern is that the film clearly shows that Thierry is not really an experienced artist and that he used Banksy as a way of legitimizing his role as a true artist. One could argue that if it weren't for those connections that led to that publicity, his art would have never made as much. However, this is more of an issue of the worth of art and not one about the how the film was made. Yes, the film involved a lot of entering and shooting of illegal activity but I don't believe it crossed any ethical lines (at least not mine). If street art is illegal, then making a documentary on an illegal activity does raise some concerns, but I think it's all relative. Some might see this film as glamorizing graffiti and others might see it as showing an art movement sprung up from the streets. Banksy does shift his focus to Thierry as he is transformed into Mr. Brainwash. One could argue that Thierry is in a sense glorified as this great artist by the film but I think Banksy wanted to show that anyone could do be an artist, so why not this crazy French "filmmaker." Thierry has definitely earned his place in the street art world just because he's covered it for so long and worked with it's major players. One concern I have is Banksy's role in making of the film. He essentially took over Thierry's footage and made his own documentary about Thierry himself. Since Banksy is taking over the role of filmmaker, he has the power over what to show. A street artist trying to make a film about street art gives us one perspective. How much of the footage and stories about Banksy himself did we not hear because he was trying to protect his identity and methods? In the end, it's an incredible documentary and yes the film is all over the place and hectic at times, I think it reflects the nature of street art and those who participate in it.
I personally don't find myself questioning the ethical nature of this film. It's hard to say what facts were manipulated and what is and is not authentic, however, I think that due to the subject matter of the film, it totally works. I find that this film questions art, questions the authenticity of art itself. We see Thierry as a "filmmaker" who is making a "documentary" about street art, we see actual street art with an acclaimed purpose, and then we see Thierry again try to mimic what he thinks is art and in doing so, he tricks thousands of onlookers because it looks like what they've seen in other street art exhibits. At the end of the movie, Banksy says something along the lines of "I don't know, maybe art itself is a joke." And I think this film really dives into that sentiment... I think the vague nature of authenticity and factual information actually enhances the point the movie is trying to make and I really like that.
Post a Comment