Watching this film today makes for an interesting dialogue… I suppose there are times where being “fake” can be considered more dangerous than others. For example, the accusation of being fake news is far more egregious than being accused of forging a painting but that depends on who you’re speaking to!
Orson Welles is absolutely an interesting person. I couldn’t help but notice that he looked as though he was reading from a script like the actors of Saturday Night Live are at some points in the film which made for some very bizarre on-screen interactions…
Elmyr de Hory is undoubtedly someone with incredible talent that has spent most of his life artistically pretending to be someone who he’s not but absolved himself through this documentary…I guess it goes without saying that someone who ruthlessly “copies” someone elses work is not to be regarded as an “artist” but if someone is capable of such deceptive copywrite, can you really be disregarded if the quality is to par?
A little bit into the film I’m not so sure how genuine a “fake” artist Elmyr knows he is. What does he do this for? Market and demand? It’s pretty interesting, he burns the painting he just made to clearly make a point. What is the difference between Hory and the natural subject — who is the real artist here?? Is it the forger or is it the original artist?! Does it only matter if you find out what you’re looking at is a fake?
Orson Welles, a seemingly self absorbed person, is intrigued by someone equally as ego-centric, and that makes for a very interesting perspective in the film. I enjoyed watching this movie even though at times the pretentiousness of the subjects were a little gross.