F for Fake – AFRICA, Miko

Seeing F for Fake for the first time, it really, excuse me for the profanity, fucked up my mind. Sorry for the F word but it was the most accurate word to describe what the movie did to my poor unsuspecting mind.

First, the train station scene really, really confused me. At first, I was like, so he’s a magician, then wait, he’s an actor? I thought they were filming a scene for this movie. I would love to believe that I quite got Welles “magic” bit. I would love to believe that what the movie tries to point out or what it would like to believe to show us is that magic, though entertaining, though so believable, though it also F’s up our mind in so many ways possible, still there is an explanation to it or to how it works. There is always a certain truth behind every trick.

It took me quite a while to get what the movie was about. It was all a blur to me. Especially the introduction of Oja Kodar, her head-turning-walk-on-the-street scene. It only made me more confused. And to add to my confusion, clips of Irving and de Hory were presented. I was like who the F are these people. But with much patience, without prior knowledge to everything that the movie presents but though as it seems, the movie presumes that the viewers are knowledgeable of the things that they present, I kind of put together some stuff–at the back of my mind. I figured that de Hory and Irving were at war/dispute with each other. I am not entirely sure about this, but with what I can remember, Irving was de Hory’s biographer meaning he knows an awful lot about de Hory and his “works”. By works, we all know what I mean. His very controversial “art forgery” skills. To be perfectly honest, I kind of found this movie somewhat like of a Showbiz Central or like a Gossip Show for me. Gossips, rumors, and up to date news about de Hory and Irving dispute. I think this is especially significant because in a way it kind of places art in line with show business. And we all know that there is a, I might call it, discrimination against arts (painting, sculpting, etc) compared to show business (movies, television shows, etc) There is greater attention given to the latter. I think it’s like basketball in the Philippines, or to a smaller scale, basketball in terms of funding in Universities compared to other sports. But, I am digressing from my point, what I want to say is that this  issue posted/presented/revealed by Irving put the art scene, as I might say, on the headlines.

Being committed to the movie, I further find out that de Hory was some kind of a fugitive or a runaway or is hiding from the cops. And his hideout; a beautiful island called Ibiza. de Hory was a frustrated artist, I believe. He had a lot of trouble selling his own works, thus he resulted to copying masterpieces. In the film he was also bragging that when he was in America, he when he had no money for food, he’d paint a Modigliani, (I’m not really sure), nonetheless, he would paint a famous painting and sell it off as an original. But in clips shown in the movie, he was sampling the people who were taking videos of him, some of his “forging prowess” but right after, he burns them. I don’t get why he burns them.

Another thing I found very notable was the editing of clips. The film was very successful in making it seem as if Irving and de Hory were chatting, having awkward silences, glaring at each other, etc. Even Welles was part of this so called conversation. The cuts of clips making all three seem to complete each other’s sentences.

All in all, it was a very interesting movie. To be honest, when I heard that it was an essay film, I thought it would be dreading to watch because I was expecting a very boring movie. But what really hooked me in was my confusion. My misunderstanding of everything, my ignorance kept me watching. And I think, it’s a good strategy for a movie to confuse or to challenge the viewers. 🙂

Inglourious Basterds – AFRICA, Miko

I have seen Inglourious Basterds about two or three times before having seen it in class. And I must say, given the intro given to the course and what I should look out for, I found some “unusual” or rather new things that I didn’t see before; a couple of stuff regarding the actors, some parts or the whole story line, and some bits and pieces of scenes.

One particular thing that I noticed was at the beginning of Chapter 2, where Lt. Aldo Raine was giving his speech/introduction to his new recruits into his group; Inglourious Basterds. That particular scene reminded me of Tyler Durden in Fight Club, in which he also played, where they were in the basement of a bar and him giving the rules of Fight Club. There are a lot of similarities from both characters that were played by the same actor. Maybe because both characters have the same peg or they are alike as persons. And I think Brad Pitt used the same strategy he used for Tyler when he played Lt. Raine. Tyler was a leader, he persuaded people with his smooth and very convincing, very straightforward personality. Likewise, Lt. Raine has the same aura, personality and characteristic as a person. I think the only difference is Brad Pitt’s role as Lt. Raine is more aged, more mature and much more calm and collected than of Tyler Durden. Plus Lt. Raine is a ranked officer during the World War compared to Tyler where he is just a streetwise, silver-tongued guy.

Another odd experience for me was when I saw the movie in class, I was shocked to see Mike Myers name in the start of the film. I couldn’t remember before that he was in the movie. Then when I saw him, he did not look like as I expected him to look like. Actually I didn’t notice him until I looked really closely. When I saw him, what I saw was a hairy-faced Austin Powers. It was kind of stuck to me that he will forever be Austin Powers. In the movie, I kind of saw this signature Austin Power smile he always does, but in a less obvious way. I don’t know if it became second nature to him to smile like that but I think that’s what gave him away for me. It’s what I saw that made me confirm to myself that it is Mike Myers. On a completely different not, Christoph Waltz was superb in his role in the movie. Though this is the first movie of him that I have seen.

On a different note, in terms of storyline/plot it was as if I was actually watching two different films within a film. I had this feeling that I was watching a Nazi hunter group kill off their prey and on the other hand a “chick flick” with a twist mixed with WWII action. It literally was like watching two different movies meeting plotlines halfway. It was two movies heading to the middle and merging to go to one ending. Speaking of the ending, the “massacre” in the cinema, one particular scene that caught my attention was when Dominic Deccoco and Antonio Margheritti busted in the balcony seats and started rifling everyone in the room, in which reminded me of Al Pacino’s famous “say hello to my little friend” scene in Scarface. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_z4IuxAqpE)

To sum things up, overall I think the plot, the actors and the overall production was superb and worth watching.