赝品1973

毕加索说“艺术是一种诉说真理的谎言”（1923年毕加索原话Art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand.The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.怎么理解毕加索这句话？艺术不是真理，它是帮助我们明白真理的工具，“谎言”可以理解为故事或者媒介，最关键的是为什么说艺术是用来述说真理？艺术是艺术家对未知世界的探索，然后通过大众能理解的形式的反哺，当然通过艺术也探索出很多无用的东西。和《楞严经》中，佛陀对“手指明月，指非月”的开示一个意思，六祖慧能在《六祖坛经》说“如人以手，指月示人。彼人因指，当应看月；若复观指，以为月体，此人岂唯亡失月轮，亦亡其指”（好比有人用手指着月亮，告诉人说“那是个月亮，你看见了没有？”那个人因为他手指头指着月，应该看月亮才对，他指着月亮可是那个人不看月亮，就看他手指头，以为他手指头就是月亮“这是月亮啊？月亮就是这样子的啊”这个人哪里仅仅失去月亮呢，还迷失了手指头连手指头都不认识，遗失真性了），真理好比天上的明月，艺术只是指向月亮的手指（这里的手指可以是文字、佛经、电影等等任何形式），指引我们认出明月的所在，但手指并不是明月）。相比伪造行为，电影更关注虚构中蕴含的真实程度，幻觉和真实之间的双重关系，模糊的界限，以及艺术是什么的探索。Time for a confession?这是一部关于Fraud欺骗、trick诡计、loe谎言的电影，是一部散文电影 essay film by Orson Welles，有着《南方公园》的连接逻辑（南方4贱客《南方公园》south park被禁，黄色低俗脏话，台配版很精彩），只是他没有连接场景而是连接了想法，在《赝品》F for Fake中，Orson Welles通过埃米尔.德霍瑞Elmyr de Hory的故事，对艺术的真实性提出质疑，这位“百年一遇的赝品画家”精确复制Matisse马蒂斯＆阿梅代奥·莫迪利亚尼Amedeo Modigliani＆Renoir 雷阿诺等名家画作（莫迪利亚尼1884年－1920年1月24日，意大利艺术家画家雕塑家，表现主义画派的代表艺术家，代表作是《庞毕度夫人》《围红围巾的珍妮》，特色是大胆的裸女画，家道中落的犹太人企业家，破产财产抵债，但莫迪利亚尼仍接受相当好的教育，因为他母亲出身法国加尔辛Garsin家族，精通英语法语意大利语，对哲学和文学有高深造诣，他身为长子，母亲对他的教育最花心思，在义务教育外又接受4年的古典主义教育，培养出优雅的气质，他长期生活在穷困疾病之中，他和毕加索关系匪浅，和妻子珍妮·赫布特尼Jeanne Hébuterne传奇故事，在他死后老婆带着肚子里的孩子跳楼自杀），连最伟大的鉴定家也辨别不出真伪。“你是个画家为什么要做赝品？——赝品和真品一样好而且市场也有需求，如果没有艺术市场，赝品也不复存在”对现实提出质疑。就影片形式而言Orson Welles刻意在虚构和现实、真实和谎言徘徊，模糊了之间的界限，他面对镜头说“无论是家中、在街头或者在电影院里，每个被讲述的故事几乎都是谎言，但这次不是，在接下来的1个小时里，你从我们这里听到的一切都是“真实”并且基于确凿的事实”，就像1938年奥逊以HG 威尔斯的小说《世界大战》为灵感，广播宣布外星人已经登陆地球正在袭击纽约，引起成千上万人的恐慌。电影里的第2个规则：多个故事平行叙述，John Sturges约翰.斯特奇斯引用Hitchcock said the name of making movies is “Meanwhile back at the ranch”与此同时回到牧场（希区柯克给电影制作人在情节设置上转场的建议，把故事构建为2条平行的故事情节，因为老式的黑白电影通常涉及牧场主），当一件事的高潮时再转场到另一件，假设有2个故事，首先构建其中一个，当它达到最高潮时到另一个的转场，并开始构建另一个，当第2个也达到顶峰时回归到第一个。赝品不仅有2件事，由Michel Legrand创作的音乐＆制造霍华德休斯Howard Hughes传记骗局的美国作家克利福德•艾尔文Clifford Irving关于的德霍瑞的传记＆法国导演弗朗索瓦•莱兴巴赫Francois Reichenbach关于匈牙利赝品画家艾米尔•德霍瑞在意大利伊维萨岛的BBC纪录片片段，威尔斯把胶片买来重新剪接＆奥逊威尔斯的女朋友奥嘉柯达Oja kodar和毕加索的杜撰故事＆Orson Welles的讲话片段＆如何制作这部电影的故事，威尔斯构建了6个故事来回穿插、切入并从另一头出来，把不同的部分锤炼成一个整体，讲述一个骗子＆艺术的故事，也许部分隐喻评论家的虚伪。这部电影节奏很快，像意识流一般涌向你，八十几分钟内的信息量很大，结构基调都很离奇，不跟上节奏难以消化，真正出彩的是 Welles 镜头外的剪辑室，根据评论家乔纳森·罗森鲍姆Jonathan Rosenbaum在《标准合集》文章中说威尔斯故意把影片和他典型的导演风格区分开，电影展示了电影制作的无限可能性，每一帧都显现出来，花了整整1年时间在剪辑上，他对材料的精湛处理让专业的电影人感到敬畏，对于电影专业的学生值得来看看电影运镜如何移动，如何转场到另一个。对于习惯于简单线性、定义明确的情节、注意力短的观众来说更有挑战性。这是威尔斯导演的最后一部电影，他尝试一种新型的电影制作风格——纪录片＆散文的混合体，开头威尔斯表演了一个简单的魔术，摄像机在他身边，他带着手套把孩子的钥匙变成硬币，悬空的盖着白布的即兴魔术表演，然后开始他的旁白。电影体现了威尔斯个人化的极致表现，这有好有坏，很好是因为威尔斯如此的快乐自由以至于具有感染力，如果放任自流，很容易变得很散的意识流。/威尔斯本人为霍华德休斯画了一幅速写肖像图并署名埃米尔；在 Kodar 的部分，记录男人偷看她在车流中漫步，毕加索给她画了 22 张画，大部分是裸体的，他把这些照片送给了她随后她烧掉了，她的祖父 Elmyr 埃米尔伪造的赝品被出售并展览；威尔斯在一年中的不同时间，坐在公园长椅上的镜头。电影出镜的还有威尔斯第二个摄影师Gary Graver加里.格雷夫（只有另外一个人曾打电话说想和他合作——《公民凯恩》的摄影师格雷格.托兰德）。还有好友彼得.波格丹诺维奇。/“如果你不相信我，你至少也该相信Orson Welles，为什么不呢？我是个江湖骗子Why not? I’m a charlatan”。威尔斯曾经说过，我们内心是两三个不同的人。奥逊威尔斯是假的吗？

摘录雅格洛＆orson的午餐谈话中关于《赝品》威尔斯自己的评价，《赝品》F for Fake是他最后一 部长片，拍好后拖了4年才得以在美公映，当时他没法拉到投资最终只能自掏腰包，《赝品》 拍得亦假亦真，兼具故事片、纪录片双重身份，他称之为“随笔电影”essay film，就像个大杂烩把他手头掌握的所有素材全都搁在一起，阳光普照的伊比萨岛上假画制作者艾米.德.霍 利Elmyr de Hory＆霍华德.休斯Howard Hughes冒牌传记作者克利福德.欧文Cifford Irving双双登场，以及毕加索站在屋里的现成镜头，在他身前加扇百叶窗再通过画面剪辑，看着就像画家正对着在街上招摇过市的奥雅.柯达（陪伴威尔斯最后的女友）频抛媚眼，还有威尔斯夺人眼球地披着那件标志性的魔术师黑斗篷，分享着他关于幻觉、艺术、真实性的各种思考，也不忘对评论家讽刺挖苦几句，《 赝品》是部原创性强、设计精巧的电影，威尔斯娴熟利用这一媒介表达他的个人观点，为之后比如克里斯.马克ChrisMarker的《日月无光》Sans Soleil, 1982＆班克斯Banksy的《画廊外的天赋》Exit Through the Gift Shop,2010，同样模糊真实和虚构之间界线的作品做了预告，但影片也给人留下一种聪明过头的感觉，不过由于发行商的不负责任的剪辑，大多数观众根本没机会自行做判断。/威尔斯对《赝品》的殷切希望，像拍击在礁石上的浪花，被观众的冷漠砸了个粉碎，对此他的解释是“我当时想的就是，是时候停手了，我该把精力都用在写我那20卷本的回忆录上，那样至少还能挣些钱，摆脱穷困”或者像他告诉雅格洛的原因“曾经沧海难为水” （曾经经历过很大的场面，眼界开阔见多识广，对比较平常的事物不放在眼里），不过威尔斯内心深处可能还不愿意放弃，对于好莱坞大公司，他的态度是矛盾的，他曾对雅格洛坦诚，面对曾拒绝过自己的好莱坞他想要证明一些东西，撇开虚荣心不谈，他的电影构想往往耗资不菲，尤其是在《赝品》被打入冷宫一败涂地之后，他愈发渴望能用到那些只有大公司才能提供的资源，但另一方面他也很清楚，自己的性格脾气审美观念都不适合大公司那种工厂式的电影制作方法，即便在新好莱坞电影短暂受宠的20世纪60年代末70年代初，威尔斯也只能无奈地当个体制外的独立电影人，等到70年代末80年代，片厂制度重新占据上风后，他重回好莱坞体制更是彻底无望了。/第9段录音：根本就不存在什么友好的传记作者：本段录音内容包括威尔斯哀叹了《赝品》的遭遇，雅格洛:我们回到作者在作品中展现自我的问题，《赝品》至少也有一部分也算是传记，或者说有自传性质的吗?你不是在其中自我揭示了吗?至少摆出了一副自白忏悔的样子，画假画的艾米尔.德.霍利是骗子；其次，在第2个层面上，克利福德.欧文是骗子，假造了那本霍华德.休斯传记，之后又为德.霍利写了本名为《骗子》Fake 的传记，最后拍电影的人也就是你是骗子——威尔斯:完全不是那样，那就是个骗人的自白，我并不是真的在自白，我承认自己是个骗子，这件事本身就是在骗人。，就是存心摆布人，不对我想我说的绝对是真的——这话还是在撒谎，我从不讲真话——雅格洛:也就是说在《赝品》里你并不是真的在掏心窝?——威尔斯:我什么发自肺腑的话都没说，那属于某种我不喜欢的浪漫主义，浪漫主义的个人层面。作家也好电影人也罢，我都没兴趣知道他们有什么人生苦恼，我对艺术家没兴趣，我是对他的作品有兴趣，他揭露自己越多，我对他作品的喜爱越少。普鲁斯特以极高的写作技巧吸引着我，但他写的题材并没有那么有趣，我也不知道该怎么解释了，这么说吧，我不介意看到艺术家的裸体，这我没意见，但我不想看他脱衣服的过程，别让我看他跳脱衣舞。——雅格洛:那在真实生活中我们还怎么相信你说你喜欢什么或者你不喜欢什么?——威尔斯:你不能信我说的，你一定要让我重复一遍，同一件事我不会撒两次谎。——雅格洛：想不明白为什么《赝品》没有好的反响。——威尔斯：《赝品》是自《公民凯恩》后，我拍过的唯一真正有创造性的电影，其余作品不过是在同一条道路上把电影稍稍往前推进一小步。超越《公民凯恩》 的电影一直都还没出现，我并不是说就不存在好电影伟大的电影了，但现如今的电影什么都被人拍过了，已经审美疲劳了。你确实可以拍得更好但再怎么样都只是同一套语法，每一种艺术形式——无韵诗戏剧、古希腊戏剧、 小说，所能拥有的不同可能性总共就这么点儿，它拥有的寿命就这么长。而我对电影的感觉就是除非我们把它彻底打破，否则再怎么样也只不过在累积好作品的数量而已，作为在镜头前指挥演员的导演，我很清楚再往前已经无处可去了，再怎么拍也只不过是另一部好作品而已——雅格洛:《赝品》是一种新形式，是随笔电影easy film，这是它吸引我的地方之一，你创造了一种全新的语言。——威尔斯:我原本希望《赝品》能成为一种新语言的开始，之后会有别人跟着做下去。——雅格洛:如果你能继续以这一形式拍出更多作品来，那就好了。——威尔斯:我也这么想——雅格洛:可能是影评人对克利福德.欧文的不屑毁掉了电影本身。威尔斯:他是这电影里没法让人同情的一个人，但他也有让人着迷的地方，就看他坐在那里侃侃而谈怎么才能成为骗子——雅格洛:我们没办法质疑贝多芬的哪部交响乐不够格——威尔斯:仁者见仁吧，从个人来说我愿意为巴赫＆莫扎特而死，还有巴托克＆贝多芬，还有委拉斯凯兹Velazquez。

1. because the fake is as good as the real one

2. deveil: it's pretty, but is it art

3. Picasso：I can paint palse picassos as well as anybody

4. 巴黎圣母院没有签名

5. I am not one of anything, Like you, I'm unique

本学期最爱的片。

What is the relationship between a filmmaker and his/her documentary? If compared with various food and cuisines, the documentary is like salad. The materials are raw and fresh, but it tastes distinctive with different seasoning and dressing. People chase for truth that remained in documentary films and probably that is the only reason they savor it. However, if filmmakers enter the frames and become a part of the documentary, would this undermine the credibility or would this become the icing on the cake? This essay will investigate the relationship among a filmmaker, documentary and the audience by analyzing the presence of the filmmaker in F for fake, a documentary made by Orson Welles in 1973, explaining specifically how Orson Welles used the presence of filmmaker to manipulate the narrative.

Typical observational documentaries seek for ideally representing the reality, “stressing the non-intervention of the filmmaker” (Nichols, 2010), as “audiences value the truthfulness of factual programming. The more fictionalized factual programming becomes, the less the viewers value it.”(Chapman and Allison, 2009) Observational documentary like Chronicle of a summer(1960) and High School(1968), unfolding as a realism painting, disclose a series of ordinary people’s everyday life, whereas in Man with a movie camera(1923), an experimental documentary film of Dziga Vertov, initially displays a film language of “self-exposure”(Kolchevska et al., 1986), which is a trial to the filmmaker stepping in front of the camera. Subsequently, in the reflexive documentary, the presence of filmmaker becomes to be an irreplaceable part of the documentary, and even a reflection of credibility to the audience. For example, in Louis Theroux’s documentary, his imposing figure is familiar to the audience, who are fully prepared to watch the interaction between Louis and other social actors. The presence of filmmaker appears to be an ontological issue. More specifically, the authority of determining what to be presented in a frame belongs to the filmmaker instead of the audience. Besides, it is not an arbitrary decision whether to be presented in a film, when dose the filmmaker present, or how dose the filmmaker present. Ironically the audience is accustomed with this spectacles and believe all of these truly and firmly.

Unlike other directors who regard the audience as God, Orson Wells regarded himself as the rule-maker and indulged in manipulating the audience, like a magician gains a sense of accomplishment. He was a typical narcissist and at any moment when appearing he would call himself as “Great Orson”. Accordingly, F for fake, the last Orson Welles’s film to be published, in which the presence of filmmaker is really important. As what he proposed at the beginning, this is a film “about trickery, fraud, about lies.” The film mainly consists of found footages bought from a BBC documentary of the art fakery(Houston, 1982), Elmyr de Hory. However, Orson Welles was discontented with making a biographical documentary. He interweaved them with a fake science fiction about aliens invading the earth, fake Picasso’s affairs, and shots of his own presence.

Trent Griffiths argues, the presence of the filmmaker as a subject in the documentary frame represents a unique relationship between documentary film and history, where the filmmaker engages with social history through their personal experience of authoring a representation of it. (Griffiths, 2013). In F for fake, Orson Welles made three different types of presence. The first of these is a figure of a presenter. Just like in TV programs, the presenter in documentary mainly plays a role in interlinking different parts and their development. The presence and other footages appear alternately, but in terms of time, the duration of presence of the filmmaker is much less than the duration of the material. Orson showed up at the beginning as a magician, wearing a black hooded cloak and a bowler hat, introducing that “During the next hour, everything you hear from me is really true and based on solid facts.” At the end of the film, he responded it. “At the beginning, I did make you a promise, that for one hour I will tell you the truth, and ladies and gentleman, for the past 17 minutes, I have been lying. ” Besides, after the girl watching sequence, he explained it and then smoothly move into the next part. Without his presence, it is not able to be organized. The presence of the filmmaker makes the entire film like a Mobius strip, with two ends glued together.

The second character of filmmaker’s presence in a film is to eliminate the sense of wariness and hostility of the viewers. Again, at the beginning of the film, Orson Welles talks about fakery and truth while he performing the tricks with a little boy. A key vanished, appearing again in the kid’s pocket, and then it turned into a handful of coins. As a presenter, he was performing, walking and talking, in order to bring his audience into the scene. During the presence, Orson obscures the difference between the subjective and objective reality, confuses the boundary between reality and illusion, and alarms his audience, it is not easy to distinguish fraud from the truth(Johnson, 1976). Also, about 5 to 6 times, he invited the audience into his editing room, unveiling more about truth or fake throughout the found footages with him together. It effectively shortens the distance between the audience and the filmmaker.

Another effect addressed in F for fake is that the filmmaker could become the embodiment of the audience, asking questions they are concerned with and reacting what the audience would react when they are in that circumstance. For example, in the last 17 minutes, when Orson claiming as a fake sequence, he talked to Oja not only on behalf of himself but people who are interested in this story. He then seriously asked Oja some questions, such as “can you tell us more about Picasso? ”, “Is that just a forgery?” and so on. The audience will assume they are present at the very moment and will be built a sense of immediacy by watching the presence of the filmmaker.

Appearing is a kind of presence while disappearing is another. The voice over is another kind of “disappeared” presence of the filmmaker. It runs throughout the whole film so that sometimes the audience even forget its presence, but genuinely it plays a profound role in the film with introducing the background, mending up details, and making commentary. It helps with presenting content vividly and reinforcing the diversity of factors in a film.

In general, the filmmaker in F for fake presented as a witnesses, a participant, and even an actor.In the case of the filmmaker present within the frame as a specific subject – revealing their emotional and material investment in the story as a subject alongside rather than apart from the people they film – this kind of ‘intersubjective objectivity’ underpins the work in a more fundamental way (Griffiths, 2013). The key point here is that “the figure of the filmmaker introduces this tension, which can have productive implications for representing reality”. As a rule, MacGuffin in fictions appears commonly as a certain stuff, for example, in Orson Welles’s previous film Citizen Kane, “Rosebud” is a typical MacGuffin. However, in a documentary, the MacGuffin is the presence of the filmmaker which undertake the responsibility to lead the audience into the story and make them being immersed in the story. It is more likely to be a tool of seducing, or fishing, to make sure the audience’s heart swelling with the waves made by filmmakers.

As to F for fake, Some critics still take delight in arguing if it should be cataloged as a documentary because by the time documentary are supposed to be totally authentic. At the first glance, it seems like a documentary because it is a story about Elmyr de Hory, the art forger. However, in any case, when being looked in-depth, it is a hybridized film in which heterogeneous footages can be found and mixed here. In my opinion, It doesn’t make any sense to figure out whether or not it is a documentary because the boundary of art is blurred and the ambiguity precisely shows the glamour of art. The history world in documentary is for people to seek for the truth, but at the same time, is for people to misunderstand the truth.Like what Orson Welles proposed at the end of the film F for fake, art is a lie, a lie that makes us realize the truth.

References

Nichols, B. (2010). Introduction to documentary. Indiana University Press.

Chapman, J. and Allison, K. (2009). Issues in contemporary documentary. Cambridge: Polity.

Kolchevska, N., Vertov, D., Michelson, A. and O'Brien, K. (1986). Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov. The Slavic and East European Journal, 30(1), p.118.

Johnson, W. (1976). F for Fake Orson Welles. Film Quarterly, 29(4), pp.42-47.

Griffiths, T. (2013). Representing history and the filmmaker in the frame. [online] Doc.ubi.pt. Available at: http://www.doc.ubi.pt [Accessed 27 Oct. 2017].

Houston, B. (1982). Power and Dis-Integration in the Films of Orson Welles. Film Quarterly, 35(4), pp.2-12.

Filmography

Wells, Orson(1975) F for fake.The USA.

Rouch, Jean (1960) Chronicle of a summer. France.

Wiseman, Frederick (1968) High School. The USA.

Vertov, Dziga(1923) Man with a movie camera. Soviet Union

如果要用一句话来形容这部影片的重要的话，那就是：

最伟大的天电影天才，在人生后半截完成的几乎唯一一部电影。

他把他的生涯，还有浪子的生活，艺术创作，造假世界，演艺秀，全部结合在一块...

。你甚至不敢说，那一定就是纪录片，他创造了一种新的文体，亦真亦假亦幻，但是假假真真，却能教会我们很多东西。

我至今仍然被那些用粗粒质感表现的赝品画家的陈述。所吸引。

如何来判断真和假，这个问题充满在世界的任何一个角落，因此有宇宙意义。

享受它！

【BFI - Big screen classics】

影片开场后不久就是打破第四面墙的对话，提到了1个小时内的内容为“真相”。尤其精彩的是提到“Movie”时，镜头后拉搭配上下黑边收缩直接营造出一个银幕比例从3:2到2.35:1的变化过程，这种转换感模糊了电影与现实的界限。

然后进入片头，片头也有很多细节，胶片盒贴的红蓝绿色带对应着光的三原色RGB，然后职员表搭配快速剪辑的男性凝视（主体与客体）特写镜头还有拉出到现实的监控器画面镜头，都是在进一步描述电影和现实这两个世界。后出现了影片中我最喜欢的一幕，用抽帧搭配摇晃的镜头的方式仿佛把观众带回到了默片时代（感觉是致敬梅里爱的魔术）变了一个魔术。

紧接着台词跟进继续强调“真实”与“虚构”、 “赝品”与“真品”、 “真相“与“谎言”。这种感觉非常的奇妙，用于形容Elmyr作为赝品制造大师的台词感觉也都是对照形容奥逊威尔斯自己这部电影的。被制造的电影是虚构的，但打破这种“虚构”（第四面墙）后所呈现的是否是“现实”？还是依然是“虚构” 。其中电影的转场也非常有意思，从“现实”由监控器做过渡在跳回到“电影”之中，还有对应台词的秋天到冬天，冬天再到夏天再到秋天的固定镜头转场来阐述时间的变化。

后续则是奥逊威尔斯回应他的处女作《公民凯恩》的制作和署名权的部分，还有《飞行家》电影原型人物的一个大案子。按照1个小时真相的前提，这就是“真相”了 这一切真相么？还是如故事都是“谎言”来理解呢？

影片中使用大量的纪录片原片做剪辑，剪的非常“梦幻”。还把毕加索的肖像照片放在电影里剪辑又产生一种“虚假”感，搭配他的画与同形态下现实人物身体的特写，依然是一种现实感与虚幻感的叠加。

这还没有完，最后的高潮戏，在虚构的场景中（一小时以后），奥逊威尔斯用夹杂着匈牙利口音的英语（仿造者视角）和美音英语（自己视角）同镜头下说出台词，搭配梦幻般的滤镜 对话虚构人物（毕加索视角）来了一场赝品制造者和真迹创作者之间的对话，探讨关于人 艺术品 艺术家 等话题。这也是最后一步的模糊电影与现实的界限 达成了电影的一种解构 （如果所有的毕加索真迹被摧毁 那赝品谁又能认得出呢 对于这个思考 感觉可以用《艺术的故事》里面的话回答 “没有艺术 只有艺术家” ）。电影的结尾彻底抛开了电影，走进了现实，但电影中的现实又是什么？ “a fact of life. We’re going to die.”