F for Fake (1973)

F for Fake is an hour and twenty-five minute film by Orson Welles. This thought provoking movie tells the story of Elmyr de Hory, a 20th century Hungarian art forger, and his biographer Clifford Irving. Through mesmerizing and winding storytelling, Orson Welles takes the viewer into the strange and confusing world where things are not quite what they seem.

The film revolves around the interesting life of Hungarian artist Elmyr de Hory. He was born in 1906 and had an average childhood. As a young adult, de Hory attended art school in Germany and Paris. He returned to Hungary where he became involved in criminal affairs and spent time in jail. A year later during World War II, he was imprisoned in a German concentration camp. After escaping from a Berlin hospital, de Hory fled to Hungary. With no living parents, de Hory went to France, where he discovered his talent for exactly replicating paintings. Both private individuals and galleries began to purchase the artwork from him under the notion that they were legitimate. de Hory traveled the world selling forgeries and using pseudonyms to avoid being caught. After many years of conspiring with con artists and black market art dealers, de Hory moved back to Spain and was willingly imprisoned for two months for homosexuality and criminal mischief. After he was released, de Hory became open about his story. His biographer, Cliff Irving, wrote the book Fake! The Story of Elmyr de Hory the Greatest Art Forger of Our Time. de Hory spent the remainder of his years attempting to create original art. In 1976, he was informed by his bodyguard that the Spanish government was going to turn him over to the French authorities. de Hory was found dead in his home shortly afterwards due to an overdose of sleeping pills.

There are several important points raised by de Hory’s life. First, his actions raise the question: What is real art? The fact that de Hory never signed his forgeries, neither with his name nor the name of the artist he copied, also brings up legal issues. It is legal to copy other artists work, but it is illegal to sign with the original artist’s name. So, were de Hory’s paintings actually forgeries? Do his intentions have any meaning in the issue? In F for Fake, de Hory was filmed saying, “People enjoy it, it gives them pleasure, why shouldn’t they have it?” Who are the “experts” to declare whether art is real or not? If people believe that his art is real, and the art brings people real pleasure, then why shouldn’t the art be considered legitimate?

The other person mentioned in F for Fake who had a similar, relevant story, was Clifford Irving. Irving was born in 1930 and grew up in New York City. He spent his adulthood as an author and worked for the New York Times. While traveling in Spain, he became close to Elmyr de Hory. de Hory asked Irving to write his biography Fake!. In an ironic twist, Irving and one of his friends, Richard Suskind, later attempted to write a fake biography on Howard Hughes. Irving and Suskind figured that since Howard Hughes had become a recluse, he would not come out and deny Irving’s work. Irving forged various documents in Hughes’ writing, including a note from Hughes’ giving Irving permission to write his biography, but requesting that it remain secret for the time being. Irving also faked interviews with Hughes that would supposedly be use to write the biography. He managed to get approval of the manuscript from the publisher McGraw-Hill after a tremendous amount of deceit. At this point, people who worked for Hughes and knew him well began to question the legitimacy of Irving’s biography. Hand-writing experts approved of Irving’s forged notes, Irving passed a lie-detector test, and McGraw-Hill upheld their contract. Eventually, Howard Hughes opened up to several journalists and said that Irving had faked the entire production. Hughes’ lawyer sued McGraw-Hill and after investigations by the Swiss government of a bank account opened by Irving’s wife under the name Helga R. Hughes, the Irvings admitted to fraud. Irving spent over a year in jail.

Clearly, Clifford Irving practiced deceit in his own way. He seemed to have an internal struggle occurring. On one end, he exposed Elmyr de Hory and revealed the truth about his work. On the other side, he was utterly dishonest and treacherous. Clifford Irving, a devious man, revealed the truth about Elmyr de Hory, another devious man. Though F for Fake provided the subtext of this story about de Hory and Irving, this compelling story was left undeveloped.

However, for me, and for Welles too, it seems, the real kernel of F for Fake is the question of legitimacy in art.

Marcel Duchamp was a French-American artist born in 1887. His famous work, Fountain, is an example of “readymade” art: an art object that was produced prior to the artist’s use of it. In 1917, Duchamp purchased a standard urinal from J. L. Mott Iron Works. He repositioned the urinal, signed it “R. Mutt 1917,” and called it art. By doing this, Duchamp challenged the definition of art. Is the piece “art” if the artist says it’s art, or is it fake because the artist did not produce it? This issue is still being debated today.

In the 1970s, Richard Prince photographed cowboy photographs from Marlboro ads and exhibited them as his own. In this scenario, which images are original art? Is Prince’s work fake? Who owns or has legal claims to the photographs? Prince questioned the role of the artists in art, while at the same time questioned the role of media in determining what is considered real. Duchamp pointed out that the spectator participates in the creative act by providing context and interpretation. Though Prince and Duchamp didn't make or create the art object, they did participate in the creation of art – just as Duchamp stated that the spectator does. de Hory on the other hand, did produce the work, but he felt that the spectator's participation in the art by providing context and acceptance legitimized it. Here, one can see the shift from classical art to modern art; art becomes less about the object and more about the artist and audience. The ambiguity of authenticity in art, however remains unresolved.

In terms of the movie F for Fake, Orson Welles created his own deceit by adding a twist to the end of the movie. For the last several minutes of the movie, Welles told an invented story about Picasso and a woman named Oja Kodar. After admitting to the audience that “For the past seventeen minutes, I’ve been lying my head off.” Welles points out that in the beginning of the movie, he said that “During the next hour, everything you hear from us is really true, based on solid fact.” Alas, the segment involving Picasso and Oja Kodar occurred after the first hour, and therefore was a deception.

In my opinion, Orson Welles’ deception in F for Fake was unnecessary and confusing. It seemed that he was trying to usurp the focus of the film from the story of de Hory and Irving. Welles’ involvement did not add anything valuable to the ideas that had already been developed and painfully lived out in de Hory and Irving’s story.

I give F for Fake credit where credit is due. The movie drew attention to the lives of de Hory and Irving, which most people are unfamiliar with. Even though the film was deliberately confusing and provided little factual information about de Hory and Irving, it inspired me to research them further and understand exactly what they did. It also prompted me to explore the issue of authenticity in art and consider other artists such as Duchamp and Prince with a fresh perspective. From researching and analyzing what I learned, I concluded that both the artist and the viewer define the artistic act. Art is not just about the product; it is also about intention, delivery, and interpretation.