EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP

A Banksy Film

Politically correct common sense dictate us that a documentary is a film about things that happened as it is. But as time goes by, so many documentary went into another category of documentary, like mockumentary (Borat or Modern Family TV series). This one venture perhaps into one of interesting sub-genre, prankcumentary. Documentary about pranks. What's the joke all about? Perhaps it is all about us.

Billed as a documentary about street artist it could be something pretensious, boring or both. But Banksy, whose name wasn't even credited in the credit title as director but in the beginning as 'A Banksy film' manages to pull out a what the fuck documentary that deconstruct the meaning of art and commercialization of art.

Banksy himself is a mysterious guy. He is a London graffiti artist known for his provocative and highly critical piece of art. Nobody knows his real name and face, perhaps only his agent and selected number of people.

But the focus of the film isn't Banksy but a guy named Thierry Guetta a Frenchman who lives in Los Angeles for years videotaping underground graffiti street artist. It all went well until he met the mysterious Banksy.

Banksy took him everywhere, even take him into his studio. I have to say Banksy's art is fascinating and thought provoking. At certain point the funny Thierry Guetta suddenly wants to become an artist himself. He re-mortgaged his house and open up a studio with so many people working to produce so many pieces of art and installation and plan to open a very big exhibition. He didn't actually work on his art, he has people to do it for him.

Now this is just plain insane. How could a guy with no reputation whatsoever in the art scene suddenly decided to become an artist producing paintings posters and installation?

And he got the money and means to make it! Can anybody be an artist and claim to be one? What is a valuable and high art product actually? How do you measure it? Was it by some endorsement from the art establishment or just generate some hype to make people believe that 'is' art? And what is art actually?

Not only that what Thierry 'produce' actually is just a ripoff or a re-interpretation of other famous art product (Campbell soup's spray? Are you kidding me?) that actually can be made with a advanced photoshop and Corel Draw skill. This pose a question between hype vs authenticity.

But people buy the hype, L.A. Weekly ran a special story about Thierry's exhibition and as the exhibition opened, people lined up to see it.

In the end, Thierry managed to pull a huge fortune out of it. This is insane, amazing and what the fuck at the same time.

The first half of the film deals with Thierry videotaping the street artist and try to make a film out of it, and the second part is about Banks taking over the job and make Thierry an object for his film.

Was it all true? Was Thierry actually a videotape loving guy with funny French accent who decided to become an artist in an instant? Or was Thierry actually an 'invention' of Banksy who wants to poke fun at all of us, including himself? Could it be that the real art installation/performance is Thierry himself, being a puppet of Banksy?

I have no idea. This is the documentary that blurs the line between a real documentary, an op-ed and a mockumentary. But as mind blowing as it is, this has to be the must watch documentary of the year.

The irony is if someone with enough credential and reliable in the society tells people that it is art then the masses will believe that is art although it is just a re-interpretation of another famous art piece or just something anyone can produce. In the end art is in the eye of the beholder.