is different from other deception-themed films. This film is too boring in form, and seems to be exploring artistic value and authenticity through records. In fact, it is to expose the disguised human nature through the art of authenticity. In other words, the entire film is buried artistically, and the viewer needs to discern which of the meanings in the film is the real meaning.
What is a counterfeit? Should fakes exist? What is the value of a fake? Is a fake a fake or should there be a fake? Is the counterfeit itself or man-made?
A counterfeit is a counterfeit of the real thing. The presence of fakes increases the value of the real thing. The value of fakes lies in inferior products and high-quality products, inferior products have no meaning at all, and high-level fakes have the same artistic attainments as real products. If it has the same artistic value, can you still call it a fake? Then a fake is no longer a fake. Are fakes man-made? A counterfeit that was not identified by any artist was said to be a genuine possession, and then the artists were told by the makers of the counterfeit to be a counterfeit, after which the work was put on the top hat of a counterfeit. The art, value, and concept of fakes are very important, but what is more important is to identify whether the artists and us are the real fakes? !
Don't think this is the end, this is just the beginning, and the real madness is what follows. "Art" is a lie, and no one's deception is more art than the public lie and forgery...
Orson Welles is one of the few American filmmakers I like. Has his work influenced the history of cinema for generations? I don't know the generation of filmmakers, but what is certain is that the artistry of their films is definitely higher than that of ordinary art films, and the value of discussion is also greater than a single object of discussion.
In the end I was a little confused, is it just a fake what I wrote above?
View more about F for Fake reviews
