still not trying to spoil anything, but his show was way too extravagant i feel, and all his "helpers" ,who does that, plus "he did the madonna album" what does "he" mean, u know??

You mean Terry's persona? or Terry in general? Terry is very real and a pretty sweet guy. Part of why the movie works is he has such a great personality. He's been at show openings for years doing just what he's doing in the film, recording everything. I think when it comes down to his persona though it may be an issue of how much of it is really Terry. In some ways it's hard not to think Banksy is pulling every puppet string he can on this. Banksy has gone out of his way to point a mocking finger at the whole art scene and for him to have created MBW to say 'see what I did?' wouldn't be a huge surprise. But, it really just comes down to marketing.

Terry has had two of the biggest players as mentors and has hired a whole bunch of people who conceptualize his 'art' for him. Which doesn't make him less of an artist, plenty have done this before him. While I like Terry and find the whole MBW thing fascinating, the people who are buying his art as fast as they can may be sadly surprised when the market on his work crashes because of the novelty involved in it all. Even Shep makes some comment at the end of the film about how crazy the whole thing is but then again maybe he's in on Banksy's joke after all.

For starters? Warhol did.

i just feel as though it became a mocumentary in the end with staged things basically, as far as the whole MBW thing. Yea Terry is real but not so much MBW, i think that was the only thing in the movie that put the MOC in mocumentary. With all his workers and him basically never touching the art. People may have helpers but they usually will at least do something. Who's to say banksy didn't just come up with every design, the designs were so.."what type of things could you do in street art that banksy could do but didn't." Like obvious observations. Also nobody would do such an extravagant show i feel, it became too much that it seemed like a mocumentary ya know? like banksy could have written the last part of the film like some directors do with these "are they real?" documentaries.

well then maybe you should look at how shitty mbw's work is and what it goes for on ebay.... then you will understand that the whole mbw phenomenon is bizarre and very real (at least, that's what i'm led to believe)

Its very hard to put your finger on what is real and not alot of people know for sure.

Ok, this finally landed in AZ, so I had the pleasure of seeing it at last! Banksy's Exit Through the Gift Shop = David Copperfield to me. You know there's a trick, but are amazed at the stunt. And remember, a great magician never reveals his secrets

First off, love him or hate him as an "artist" or not..what I appreciate about Banksy the most is his eye for humor and statement. I was giddy at the end of this movie because I felt that MBW is an experiment in marketing and the gullibilty of the (esp LA) art market. IMO, I think Terry is a real dude who started out as a crazy obsessed film fanatic, who gained the trust of Fairey & Banksy. I think somewhere in the process of getting to know him, a light bulb went off in Banksy's mind. Whether Terry is in on it or just a pawn, I couldn't decide. But I think the "creation" of MBW so to speak & the movie was Banksy's greatest humorous statement yet. Can 2 extremely popular artists promote a "nobody" out of the blue and have the art world instantly eat him up just on that alone? Obviously the answer is yes...whether my take on this is accurate or not

Ouch.

Wow, fascinating stuff. I hadn't heard of "MBW" yet and assumed I was watching a fake documentary along the lines of "Incident at Loch Ness", so it really blew my mind when I started to realize afterwards that Thierry actually seems to be for real - which I find even crazier than the thought of the whole thing just being an elaborate hoax by Banksy... Also found this interesting interview with the film's producer and editor over at Wooster:

http://www.woostercollective.com/2010/1 ... _exit.html

Judging from comments and arguments 'round the 'net, it seems like a majority of people who see the film find it difficult to discern just how much is "real," but the fact is, all of it is real!

However that doesn't mean that Banksy didn't do a bit of reality hacking here, and that's the crux of the thing. He basically gives the game away in the movie, which is why I don't understand why so many people find the "reality vs. not real" thing to be confusing. It's all laid out plain as day.

Here it is: Once Bansky and crew realized that Terry wasn't actually organized about making his movie, they decided to pull one together using Terry's scattershot creative imperative as the springboard. Instead of discouraging Terry's misguided (IMHO) artistic aspirations (basically, playing "street artist copycat" and then "contemporary artist copycat") they encouraged him to do his thing, spend his money, and let his freak flag fly, so to speak. They could have as easily cut ties, but instead worked with (or around?) Terry to make something complexly humane that manages to come across with populist appeal on a potentially "elitist" topic.

Charmingly naive (or repugnantly egotistical, depending on how you spin it) Terry imagined himself to be an equal to his "documentary subjects" in his mind and ran with it ... hiring people to make "his" art, which consists of poorly executed facsimiles of other people's art ... without the zeitgeist or context or originality or significant content. Yikes!

My guess is that Banksy was surprised at how thoroughly Terry duped himself into thinking that "his" art was any good, and more importantly, how many L.A. area art enthusiasts fell for it, evidently confused by the cheap multilayered ironies of lower-level postmodernism and the allure of The Latest Hipster Thing. I like L.A. and have dear friends there including in the art scene, so I hate to sound so SF-snobby, but ... let's be real ... a lot of lemmings took the bait and *still* don't get it.

It's all there in the movie, folks. There's no major sleight of hand, no staged scenes, nothing fake. The only delusions are those of Mr. Brainwash and his embarrassingly duped audience. That's it. All Banksy did was turn the documentarian camera from himself to the documentarian.

Therein lies the movie's brilliance, because by ostensibly *not* being about Banksy himself, it says so much more about his peculiar artistic genius than a straightforward documentary "about Banksy" could possibly have done. By letting someone else's human fallibility run its course, Banksy ends up emphasizing themes inherent to all his work, most saliently the subjectivity of the ascription of value, the subjectivity of what's "real," and the vulnerability of the mercantile art market.

If you can get your hands on the (PAL format) DVD, by all means check it out. The extra materials include the final version of Terry's movie, which is an enjoyable artsy mess in its own right, but which makes it pretty clear that he's not really cut out for filmmaking any more than for painting. Countless experimental filmmakers have been doing similar work for many decades prior. Still, it's not total trash.

"Exit Through the Gift Shop" is definitely my favorite film of 2010. I found it more "mind-bending" than "Inception," and a lot more fun.

Well written Dean. I am thoroughly impressed.

Thanks 666doll that's an awful nice thing to say about a rant.

Wow . . . I thought it was a half decent film and a cool way to pass an hour or two . . . that's good enough for me these days!

You guys read waaaay too much into stuff!

I didn't find it confusing, I just couldn't believe that a nut like Thierry could be a real person - especially in a post-Borat world. And I think the film plays on that very consciously through comic editing and commentary; in that interview I posted, they even say about Thierry that "people thought he was Sacha Baron Cohen or something." His ramblings, the finished "movie", people realizing that "frankly, the guy is a retard" - it just felt too over the top for me to even consider real.

It was only right before the credits rolled that I started considering it all might have actually happened as it is told, when it's shown that Thierry was commissioned to do that Madonna cover and I realized that he truly DOES look ten years older and fatter...

And very well written indeed, Dean!

Yes well put Dean. I feel the same way. The movie wasn't what I thought it was going to be. Im glade it wasn't a straight doc on Banksy. I think what Banksy did with the film is what he already does with his art, Exposes things for what they are. As we all know from being toy collectors, The hype machine can do a lot.

Loved the film.

Just watched this last night, enjoyed it immensely. So since the film has been released, what is the status of the "hoax" angle? Has anyone 'fessed up?

DVD hits Netflix on Tuesday.

Has anyone else seen Orson Welles' "F is for Fake"? Its a documentary about an art forger - that works on alot of different levels. Wonder if its similar?

If anyone comes across "BANKSY's Coming To Dinner" on Hulu or anywhere else, don't bother with it. It is a waste of time, unspeakably boring, and has nothing to do with Banksy.

Did you ever ask yourself what would happen if Banksy attended a dinner party hosted by Joan Collins? Would the conversation be polite and oh so British? Would the guests act different knowing they are face to face with the mysterious underground artist? Would Banksy really present a can of spray paint sitting on a dollar store (pound store?) painting easel as a gift to the delightful host? Does Banksy really dress like a nightclubbing 40-year old douchebag? Would a "documentary" director actually interview himself and his camerman about the very movie you are watching *while* you are watching it?

If you *have* asked yourself these question, head on over to Hulu and find out...

I thought it was a total hoot. I loved it when they were discussing materialism surrounded by all that opulence. That conversation lasted about 2 minutes.

finally got a chance to check this out, loved it.

for years i have thought that 'banksy' wasn't an unknown artist at all, but actually an established artist [perhaps even a famous one] playing a prank on the art world. which brings me to my point, anybody watch the short 'b-movie' on the dvd? anybody feel like both banksy & damien hirst are a little too similar in their gesturing? more specifically, a certain movement of the thumb on a closed fist?

i'm probably reading way too much into it but i do love a conspiracy theory, so i figured i'd throw it out there. thoughts?

"Mr. Brainwash did not respond to requests for comment."

http://tinyurl.com/22mc2bc