Fake? is a labored and dispiriting jape... No more than a home movie, an indulgent, desperate bit of trick editing; for Welles's sake I hope that it is quickly forgotten.
—Stephen Farber, Film Comment July, 1974
___________________
F For Fake is a talentless concoction of unparalleled ineptitude... It would have been a more generous gesture to show a retrospective of old Welles films rather than remind everyone of how low his ability as a filmmaker has plummeted.
—Rex Reed, New York Daily News Sept 26, 1975
___________________
F For Fake was commercially and critically successful everywhere but here at home. Small-time, amateur distribution and some poor reviews in the smaller cities rendered it virtually invisible in America. This came as a shock to me, because I thought I’d opened up a new movie form—the essay as opposed to the documentary—which would give me lots of scope for future experimentation and would cost little enough, so financing wouldn’t be a problem.
In attempting to explain F For Fake’s state-side failure, it has occurred to me that perhaps the subject matter was at least partially to blame, and that this country is so blissfully enslaved by the notion of the special sanctity of the expert that an overtly anti-expert film was bound to go too much against the national grain.
—Orson Welles, 1983
_________________
By Lawrence French
_________________
After listening to Gary Graver's informative commentary with Bill Krohn on Eureka's splendid UK edition DVD of F For Fake, I looked at some old reviews and was rather shocked to see how vituperative the comments were. As can be seen from just two of the quotes above, it's not that reviewers just didn't like the film, but their attitude seemed to be "how dare Welles try to make anything so radical or different." While there were some glowing comments as well, the overall trend seemed to be that F For Fake was a decidedly "minor" Welles effort, certainly not worthy of the talented director of Citizen Kane.
(more...)