Talk:F for Fake

Spoilers
Considering the nature of this film, shouldn't this have a spoiler warning somewhere ?

Second to last?
All of the information I can muster points to this being Welles's last completed film, not his penultimate. Can anyone offer evidence to the contrary? ColinKennedy 17:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I changed that. Looking at it again, the whole article needs a rewrite. I'll start on that. ColinKennedy 14:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sections needed
I agree with Supernumerary's assessment as class Start, but I do see the need of introducing sections. As it is it looks like a huge lead section. Hoverfish 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks to everyone who worked on this page. I found it very informative.

Revisions
The article was reading too much like a movie review, so I have removed POV content as much as I could. It still needs work. 23skidoo 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

F for Fake is fake?
I'm puzzled to find that there is no mention in this article of the theory proposed by Robert Anton Wilson that F for Fake is largely itself a fake. Starting from Welles' own fascination with magic and deception, Wilson makes the point that the entire film, including the first hour, is pieced together in ways which could easily have been fabricated. For example the opening sequence with people "reacting" to Kodar walking down the street is arguably a compilation of completely unrelated reaction shots intermixed with Kodar's walk. I've got the necessary documentation at home, so if nobody else wants to beat me to it, I'll update the page sometime soonish.David A Spitzley (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)