This is an OK doc on a very interesting subject. It raises the question of who owns a piece of public art, using the work Banksy did in San Francisco and the quest of a man to try and save one of his pieces from being destroyed or forgotten. It is a valid and interesting topic, but for a documentary to be successful, in my opinion, it needs to be neutral and informative, and this one is not very neutral. After asking those questions it takes the point of view of many street artists and villainizes one of the art dealers whereas I don't think it's that simple. It is a good look at the art world and at the Banksy phenomenon and I do like the guy that's only trying to do what he thinks is right with his work of Banksy, but overall I think this theme deserved a bit more.

This film purports to examine the question whether it is legitimate to remove street art and transplant it into the capitalized art world, where it can be sold for thousands or even millions of dollars, with none of that money going to the artist himself.

It is an interesting question, and the director clearly has strong views on the matter, as do all of the artists interviewed. Only a few characters, portrayed as dark, criminal, mercenary forces of evil (especially one gallery owner in particular, who is painted in an especially sinister light) disagree with the high-minded artists´ perspective that the artist himself should have the last word on what happens to his work.

The perspective presented here certainly sounds logical and moral and nice, and makes it seem as though ¨all good people will agree¨, but in fact this take commits a fundamental fallacy: the intentional fallacy. The artist creates a work, throws it out into the world, and then he/she no longer has any say in what will be done with his work. It will be interpreted--and reappropriated, and sold or kept and viewed or forgotten--by other people, entirely beyond the artist´s control. He creates a work which becomes the property of humanity once it is released. I do appreciate the strong sentiments of people who wish to respect the artist´s intentions (in this case, Banksy´s), but ´ought´ implies ´can´, and if we cannot know the artist´s intentions, then it seems foolish to assume what they are and insist that they be respected.

We actually have no idea what Banksy is doing, and perhaps he wants to keep it that way. All of the uproar in this case, merely adds to his fame.

On the surface is an average documentary. I believe the film makers did just enough to communicate their viewpoints regarding Banksy, graffiti and its place in todays world of fine art . To this end, this really is a thesis film, but falls under the genre of documentary.

This film is supportive of graffiti art and the artists who work has stemmed from this activity. This film glorifies the criminal nature of tagging (as adventure, which it is), and utilizes graffiti artists and their supporters for perspective - there is no meaningful counterpoint, which to most viewers really won't matter - Saving Banksy does a good job of presenting content in a convincing manner. Most people will agree with the points made, especially artists.

I actually (kinda) feel the same way about Banksy's art that I do about this film - His work is good bordering on great, and has an excellent balance of form and content. Banksy's public graffiti is well thought out, and can be analyzed/critiqued based upon artistic merit alone in a very deep and extended conversation. However, these qualities are just the beginning of the Banksy phenomenon. It's like when he completes a public work - those in that environment, at all levels, go absolutely bananas. An irrational freak-out fest ensues, and people go Way out of their way to complicate something that really isn't that significant in the grand scheme of things. However, this ends up being a wonderful metaphor for so many aspects of reality at this moment (currently 2018). People losing their minds over nothing, and making the simple very, very complicated. And you know that Banksy understands all this, and absolutely must love his injections of chaos into communities and the art world as a whole. To me, this is the brilliance of Banksy - not the work itself, but the reaction his art elicits.

So worth watching? Absolutely - a savvy viewer can read between the lines, and turn what really is a pretty average film into something memorable and compelling. But (by and large) this is a function of the content, and not inherent to the film making. This isn't necessarily a harsh critique; part of a film makers role is to know when to emphasize content, and when to get out of the way and allow the content to speak for itself. That would be the optimistic outlook on this film. The other side would be that this film had a chance to be truly special had the filmmakers emphasized the explosion that occurs when Banksy unleashes his creations on the public. In doing so the film could have asked more questions about what this all might mean, and (perhaps) attempt to define Banksy's historical context. But this is an opinion, and I will admit that maybe this film is better for allowing the viewer to formulate their own conclusions.

random observation (rant): One thing that can be gleaned from the interviews with graffiti artists in this film is that they (the people asked about Banksy), by and large, felt this film was about them - or (at least) that they are peers with Banksy. Don't get it mistaken, they aren't. I do think at least one of the artists really realized their significance with regard to Banksy (by the way he answered questions), and it is ironic, because their work might be the strongest (formally) in the entire film. But, my point would be that none of these artists interviewed are anywhere near Banksy in terms of relevance - Banksy has few peers in todays world of fine art. He is not merely a graffiti artist, he is utilizing the painting sub-genre tactically, brilliantly.

average film, marked up for fascinating nature of content: 7/10