I previously promised a review of the “documentary” Art of the Steal and failed to deliver.
Let me be frank: I hated this movie and don’t recommend that anyone see it. Why? It’s completely one-sided and creates a conspiracy that doesn’t exist and a local controversy into an attack on a “basic right” (btw, the right to dispose of property through a testamentary document is not a basic right, it’s a right granted to citizens by the state, but that’s beside the point).
Who is interviewed in this ill-conceived gem of propaganda? Former teachers of the Barnes, former students of the Barnes, and family friends of Dr. Barnes. Yeah, none of them have a personal stake in what happens.
But don’t take my word for it. You don’t need a review from me, because there are already plenty out there. Instead of just repeating what has already been said, here’s other places to look:
- Bostonist.com – A pretty even-handed review that seems a little bit taken in my the conspiracy theory, if not entirely: That their machinations involve dismantling private property rights and manipulations of testacy make the film wildly engaging, even when we can’t completely suspend our disbelief. The connect-the-dots conspiracy is convincing in the way that all conspiracy theories are convincing . . . “
- The Washington Post: “The other day at the Barnes Foundation in Merion, Pa., visitors could see signs on nearby lawns crying “The Barnes Belongs in Merion.” That slogan neatly sums up the premise of “The Art of the Steal,” Don Argott’s passionate, if lopsided, documentary about one of America’s best-hidden and embattled art museums.”
- The Boston Phoenix: A very short review: “With passionate commentary from art experts, Barnes acolytes, and Governor Ed Rendell (one of only two “villains” who agree to interviews), the gripping yet hyperbolic drama examines the ownership of art and the public’s right to it. The presence of a former Barnes student as producer raises concerns . . . ” [Emphasis added. Well that explains a lot!]
- NY Times: “As its title suggests, “The Art of the Steal” is nothing if not agenda-driven, having been paid for by a former foundation student, Lenny Feinberg, who — to quote the movie’s notes — “initiated, funded and was intimately involved in the making of ‘The Art of the Steal.’ ” That partisanship helps explain the movie’s vibrancy and sense of urgency.”
- Philly.com: “As a movie, Steal is as finely wrought as the decorative ironworks that hang on the walls of the Barnes between Picassos and Seurats. Yet as a narrative of the facts, it is as one-sided as a plaintiff’s brief. Argott simplifies the institution’s convoluted, colorful history into stark black and white, smearing villains and cheering heroes. As he tells it, the Barnes is an orphan in Philadelphia’s most infamous custody battle.”
- CultureGrrl, who makes this great statement: “As a journalist who deplores the move and has covered from the beginning the attempts by Philadelphia’s movers-and-shakers to pry loose the celebrated collection from Merion, PA (where founder Albert Barnes had stipulated it was to remain), I was put off, during my first viewing, by the film’s glaring gaffes and omissions, not to mention its overheated rhetoric.” – because, really, this is the major problem with the movie, IMHO – no matter if you think the Barnes should or should not be making the movie to downtown Philly, you need to base your argument on the reality of the situation at the Barnes and not distort the facts to make your case stronger. The movie is a series of distortions, omissions, and re-writings of history to make the filmmakers point stronger, but to those who know some of the background, it comes across as a movie of lies.
- And finally, The Art Law Blog (have I mentioned lately my love of the Art Law Blog? No? Let me rectify that, I love the Art Law Blog!)
