Cinema Society

THE ART OF THE STEAL

Average
Rating

3.8

Tuesday, March 23, 2010, AMC La Jolla 12 Theatres

TUESDAY, MARCH 23

7:00PM: Cinema Chat with Andy, Auditorium 4

7:10PM: Introduction, Auditorium 4

7:20PM: Introduction, Auditorium 5

7:30PM: THE ART OF THE STEAL Auditoriums 4 & 5

Discussion will follow screening in Auditorium 4

AMC La Jolla 12 Theatres

THE ART OF THE STEAL

The Art of the Steal plays like a thrilling whodunit as it seeks to solve what happened to the world-renowned Barnes art collection, comprised of 181 Renoirs, 69 Cezannes, 59 Matisses (including his commissioned, unique, Art of the Dance murals), 46 Picassos, 21 Soutines, 18 Rousseaus, 16 Modiglianis, 11 Degas, 7 Van Goghs, 6 Seurats, 4 Manets and 4 Monets. And these are quality, not just quantity: they include some of the named artists' best works. For Renoir, Cezanne, and Matisse, this collection is unique, and there may be no other private collection of such work of this magnitude, valued in the “billions and billions.”

The story is full of twists, turns and double-crosses. Along the way, multiple questions are raised: How is art best served? Should it be reserved for true connoisseurs or made available to the most eyeballs possible? And who decides?

An IFC Release, THE ART OF THE STEAL, directed by Don Argott, opens commercially in San Diego at Landmark’s La Jolla Village Cinemas on March 26th.

Not Rated / Running Time: 101 Minutes

Send a Comment

26-Mar-10: Mroe - Rating: 4

Well I don't know what more I can add as my fellow members here have expressed my same sentiments. What is so great about the Q&A's and discussion is that it really opens ones eyes up to that not everyone see things the same way you do even when you think it is so cut-n-dry, you think no one could possible think differently than you....I only described the film to my Dad and he sided with the Guest Speaker...Wow! Thank you Andy for a spirited and thought-provoking evening.

26-Mar-10: K. Dodson - Rating: 3

I liked the drama of this documentary - but I did miss hearing the other side of the story. The investigative nature of the film yearned for some investigation on the opposing point of view. I thought there was at least some merit to an argument that more people could enjoy the art in a place with proper parking and space. However, I do agree that these are not public pieces of art, but rather a private collection that could have just as easily remained private. It is a great legal case study for wills and trusts in the 21st Century.

24-Mar-10: Janet Evans - Rating: 4

The movie does a good job of showing that Dr. Barnes's collection will no longer be viewed in the place he intended in the way that he intended; much worse, it will be placed and viewed exactly in the place and in the way that he spent so much time, effort, and money to ensure that it would never be. The movie may be one-sided, as our distinguished guest claimed. Had he presented the arguments for the other side of the case, he might have furthered our understanding of the issue, maybe even won some converts. Instead, ironically, he treated both the movie and us so condescendingly that he personified what Dr. Barnes found unbearable about the Philadelphia museum world.

24-Mar-10: Arlene Harris - Rating: 4

Wow! Your speaker was certainly polarizing! Interesting discussion. It got some people fired up.

I forgot his name, but the speaker was too sure of himself and that he was right, others who disagreed were obviously wrong. I did think that since he represents a community museum that he could have been a bit more polite and still had his say. The way he talked to the audience certainly didn't encourage community members to become contributors to his museum, which--quite frankly--is an inconsequential museum. I've been there and taken students there. I don't do it any more unless there is a special exhibit that seems promising. It has a few good pieces, but nothing especially memorable other than location.

I thought it was interesting that some people thought it was a "balanced/fair" documentary. Many docs, including this one, take a specific point of view. There was no mistaking the view of this one. I found it to be thought- and conversation-provoking.

Frankly, that guy needs to find out a bit more about things like copyrights. The length of copyrights have been extended several times.

In my opinion, the public has no right to anyone's work. If an artist wants to give the public that piece of art, fine. If someone buys an artist's work, the owner should be able to decide what happens to their purchased art. Duplicitous people irritate me.

Well, lunch is over. Back to class. Thanks for another great movie.

24-Mar-10: Kenneth Marion - Rating: 4

Mr. Davies seemed to indicate that the film should be dismissed because it was so one sided. That would be a valid argument if the film maker had presented the film as an unbiased history of the Barnes Museum and then proceeded to create a film supporting those who tried to keep Mr. Barnes' Museum and art as he specified in his will. The film is clearly partisan. So what? The Cove is also a partisan film. The Japanese fishing men would probably argue that they harvest dolphins for the same reasons farmers harvest rice: to feed the hungry. The Cove deserves its Academy Award. The Art of the Steal deserves its many film festival awards.

In a 12/15/2004 New York Times article written on the day a judge ruled to let the Barnes Foundation move its collection to Philadelphia's Museum Mile, art critic Roberta Smith includes the following comments to support the judge's decision:

"The decision is a triumph of accessibility over isolation, of art over the egos of collectors and, frankly, of the urban over the suburban."

"In short, the Barnes had become too much about Barnes and his vision and not enough about the art and the people who needed to see it."

"Once more we are reminded that no one really owns art, that all collectors are temporary custodians. And the greater the art, the less any one person, especially a dead one, can control its destiny."

Mr. Davies, who has done an excellent job as the Director of San Diego's Museum of Contemporary Art, probably agrees with the above comments. I believe they display the ego of elitist art critics and Museum directors, rather than the vision and rights of art owners. When Mr. Barnes bought his paintings the Philadelphia Museum of Art could have bought as many as they wanted from the artists.

Is it fair that the Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg has truckloads of French impressionist art bought by agents sent by Katherine the Great? Shouldn't many of those paintings be returned to France where they could viewed in a more urban setting by those who need and have a right to see them?

Ken

Roberta Smith article:

http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/Property/BarnesFoundationNYT12-15-04.htm

24-Mar-10: I. Hubbs - Rating: 4

Hi Andy,

Just want to comment on what a good piece of film-making this movie is. The fact that it is so slanted and gives an opinion, much like a Michael Moore film, and got such a strong reaction from the audience during the session with Hugh Davies, is a testament to it's effectiveness. Rather than choose a side as to whether the "steal" itself was right or wrong, I'd rather concentrate on what the Cinema Society does well, and that's bringing us quality film. The documentary stirred up emotions and to me that makes it a success."

Ilene Hubbs

24-Mar-10: P Clark - Rating: 3

I wish the guest speaker (I refuse to say his name as it would humanize him). I wish he told us how he REALLY FELT!!!! He knocked the wind out of the audience. He made good points (HIS points). I will not tell you my opinion of the film. I will only tell you that dude was RUDE!!!! P.S. Andy: Can you please sponsor a bus trip to Merion, PA in the next few months???

23-Mar-10: Sydney Kennedy - Rating: 5

Hi Andy,

I've never written to you before but felt that I wanted to this time because I stepped in to the discussion afterwards, and heard less than one minute of your guest's comments, and my blood pressure couldn't take it.

I saw this documentary as a wonderful reminder about the necessary integrity for honoring trusts/bequest/donor's wishes.

I've been to many art museums throughout the world and it's a highlight for me to see these wonderful pieces of art. I think I might make a point to visit the Barnes Museum before it is torn up.

This documentary gives insight to the power of money, politics, and pure evil. Don't get me wrong. I'm a conservative and support the profit motive. The problem is that no one seems to have ethics, values, and integrity any longer. It's all about ego and influence, and making your personal 'mark'.

I've always supported the Children's Beach in LJ only because that was the donor's wish. It's great to see the seals, and the tourists love it - but what's the difference between changing the purpose of the beach and moving the Barnes collection in violation of the wishes of the man who had the vision, collected the pieces and paid for them?

So, listening to that horse's arce talk about a balanced point of view in the film, and being bored, and beginning to lecture us about dispersing the collection was too much for me. Frankly, I loved visiting the Frick, for example. The intimacy of the Barnes collection as it was created by this one man is part of the great joy of his gift.

Thanks for listening. Loved the documentary. Think it might be have more interesting to have had a foundation chair and a foundation attorney talking after the film.