MovieChat Forums > Woman in Gold (2015) Discussion > This is a story about unadulterated gree...

This is a story about unadulterated greed

posted 10 years ago by xystophoros
72 replies | jump to latest

According to the trailer, Maria Altmann's story is about right vs wrong, about the sentimental value of a family painting, and about a triumph of small people against the big bag Austrian government and the Nazis.

In truth, it's about strong-arming the legal system in order to remove paintings from a public museum -- where they were supposed to go, by the owner's will -- into the private collection of an aristocrat, where they were promptly sold for hundreds of millions of dollars, ensuring Altmann's children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will continue to live like aristocrats well into the future, with estates and servants and private jets and yachts.

You'd think, after recovering these long-lost artworks that were "priceless" to her family, that Altmann's Gustav Klimts would be hanging in a family home, where her family could look up at them and remember their relatives. Instead, Altmann won the case, then turned around almost immediately sold the paintings -- for a price between $30 million and $135 million for each individual painting.

And they make a movie to celebrate that? Will the movie be honest about what Altmann did with the paintings and how quickly she sold them? Will the movie admit that several prominent Jewish voices condemned Altmann's crusade because it reinforced the worst Jewish stereotypes? And will the movie show be honest with the audience about how the original owner's will dictated that the paintings be put in a museum, NOT in the private collection of a woman so she could sell them?

To be clear, none of this is to excuse the horrific things the Nazis did, but let's have some perspective here -- millions of people lost parents, siblings, children and friends to the Nazis, and Altmann's family lost a few valuables. Maybe the message should have been gratitude for escaping the Holocaust with her life, instead of this life-long crusade to sell paintings so she could continue living above everyone else as an aristocrat.

[–] Tomatish 10 years ago

This is really one effed up case of Hollywood throwing history out of the window for a sentimental story.

It should also be pointed out that Altmann only asked for the landscape paintings at first, so it really wasn't about portraits as the trailer says.

[–] xystophoros 10 years ago

You're right. I believe there was a legal change in Austria that opened the door to Altmann's legal team going after the Klimts. IIRC Altmann also received several other pieces of art from her family's estate before the U.S. lawsuit, but it didn't receive the same attention because they were not Klimts worth hundreds of millions.

[–] windmill91 10 years ago

Yes, what she did was pure greed. But those paintings did belong to her family. Most of their possessions and wealth was taken by the nazis during the war, by selling those paintings they could retrieve what was ones lost. And lets be honest, who the hell would hang these type of paintings in their house when they don't have enough wealth to secure the place. And I am sure they would want to put it on display, because it's a piece of history after all.

Sure, She could have kept the painting and gave it to a museum for display but that wouldn't have settled all the costs for the trial. And lets be real. If you were the ''proud'' owner of paintings that are worth millions, while you don't really have any money to speak of, would you really keep them? These expensive paintings are nice at your multi million dollar mansion, when you have enough money to spend it on unnecessary things, but I am sure you rather have more money than a painting that doesn't paint the bills when you're middle class/middle-upper class.

I suppose it would be more fair that these paintings would hang in a museum in Austria if you look at the history involved, but when you legally own something then you may do with it as you please.

[–] sillyhat 10 years ago

Let's not forget that she offered the Austrian government the chance to keep the paintings if they offered her compensation and acknowledged that they were stolen. They turned that down. Only after losing the court case did they belatedly reconsider.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

It is interesting how you distort the facts which are readily available on Wikipedia. Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer commissioned the paintings. His wife died in 1925. Her husband outlived her by two decades. To quote Wikipedia, "In his 1945 testament, Bloch-Bauer designated his nephews and nieces as the inheritors of the estate." This is basic family law, not rocket science. Since his wife was long deceased, it was his right to give his property to his family in his will. "The Austrian Supreme Court ruled that Adele was probably never the legal owner of the paintings." Frederick was the legal owner, certainly after his wife's death. The Nazis stole the paintings. That is not in dispute.
Whether or not the family made the best decision by selling the paintings is a matter of conscience, not of law. We don't know what we would have done after such a long, bitter court fight. I agree it would have been wonderful for the family to give the paintings back to the public galleries, but according to Wikipedia the Austrian government fought the family at every turn and refused to come to an agreement to buy the paintings.
I an sure Wikipedia is not the final word on facts. Maybe they are wrong. If these facts are wrong, then maybe I would agree with you. You are obviously biased using words like "legally strong-armed". Would you say that all looted art recovered for families is "legal strong- arming"?
I can see both arguments, but let's get the facts right.
You refer to a NY Times article which mentions that Altman's husband worked in a Lockheed plant in California. What "aristocrats" work in American factories? Are there aristocrats in North America? Is greed really a motivating factor for a woman over 90? The article mentions that Adele wrote, "I kindly ask my husband.." Since Ferdinand owned the painting and she had been dead for 20 years by 1945 and the family was robbed by the Nazis, many of whom were Austrian, maybe he was less inclined to give the paintings to the Austrian government.
There are two sides to this argument, I am just giving the other side. Would we have this argument if an ordinary American wanted stolen property to be given back to the rightful owners?

[–] cyril_grey 10 years ago

I'm sorry, but if there's one thing the law is not, it's "basic". I actually studied chemistry and physics as part of my major and I can tell you I much prefer those to figuring out taxes or figuring out legal loopholes, so I'm glad you decided it's "basic"

add to that the fact that it's law between countries, which is always a treat... point being, given the choice of sorting out a legal mess of this sort or calculating lift propulsions and air friction, I'll take rocket science any day.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Yes, I agree law can be very complicated. I should have made it clear that I was just referring to the ownership of these paintings upon Adele's death in 1925. Unless I am mistaken and please correct me, since the husband commissioned, paid for and owned the paintings, he still owned them after her death. He still owned them in 1935 and 1945. Am I missing something?
The OP muddied the waters. If the OP is arguing that Adele owned the paintings that is a whole different story and not so "basic". I agree with you. Adele "kindly" asked her husband to give the paintings to Austrian museums, but a lot happened between 1925 and 1945. I read that the husband believed that Adele would not have wanted the paintings to go to Austria after the Nazis, Hitler being an Austrian-born painter not famous for his art. Maybe I am dead wrong here. If I was in the family's shoes, I don't know what I would do. Just forgive and forget as if those brutal years of genocide didn't happen?

[–] cyril_grey 10 years ago

You're spot on. I was just teasing the fact that the legal system is such a minefield of obnoxious loopholes and smokescreens and is anything but simple and, unfortunately, black and white cases of right and wrong (in modern times) are never as easy as right and wrong, not anymore. The law is not morally just.

So you are 100% correct in what you said, didn't mean to imply otherwise.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Thanks. After reading the OP I thought it was wrong for the paintings to be taken from the Austrian galleries and sold off. Then I read a little bit, not much, but enough to realize the OP was presenting only one side of the story. The family might be on shaky grounds in terms of doing the "right thing" whatever that is, but legally they had the right to have their stolen property returned. I agree things are rarely black and white in law and life.

[–] Flickfan-3 10 years ago

I think (and this is no legal opinion just what I have picked up from reading over the decades) that it might be very likely true that in European society at that time the only thing a "married" woman could own was what she brought into the marriage as her dowry...
and which in many cultures/countries she was allowed to repossess if her husband died w/o issue--which was the case of Adele, since she died w/o heirs of the body...but she also dies before her husband...she knew the law...she knew she did not "own" the painting which is why her will was a request of her husband--like this is what I want you to do...

The fact that Altman sold the paintings after winning back possession--
so what...she was old...she (from what I understood) had no blood heirs like sons or daughters...
she sold the paintings and did good with the money--more so than the Germans or the Austrian government did after they stole them...

They were her family's possessions -- and they were stolen by a sick, corrupt government--
and as the movie ends---there are thousands and thousands of art works still out there in adverse possession of museums or individuals who benefitted from the largest criminal organization in modern history...the Nazi regime...

"That's the beauty of argument, Joey...if you argue correctly, you are never wrong..."

[–] cowgoesmoo 10 years ago

she (from what I understood) had no blood heirs like sons or daughters...

They weren't shown in the movie, but Maria and Fritz had four children. Also not shown in the movie is that one of her children and their spouse accompanied her and Randy to Austria. (I imagine they were trying to keep the number of characters down.)

In any event, you are correct - an awful lot of the proceeds went to charities.

[–] rollerskater61 10 years ago

Nice posts here Bernie and I see no need to explain your use of "basic law". OP sounds like an anti-Semite Nazi apologist to me, despite tooting his disclaimer. Like Fox News, just saying you're fair and balanced ( or, in this case, unsympathetic to Nazis) doesn't make it so. OP is not on the level still you went way above the call of duty in your accurate refute.

I found the ending poignant and beautiful because it was so emotionally honest and complex. Maria made a fair offer. All the museum in Austria really needed was the painting. They would have done better to buy it and admit guilt. Maria was left with no other choice but to remove it after the obnoxious Austrian "begged" her to keep it there after he lost. He might as well have said Let me rape you again.

Maria felt awful about the painting's removal, echoing her own forced removal in the war years - but the Austrians hadn't left her an honorable choice. She placed it on permanent display and used the proceeds in the most responsible way. And while all great art eventually should fall into public museums, not so while it is still under ownership of the original commissioning family.

And someday in the distant future the Klimt may move again. Let's just hope it never ends up in a place like Mosul where ignorant terrorists are destroying an irreplaceable cultural heritage.

[–] xystophoros 10 years ago

Oh, now I'm an anti-Semite Nazi!! I dare to write a post containing facts that are inconvenient to the one-sided story in this movie, so clearly I must be a Nazi who hates Jews. Awesome logic there, buddy.

And what about all the prominent Jews who have also expressed concern about this movie? Are they Nazis too?

The fact that you resorted immediately to ad hominems shows you realize the story is BS and you can't argue the facts, so the only thing you can do is hurl disgusting insults and accuse anyone who questions the story of being genocidal killers.

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

There is a simple way for those attacking Maria and this movie to show their sincerity: Watch the film or read the book "Lady in Gold", read over the facts presented by other posters and argue the facts. It is odd that when presented with the facts, the attackers simply avoid the facts rather than retract their false statements. PLEASE argue the facts!
1) Ferdinand commissioned and owned the paintings. Adele died in 1925.
2) Ferdinand willed the paintings to his family.
3) The Nazis looted the private paintings from the family apartment, stole his business, all his possessions and murdered his friends and family members.
4) The Belvedere was complicit in covering up the thefts and hid the origins of the paintings.
5) The Austrian government refused to negotiate a settlement which would have left the paintings in the Belvedere.
6) Maria was nearly 90 years old with little money.
7) Her lawyer was a family friend who had to borrow money to set up his law practice. To quote Randol at the time: " The world now knows that the Klimt paintings are Nazi-looted art. No amount of whitewashing, or legalistic argumentation can erase that fact." "To have argued that Ferdinand and Adele would have wanted this is to be a Holocaust denier."
8) If you watched the film, you would know that it does tell the full story of what happens to the paintings.
9) If you are not interested in the facts, why go to a website devoted to a movie you haven't seen?
10) Please name these prominent Jewish voices that condemned Maria's pursuit of justice or provide a link.

[–] SteverB 10 years ago

Thank you! I love how, even after almost two months, there's no response to your post of the facts of this story. Idiots should not be allowed to start threads.

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 9 years ago

Thank you! I love how, even after almost two months, there's no response to your post of the facts of this story. Idiots should not be allowed to start threads.

Now 8 months on from yours and still no response.

Ahhh those pesky facts, they always get in the way of a good anti-Semitic rant ….

[–] SteverB 10 years ago

Actually, the previous poster called you an anti-Semite Nazi apologist. No, you're clearly not a Nazi, you just don't seem to mind much what they did to Jews.

To be clear, none of this is to excuse the horrific things the Nazis did, but let's have some perspective here -- millions of people lost parents, siblings, children and friends to the Nazis, and Altmann's family lost a few valuables.

Really? A few valuables? Do you know ANYthing about this family's story? There should also NEVER be a "but" in a sentence that starts with "To be clear, none of this is to excuse the horrific things the Nazis did" because the "but" does excuse them, doesn't it? When six million Jews and many others are killed for simply being who they are, there is NO perspective to be had. Read a history book, for Christ's sake!

I also found nothing from any "prominent Jews" (or non-prominent ones, for that matter) expressing anything but praise for the film. You should stop posting during commercial breaks while watching Hannity.

[–] calamarisoup 10 years ago

At least two of the paintings are now in museums. The Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I (the one of her in gold) is at the Neue Galerie in New York.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_Adele_Bloch-Bauer_I
http://www.neuegalerie.org/content/gustav-klimt-and-adele-bloch-bauer-woman-gold

As of fall 2014 the Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer II is on long term loan to the Museum of Modern Art also in New York.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adele_Bloch-Bauer_II
http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1530

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pmedmoe 10 years ago

Greed? If you had any item stolen from you, you wouldn't want it back?

The paintings were rightfully hers to do with as she saw fit.

And yes, the movie is honest about what she did with the paintings. I saw it last night.

You should stick to posting about GoT, TWD and how "educated" Jenny McCarthy is about vaccines and autism....

[–] DorkoTheDorkLord 10 years ago

Will the movie be honest about what Altmann did with the paintings and how quickly she sold them?

Yup! It also points out that her lawyer used the money to found a law firm that still handles art restitution cases to this day.

And even if greed were her only motive, so what? The Nazis stole her family's possessions. They chased them out of their home, out of Austria. They threatened her husband's life in order to gain control of his brother's textile factory.

To be clear, none of this is to excuse the horrific things the Nazis did, but let's have some perspective here -- millions of people lost parents, siblings, children and friends to the Nazis, and Altmann's family lost a few valuables.

Oh *beep* you. Neither you nor I know this for certain, but do you really think that the Bloch-Bauer/Altmann family survived having their homes looted, their businesses stolen, and having to flee the country without losing anyone close to them?

In truth, it's about strong-arming the legal system in order to remove paintings from a public museum -- where they were supposed to go, by the owner's will

But they didn't go there because it was the owner's will, now did they? Nor did the owner expect that her family would be forced to flee their homeland or else risk being murdered by the government. Those paintings ended up in the Belvedere Gallery because the Nazis who stole them off the walls of the Bloch-Bauer home put them there.

The paintings weren't hanging in the gallery because Adele wanted them there, that was a post-hoc explanation the Austrian government used to try and make it OK that the Nazis stole the paintings before putting them there. If nothing else, they went there before her husband died and without his consent, in contradiction of her request that he donate them upon his death. You can't base your moral argument on one clause while ignoring the other.

ensuring Altmann's children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will continue to live like aristocrats well into the future, with estates and servants and private jets and yachts.

And her family's house was looted to ensure that Göring's wife looked good at social events and that Hitler had pretty paintings for his house. Because her family was Jewish, and therefore the success they'd earned was seen as an affront to the master race. There's no way at all you can make her the bad guy here.

She's rich, ok. Does that make it right that her family's life was destroyed, that they were run out of their homeland, that their possessions became the property of any Nazi aristocrat who wanted them? Does that mean that wishes of a woman who died 13 years before her country would have turned on her, that tried to obscure her identity as the subject of the portrait she intended to will to it, override the injustices that purely by accident saw those wishes "fulfilled"?

Not to a moral person.

[–] phillyboots 10 years ago

Thank you. an excellent post. The OP's post based upon the preview they saw is nothing but thinly veiled prejudice.

May you receive all that Karma has to offer.

[–] bpollen 10 years ago

So.....you choose to ignore the facts, I see. I see. I really see. Austrian Nazis = good guys. Jewish owner of painting = greedy Jew?

[–] phillyboots 10 years ago

OP only saw the trailer, and used what he thought he saw to reinforce the bigotry that is already inside of him.

He'd never see the movie in fear he might actually learn something. The film didn't even go near the full atrocities of the nazi empire.

May you receive all that Karma has to offer.