She wanted the painting back so she could auction it off! - Woman in Gold (2015) Discussion

[–] mylesag 10 years ago

How do you know that? You misinterpreted the movie. As a matter of fact, if that part with Ron Lauder offering to put the best lawyers available in the final phases of the legal fight vs. Austria, is true, then indeed her motives were far from mercenary.

Besides, she was over 90; so she knew she wasn't going to be around much longer. How would you feel if you reached that age -- and something that was part of your legacy came your way? You can't take it with you to the grave. So might as well monetize it, especially since the Lauders were willing to pay top $$, and create a lot of good will amongst others. Or you didn't see the other good deeds she initiated and that came out of cashing in the painting??

Just wait until you reach your ripe old years, and that good fortune should belatedly come your way, then make a sour judgment on Mrs. Altman.

Why do you only see dark motives in others? 😢

reply

[–] TheGoforth 10 years ago

I'm not blaming her for selling the painting off - I'm simply accusing the filmmakers of trying to paint her in a noble light (no pun intended) when really, her motivation was money, not justice. Obviously, that wouldn't sell movie tickets if you saw a trailer about an old lady concocting a plan to make millions through claiming she needs a painting back that has righteous Holocaust related significance to her. Or WOULD it?!

reply

[–] sillyhat 10 years ago

really, her motivation was money, not justice.

How can you possibly know that?

reply

[–] TheGoforth 10 years ago

How can you possibly know that?

Common sense. We're not just talking about a few million. $325 million to be exact, divided among her heirs.

reply

[–] mylesag 10 years ago

You just jacked up the $135 million to $325 mil. Don't you read "credits" or history? After taxes, that might've come down to perhaps $95 million. Schoenberg's law firm and his services came to around $10 million. And was her windfall, so late in life, so objectionable considering she fled her comfortable life in Vienna with nothing but the clothes on her back? Never saw what happened to her parents -- who presumably perished horrible deaths in the concentration camps? And you have the gall and audacity to cast aspersions on this woman's intentions and motives when:

1. You don't know her at all;
2. She is NO longer around to defend herself.

Shame on you. Hopefully, no good luck comes your way or your family's way...if you have one.

reply

[–] TheGoforth 10 years ago

No, actually my criticism was directed at the filmmakers. It was her property, she was perfectly entitled to sell it on. Let's just not delude ourselves that she wanted it back for humane reasons, as the film implies. By the way, I edited the figure because there were several other paintings she auctioned off later - it's the combined value. Wikipedia is your friend :-)

Hopefully, no good luck comes your way or your family's way...if you have one.

I don't quite understand this statement in context to what we're discussing... I wasn't wishing ill will on anyone.

reply

[–] bpoz 10 years ago

And let's just not delude ourselves that you know any better what her motives were than anyone else. The notion that you have some special insight into her psyche that the rest of the world lacks is pretentious at the least and suggests a certain amount of bias.

reply

[–] truetexian 9 years ago

You can't possibly know what her motivations for wanting justice and getting her family's belongings back were! It's rude and insulting of you, not to mention how ignorant and ridiculous it makes you appear.
Look into what she decided to do with the proceeds and you'll begin (if you have a reasonable and rational brain that is) to realize how inane your post is.

reply

[–] rollerskater61 10 years ago

Shame on you from me too. It was hers to do what she wanted with. It appears that you, my friend, slander the dead without even having your facts straight.

reply

[–] aGuiltySoul 9 years ago

How can you possibly know that?

Common sense.

You are giving her motivations that you have assumed. That is not "common sense," that is leaping to conclusions. Are you saying that the family only had the right to have the paintings returned if they never sold them? That makes no sense.

Selling the paintings was a decision that was a privilege of the family, who, as you say, shared in the profits. Why would they keep the paintings? The family no longer has a life style that supports an estate with paintings on the walls, thanks entirely to the destruction of the Nazis. Notice she offered in early negotiations to allow the Austrians to keep the paintings if they admitted that they had been stolen. A financial settlement would have occurred also, probably much, much less realized than the subsequent auction.

I want to also point out that her father's Stradivarius cello was also seized and her aunt's diamond necklace. Just those two items alone were also valued in the millions of dollars in the decades after the thefts. If this had been about money she could pursued them also. This was about calling the Austrian government to account for their complicity in what happened to some of their citizens. Hanging the paintings in a prominent museum, renaming them to delete her aunt's name, and maintaining they were "donated" was an emotional assault. She was right to take the painting back.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

reply

[–] lemner 9 years ago

"Making" money off of something that is legally and rightfully yours? Horrors!

Maybe we should all consider just how well off her family might have been if none of them had ever been persecuted, robbed, and murdered by the Nazis?

I'm sure the courts did not award her legal ownership of the painting based on what they thought she might do with it, or because she had sentimental feelings about it.

Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam


reply

[–] aGuiltySoul 9 years ago

👍
It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

reply

[–] rollerskater61 10 years ago

Disagree. This was about justice and restitution. But maybe you only saw the trailer, or you'd know that.

---
Darling, nothing is final 'til you're dead, and even then, I'm sure God negotiates.

reply

[–] trisul 9 years ago

No, you're wrong. She had no idea of the value of the painting when she started. Throughout the movie, she is trying to do the right thing. The movie actually deals with her motives, so there is no need to guess. Her motive was to find peace, which victory did not bring her. And at the end, she gave away the money and lived happily just as before.

So, you vile accusations are just a figment of your own imagination and say more about yourself than about her. Sorry to be so brutal, but I think you need it and hope this will help you.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

The OP shows either a great deal of ignorance or does not understand Maria's motivation. She is not exploiting grief for personal gain. As someone who knew her well wrote:
Interesting comment (after a review) from someone who knew Maria Altmann:

Tommi Trudeau |

Feb 13, 2015 3:26pm

I lived with Maria Altmann for almost four years up until her death in 2011. I can tell you with absolute certainty that it was NOT about the money! She sold the paintings because her legal bills were in the tens of millions of dollars. She never spent a dime of that money on herself; NOT A SINGLE DIME! She insisted on wearing clothes that were over 40 years old and being driven around in her 20 year old, beat up Ford Taurus with faded paint that we nicknamed the "Klimt-mobile".

reply

[–] monstermayhem32 10 years ago

I think Maria just wanted whst was right.

reply

[–] bpollen 10 years ago

Why do you have a problem with stolen property being returned to its owner? Is it because she's Jewish?

If you're not stupid, and I assume you are not, there was never any question that she was NOT going to hang the painting in her little modest house. She would have been robbed immediately. And she would not have been able to insure it.

I knew all along that it would go to some museum or place that is in the business and experience of caring for valuable art. Duh, Triangular. A big DUH.

But the point is that the stolen painting was returned to the family it was stolen from. The movie doesn't exploit the memory of her and her family. It is the actions of the evildoers that caused the whole series of events to happen.

You are blaming the victims. It's just shocking that in this day and age, that is still going on.

reply

[–] TheGoforth 10 years ago

I knew all along that it would go to some museum or place that is in the business and experience of caring for valuable art. Duh, Triangular. A big DUH.

It went to auction and the buyer decided that. It very easily could have gone to somebody who would have kept it from public view. The destiny of the painting was out of her hands once she put it and the other works up for auction. What if someone anti-Semitic had bid for them? After all, money does the talking.

You are blaming the victims. It's just shocking that in this day and age, that is still going on.

As I stated many times, I am not blaming the victim, who did nothing wrong - it's not a crime to want to make lots of money. I'm blaming the filmmakers for being dishonest and trying to convince us she wanted the painting(s) back for any other reason.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

The Op is sticking to the same old, tired clichés (Hollywood/Jewish/greed)in the face of many other posters presenting the facts. Maybe the OP should try actually reading some of the posts or some comments from people who actually knew the woman who at her advanced age would hardly be in it for the money. Till her death she wore the same old clothes, had a beat up old car and lived in a bungalow...some "aristocrat". And what is the actual agenda of the poster? It's a movie only partly Hollywood (BBC Films?). Has the OP even seen the film? What is the OP's axe to grind? With a hundred comic book superhero movies out there, why is the OP so concerned with the motivation of the filmmakers? Is the OP a mind reader? If the producers wanted to make buckets of money just churn out mindless entertainment for the masses. Look at all the top grossing films lately. WE all need to be reminded of history. Calling it "porn" is odious and disgusting. I can only imagine the offense taken by anyone who is Jewish. I'm not Jewish, but everyone should know the poem "First they came for the _____ and I did nothing because I was not _____. Fill in the blanks for yourself because "and then they came for me". Another famous quote roughly goes, "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." Those who are ignorant of the tragedies of the past are doomed to repeat them.

reply

[–] TheGoforth 10 years ago

The Op is sticking to the same old, tired clichés (Hollywood/Jewish/greed)in the face of many other posters presenting the facts

Classic projection. I never once equated Jewishness with greed or any of the heinous stereotypes the Nazis were fond of perpetuating. That the woman happens to be Jewish is irrelevant to this. My issue is with the filmmakers.

With a hundred comic book superhero movies out there, why is the OP so concerned with the motivation of the filmmakers?

Why not?

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Classic avoidance of the questions I asked. Classic disregard of the facts. The OP's own disgusting words: "Hollywood Holocaust grief porn". Oh, right no intention to offend there, like the religious "freedom" laws in the U.S., no intention to discriminate against anyone. You used Hollywood and Nazi in the same sentence. There may be lots of things to dislike about Hollywood, but having too many serious, historical films is not one of them. Here's a a real simple question with a real simple answer. Have you seen the movie? Why are you so concerned that others will see the film? Does it offend you? What filmmakers are you talking about? What do you have against BBC Films, a British director, a British star and two Canadians in lead roles?

reply

[–] TheGoforth 10 years ago

You used Hollywood and Nazi in the same sentence.

And? Hitler's methods to hypnotize the masses were synonymous with the Hollywood spectacles of the time. He loved Hollywood movies and this can hardly be a surprise. It's all about manipulation, it's all about influencing people into believing something through showmanship.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 10 years ago

Saying Hitler liked movies is about as relevant as Mussolini liking pasta. Germany was a huge film market. Hitler liked Disney cartoons. What does that have to do with Woman in Gold? You are saying Woman in Gold is propaganda. "Propaganda" for what? Anti-fascist, anti-racist "propaganda"? Do you know the meaning of propaganda? If anything is hypnotizing (your word)the masses (which I doubt)it is mindless superhero films which avoid any social issues. What is Hollywood "manipulating" us to believe, even if you can call this a "Hollywood" film? (I had no idea the BBC was based in Hollywood!!!!)Why don't you come right out and say what you really mean?
The Nazis used anti-Semitic propaganda films about Jews being greedy. You want to describe a woman you have never met with the term greedy for wanting her property back. It is called justice, something you may not understand.
Did Hitler like Confessions of a Nazi Spy or The Mortal Storm or Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator which ridiculed the ignorant scumbag? Odd that you are denouncing "Hollywood spectacles" on a board about a little old lady who wants her paintings back. No aliens, no shoot-outs, just evil villains who were very real and whose evil should never be forgotten. You don't want to be reminded about the Holocaust, don't see the movie, pretty simple. And way to go answering all the questions I posed. (sarcasm intended).

reply

[–] Sidewindr 9 years ago

It went to auction and the buyer decided that. It very easily could have gone to somebody who would have kept it from public view. The destiny of the painting was out of her hands once she put it and the other works up for auction. What if someone anti-Semitic had bid for them? After all, money does the talking.

Wrong, the Woman in Gold painting was sold privately with the condition it would remain on public display. The other Klimt paintings were auctioned by Christies.

It is well documented that her motivations for getting the paintings back were not monetary and was that they were rightfully hers, she wanted to right the injustice of their theft. She had to sell the paintings once she got them back to pay for legal fees and most of the proceeds were given to charities, used to set up trusts for museums and memorials and the rest was divided up amongst her heirs. The paintings were sold out of necessity.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phillyboots 10 years ago

@the OP… Did you even see the movie?

If so, do you see any storyline other than about her "financial gain". Did you see where she moved to Trump Towers, bought furs and jewelry, or anything else of excess? Her gain was used altruistically. Now even more people know what happened.

Are audiences made to endure more Hollywood Holocaust grief porn so this woman seems heroic?

No, you can ignore it. Bigots who actually see the movie will remain bigots. Some of us, a generation away from the horrific period, like reminders sometimes. Not easy to watch, but an important time in history.

Woman In Gold is certainly an apt title.

Yes it is, it was the re-name of the painting to rob its true identity.

May you receive all that Karma has to offer.

reply

[–] TheGoforth 10 years ago

If so, do you see any storyline other than about her "financial gain". Did you see where she moved to Trump Towers, bought furs and jewelry, or anything else of excess? Her gain was used altruistically. Now even more people know what happened.

You do realise this was based on real life? Please don't take what you see in a movie to be based on fact. This is the point of my topic. The paintings she retrieved could have been purchased by ANYONE once she put them up for auction. What don't you seem to grasp about this? A billionaire Nazi sympathizer could have bought those paintings back and she would have been powerless to stop them, because she was counting on the money.

Some of us, a generation away from the horrific period, like reminders sometimes. Not easy to watch, but an important time in history.

And that is the most perverse statement of them all. Do you take pleasure in seeing the horror up there in cinematic spectacle? It is exploitation of the most disgusting kind. She wanted to make her family millions - that's fine. She's achieved it, they are all multi millionaires.

reply

[–] phillyboots 10 years ago

I still don't know if you saw the movie or not, you skipped that question. I have full grasp of the licenses movies take. I also have knowledge away from the film. Your smugness is unfounded. I have full grasp of your feelings, beyond only how it relates to this film.

And that is the most perverse statement of them all. Do you take pleasure in seeing the horror up there in cinematic spectacle? It is exploitation of the most disgusting kind.

If you don't get, you just don't get it. Amazing that anyone woulds think it's about any form of "pleasure".

May you receive all that Karma has to offer.

reply

[–] TheGoforth 10 years ago

If you don't get, you just don't get it. Amazing that anyone woulds think it's about any form of "pleasure".

That's what cinema is - the pleasure principle. By the way, I saw the movie - that's why I started the topic.

reply

[–] phillyboots 10 years ago

That's what cinema is - the pleasure principle.

I will then concede that, even though I had general knowledge of the outcome, I had great pleasure in seeing it on the screen. Is that what you termed perversion? I cringed at the atrocities and the arrogance. Guess it can't all be pleasure. Now back to your original post which is being clouded here.

Such is her right to do with her own property - but why is this film making out that she wanted the painting back based on a noble, ethical ideal of justice for her family? She saw a way to make a lot of money. Are audiences made to endure more Hollywood Holocaust grief porn so this woman seems heroic? Am I supposed to admire her for exploiting the memory of history's victims for financial gain?
Woman In Gold is certainly an apt title.... there was a lot of gold to be made from her getting the painting back

To me, it smacks of insensitivity and sounds just like film character who said "you people and the holocaust". Sorry that you can't understand that it sounds so offensive. Just consider it might, despite whatever your original intentions were.

May you receive all that Karma has to offer.

reply

[–] sakutf 10 years ago

She had no money to display or guard it. Keeping it privately was impossible.

reply

[–] mylesag 10 years ago

If she did, what are you going to do about it, smarty-pants? You're off your *beep* rocker.

reply

[–] halomaniac88 10 years ago

She did it as a subtle FU to the Austrian Government. I would have done the same, I would not want the country who destroyed my life to enjoy my family's properties. She did some good with the money, donations of charities etc.

reply

[–] nomail82 10 years ago

excuse me, but you sir are weird as *beep*.
i am sorry ur life sux.
plx show me more of ur ... ach vergiss es.
warum werden hier dauernd ignorante vollidioten zum schreiben motiviert?
zu dumm,sich mit dem inhalt auseinanderzusetzen - lieber ins gemeinsame horn stoßen. nicht denken wird sich schon irgendwie auszahlen.

naja jetzt hängtse in new york - so hat sich jemand seinen wunsch erfüllt und die spasten fühlen irgendwie, dass der gerechtigkeit genüge getan wurde.
hoffentlich fühle diese trottel nicht irgendwann, das meine ausrottung der gerechtigkeit genüge tuen würde. das wäre ... doof.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]