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

[–] DesigningWoman77 9 years ago

Oh go get bent. She and her family were victims of atrocities and she wanted what was rightfully hers.
She lived on in the same small house for the few years she had left to life and donated her financial gain to charity.

reply

[–] steven_torrey 9 years ago

'Motivation' is always the complex backdrop of any film, especially one of this nature. Your attitude, the way you raise the question, suggests a cynicism of a prison inmate. "Hollywood Holocaust grief porn" seems especially egregious and offensive. The question of art stolen by the Nazis now in the hands of museums or other private owners is something of a challenge-as the film so carefully depicts. The film raises the question of whether an heir has right to that priceless stolen artwork and how and if and whether it should be returned to the heirs. The fact that the artwork is priceless is NOT the central issue--but who is the rightful owner of that artwork, how is an heir to assert ownership, is the film's central concern. Your comment was rude and offensive and ultimately stupid and thoughtless.

reply

[–] TheGoforth 9 years ago

Note: I wrote "Hollywood Holocaust grief porn" not "Holocaust grief porn". They are not the same thing. One usually has an emotive soundtrack over it, after all.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 9 years ago

The Op's comments are ignorant and offensive with or without the "Hollywood" added. Again why is this poster using "Hollywood" for an international, partly BBC movie with a British director, British and Canadian stars? Is the OP just stupid or intentionally misleading? The OP has argued that any neo-Nazi could have bought the painting. In fact, Maria only sold the painting on the condition that it be publicly displayed in a public gallery and that funds be given for art restitution. The Lauder family was front and centre in this whole process, spending tens of millions on art restitution. Why does the OP not get the facts straight and actually answer some of the questions posed on these threads? Why not actually read the book, "Lady in Gold" if you are looking for the true story? You repeatedly question the motives of a Holocaust survivor who was living in a little bungalow, still WORKING at 86, someone you have never met and know little or nothing about, yet any suggestion of your questionable "motives" is somehow not fair game. If it is "Hollywood" or film in general you are annoyed at, why not address the fact that this is not a Hollywood movie? Why not be honest about your motivation for using disgusting, offensive language? Oh, no, you're not anti-Semitic, you're just an *******. Someone who does not feel empathy for a family caught up in the Nazi atrocities is a pathetic human being, period. History is the story of humanity. Ignore it at our peril. What does anything in "Woman in Gold" have to do with the word "porn"? You are just using a negative label for effect without any substance. Heaven forbid you should ever be put in a situation like Maria, her husband in a concentration camp, her father dying of a broken heart after his beloved cello is stolen. Do you stay and risk the gas chamber or flee for your life with the clothes on your back? Why don't you answer that question?

reply

[–] axlerod88 9 years ago

I'm not even going to touch the topic of the paintings being auctioned off. That has been covered by everyone else quite appropriately. The OP kept going on about how the film makers made Maria Altmann's case of trying to get back the paintings & then only to auction them off as a noble cause was in reality just a case of greed.

I think that if the OP had directed the comment at the Ryan Reynold's character instead then it would have more aptly fit. I thought that the film makers did make his intentions more noble than they were. He even admitted to his wife that he only took the case after he googled the value of the painting. But then his motives changed when he visited the holocaust memorial. Also not to mention the music recital in Vienna of his grandfather's work which caused him to tear up.

After losing the restitution hearing, his law firm tells him that there is no more case, he quits his job to continue on in secret without telling his wife. Very noble still so far. After winning the Supreme Court decision, he tells Maria that their best option is to go for arbitration in Austria. I think this is where the film makers glossed over things.

Maria tells Ronald that their attempt to negotiate with the Belvdere in good faith was futile & that she didn't want to continue on anymore with the lawsuit. When Ronald tells his wife that he can't quit because he's got too much invested into this, I kinda had to question what it was that he was actually talking about. Because it was here that the film makers were making it seem that it was all about the fight against tyranny when instead I had a feeling it was more about $$$. He did make $10M off the case if I'm not mistaken.

The only truly noble character in the film was Daniel Bruhl's character. Trying to make restitution for his father's past allegiance to the nazis. Aside from this minor quibble, I quite enjoyed the film for shedding more light on a dark spot in history.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 9 years ago

axlerod88 I presume you get paid for whatever work you do...does that make you greedy? Do you understand how lawyers get paid on a contingency basis? If the client gets nothing, he and his family get nothing. There are also millions of dollars in expenses involved. The actual process took many long years. Would you work 8 or more years for nothing? There is nothing ignoble about doing a job well and receiving justice for your client. Like many others on this board you are blinded by the big numbers and $ signs. If someone stole something valuable from your family, you would want it back. Maria's cause was noble and so was Randy's in helping her. If you really want to know the true story read the book, "The Lady in Gold" and you will change your mind. The film may shorten the time span, but it does not "gloss over" events. Like others who have commented on these boards, I challenge you to use facts rather than innuendo.

reply

[–] axlerod88 9 years ago

@berniegfletcher did you fully read & digest my post?? I"m not blinded by the big #'s as you put it. I clearly stated that I agreed with what the majority felt about how the paintings were hers to do with as she pleased. I have no problems whatsoever with that. Those are her family's heirlooms & she may do whatever she wishes with them.

I merely offered an alternative point of view to the OP's original thread by suggesting that the lawyer character played by Ryan Reynolds was made to look more noble by the film makers with the intention of gaining greater viewer sympathy. Should he get paid for his work that he did for Maria?? Of course he should.

But he did originally took on the case because he googled the painting & found out its true value. He even said so to his wife. Maria meanwhile was trying to open his eyes to the bigger picture. That he too had suffered losses at the hands of the nazis & that he had more at stake in this case than he realized.

Then the parts where he visited the memorial & later the chamber music recital of his grandfather's work where he cried. All this led up to him changing his attitude with regards to the case in the movie. It was no longer just a legal battle between an old lady (whom he represented) vs Austria. It became a personal battle for him against tyranny & he fully understood what's at stake.

So tell me that those parts that I mentioned aren't movie gimmickry? In a way, I wish that I had watched the documentary first instead of the movie. Just the facts without it being glossed over. The truth rarely needs embellishment but in movies the truth often times is not enough.

reply

[–] berniegfletcher 9 years ago

axle, you maybe should do some reading. I recommend the book by Anne-Marie O\Connor. From an L.A. Times article of hers:
"He would never give up," marveled Hubertus Czernin, 50, the Vienna journalist who uncovered the paintings' Nazi paper trail. "Maria is the same type. Her attitude was: 'Those paintings were stolen from my family, and now I will fight.' And Maria couldn't have had a better fighter for that case than Randy."

For Schoenberg -- kinetic, restless and intense, with the boundless snap of a Spencer Tracy character -- the case is far more than a simple legal wrangle, it's an obsession.
Your words were, "The only truly noble character in the film was Daniel Bruhl's character." The quote from the L.A. Times above is from that actual journalist.
If you have not read the book, how exactly do you know that the the film "embellished" the truth, "glossed over" the facts and used "movie gimmickry". These are your words. You are saying Randy Schoenberg and Maria Altmann were not noble in their motives. Randy was a struggling, young American lawyer who had a family to feed. What is wrong with finding out what paintings are worth? There would be no point pursuing an international case for worthless art. Maria Altmann was a dear family friend. He had grown up hearing stories of the Nazis looting art treasures and how Maria had to flee Austria with her new husband who had just gotten out of a concentration camp through a deal. The fact that Randy grew to a fuller understanding of the Holocaust is a testament to what we all go through...life is a learning curve. This does not make him less noble, just a human being. He funded the L.A. Holocaust Museum and serves as the director. He is an acclaimed lawyer who works on art restitution cases related to works stolen by the Nazis.
As for Maria not being noble you need to read the many comments on these boards about the simple lifestyle she lived in a small bungalow with a beat-up, old car. Read comments from those who actually knew her. Who are you to judge?
I know you will say you are commenting on the movie, not the people, but facts are your friends. Please give specific examples of the film "embellishing", "glossing over" the truth or "movie gimmickry" I have read your comments a few times and do not get your point. Any film will leave out events, shorten timelines and make dramatic scenes out of say visiting a Holocaust memorial. Just to be clear, you have not read the book, but you know the movie glosses over the truth. If you want movie that is full of fiction watch Argo.

reply

[–] sfarkus 9 years ago

I agree with bernie. OK the lawyer found out about the value of the painting, but the single case took several years and exorbitant expenses to work, not to mention that there was absolutely no guarantee of winning the case. If anything, the odds seemed against them. To say that the lawyer took this case out of greed is absurd, as there are many legal cases that are easier to work on and more readily profitable. He could have just stayed in the big law firm and lived a cushy life.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] harveythepooka 9 years ago

IMO the movie left out something very important, and that's that she had kids, probably her sister had kids and she also had a brother who also probably had kids and the brother also had a share in the artwork. So Maria only owner her share of the painting, the heirs of her dead sibling still owned their shares of the property.

But I think you're missing the bigger point, which is she wanted justice to be done. The paintings legally belonged to her family and for the government to say they didn't just because they wanted them was morally wrong. But, she hated Austria because they rolled out the red carpet to welcome in the nazis and she's entitled to her opinion. That's why she took away the paintings, not because she was in it for the money. By the time you get to your late 80's, early 90's most people realize that money can't buy the most important things in life and I am sure Maria learned that after the way she basically had to flee for her life to get out of Austria to begin with.

reply

[–] davemerino 9 years ago

Although you are not completely wrong in your assessment - it is your actual theory - you have no proof that money was the motivator that drove her. As the film said at the end - it's estimated that there are still 100,000 other pieces of art that still have yet to be returned to their rightful owners (TO DO WITH AS THEY PLEASE).

reply

[–] KatharineFanatic 9 years ago

Did you actually watch the film?

Throughout, Maria's motivation is to be reunited with her aunt's portrait.

It's only at the very end that she decides to sell it to the museum in New York, and give a huge portion of the profits to charitable organizations and to support the arts.

reply

[–] gorgsharpy 9 years ago

The movie wants the audience to have this discussion. So, there's no exact answer to it.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 9 years ago

You owe it to yourself to watch the film again and to read about this particular story to better understand her motivations (rather than yours).

Yours, appears to be a fundamental inability to see beyond one's own experience.

reply