Fact-Checking Woman in Gold
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/woman-in-gold/
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Woman in Gold (2015) Discussion > Fact-Checking Woman in Gold
The new Austrian legislation was prompted in part by articles published by Hubertus Czernin, portrayed by Daniel Brühl in the film. After the Austrian Gallery archives had been unsealed, Czernin discovered that Austria's claim to the Bloch-Bauer Klimt paintings was faulty. It wasn't long before Maria learned of Czernin's discovery.share
However, Adele's husband, wealthy sugar magnate Ferdinand Bloch-Bauer, did not die until 1945, and by that time the paintings had already been stolen by the Nazis. German attorney Friedrich Führer administered their sale on behalf of the German state, and in 1941, the Austrian State Gallery acquired the Klimt paintings. For the majority of the 60 years that followed, "The Lady in Gold" would hang in the Belvedere Palace in Vienna. -NYTimes.com
Another interesting fact imo...the Austrians actually BOUGHT it from the Nazis! Gives it another little twist...how could they possibly deny Maria's first motion??? That was so wrong!
share
Yes, it was so wrong, though saying "the Austrians actually bought it from the Nazis!" is an odd way to put it since the Austrians (in power) WERE the Nazis at the time. Stolen paintings were traded for stolen paintings like gangsters dividing up the loot from bank heists. The Belvedere museum was knee-deep in the business of stolen art and made every effort to hide the Jewish origins and ownership of the looted paintings, even changing the name of the "The Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer". The museum even sold one of Klimt's paintings which had been donated in perpetuity by Ferdinand, Maria's uncle. They sold it to a Nazi. So all this innocent "How could we know?" nonsense was a smokescreen for not giving back stolen property. You can't legally buy or sell stolen goods. For Austrians of that time to say it was those terrible Nazis is hypocritical. Hitler was Austrian-born.
shareyes yes I know, I wasn't implying any separation of Naziism vs Austrianism...^^ Let's agree on 'the Austrian Nazis/sympathizers/profiteers bought the paintings from the German Nazis' :-) - at least that's what it says in the quote from the NYT. I thought it added an interesting twist to it all, and the museum turned a blind eye in later years.
But I would not label the 1998 Austrian politicians or museum reps Nazis, so I was referring to THEM being very wrong and duplicitous.
Yes, yes, agreed, I didn't mean to imply that the 1998 Austrian authorities were Nazis or thugs, just that they were wrong. I think we are saying the same thing in different ways. The 1941 Austrian government and the Belvedere of 1941 knew perfectly well these were paintings stolen from Jewish families. The Belvedere by 1943 was a virtual warehouse for stolen art. A bunker was later built under the museum to either store art or as a possible hideout for Nazi leaders, even Hitler. It is bizarre that the scumbag lawyer/art dealer who dealt in stolen art was named Fuhrer! The story of the paintings is quite complicated as detailed in the book The Lady in Gold. It is difficult to use labels and to distinguish who did what...German Nazis, Austrian Nazis, museum officials. They were thick as thieves. The bottom line is these were family portraits belonging to Maria's uncle Ferdinand and they were stolen from his private home in 1938. We can all agree on that.
shareDefinitely.
And that the museum officials of 1998 should have known about the museum's history. All these facts make them look criminal, and now I MEAN the 1998+ guys!!!