Art of the Steal, The

 

Story:

A gripping tale of intrigue and mystery in the art world, this film traces the history of the Barnes collection of Post-Impressionist paintings, which was worth billions and became the subject of a power struggle after the 1951 death of the owner. Dr. Albert Barnes collected 181 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 59 Matisses, 46 Picassos and many other valuable paintings. But the political wrangling over the collection eventually led to its division (NetFlix).

Review:

Don Argott’s Art of the Steal was a film I looked to for suspense and intrigue in the documentary genre.  It had political intrigue, fraudulent distortion and manipulation, larger than life characters and a hidden treasure that would rival something in an Indiana Jones' film.  Needless to say, I had high hopes for this documentary.  And it bombed.  Not horribly so, but it was definitely underwhelming.  If you’ve seen Arrested Development and gotten to know George Michael’s girlfriend Ann (“who? Egg?”), you’ll know what I’m talking about.  Art of the Steal isn’t an atrocious film, it’s just mind-bogglingly bland and forgettable.    

The clear indicator of this is Argott’s inability to eliminate the “who cares” question every audience member will feel while watching this battle over an art collection unfold.  Yes, it was a rare collection full of paintings desired by an art world that originally scoffed it, but what artist or collector hasn’t been criticized for being ahead of the curve?  I guarantee 50 years from now people will be wondering why we didn’t adore some currently obscure artist.  And if these are masterpieces, why shouldn’t they be where more people can view them?  The community housing the collection clearly didn’t want large numbers visiting their area (the film itself demonstrates this) so either you’re an elitist only wanting a few people to appreciate this art, or you’re telling a long established community to ignore their wishes so school kids can parade through their yards before entering the museum.  Neither sounds like a good choice and Argott fails to provide more options.    

The argument aside, this film lacks a coherent hero and villain.  The supporters of keeping the status quo with the Barnes collection clearly can’t be defined as heroic because of the above statements (plus, anytime you yell the word “philistines” as an insult, you automatically forfeit the hero title).  The enemies are even more ambiguous.  One minute Richard Glanton is the villain who is bastardizing the collection for his own purposes, the next he’s considered the last protector of the collection from the evil, downtown art museums (who are themselves hardly evil considering they are on record as wanting to preserve the layout and legacy of the Barnes collection).    

Don’t get me wrong, Argott is a fine director and he does a solid job working with what he has, but he just doesn’t have a compelling story.  You can see it in the uninteresting interviews he attempts to salvage by framing in interesting ways (one failure however is Julian Bond seated in an all white room like the Architect from the second Matrix film.  I half expected Keanu Reeves to burst into the room with a ‘woah’).  It’s also seen in the same boring/static shots of the outside of the Barnes Foundation building or street scenes of Philadelphia.     What’s most fascinating (and perhaps damning) about the film is its lack of visuals of the art itself.  The very thing being debated is almost an after thought.  Most people aren’t art scene regulars and most likely have never heard of the Barnes collection, much less seen it’s impressive displays.  So why are their almost as many visuals of Barnes’ dog as there are of his art?    

Perhaps this is too harsh a critique of The Art of the Steal.  If you are an art aficionado, this film is certainly worth your time- especially if you are looking for a reason to donate to your local art collection.  In fact, there was a brief moment when this film would have gotten a higher rating, but when you truly think back on Argott’s documentary, there is very little of merit.  Though a quality film, it lacks a defining characteristic for audiences to take away.  As painful as it is to say, The Art of the Steal is fantastically bland and not worth much time- unless you happen to truly love art.

Reviewed by Matthew Abshire for Documentary Film Online on April 03, 2010

In Conclusion: