I didn't think much of this. First, I was bored much of the
time. Lots of courtroom scenes, without much drama. I never really engaged with
any of the characters or their dilemmas, in so far as they had any.
But mainly I think the effort to restore Nazi-looted art to
its owners leaves me cold. Valuable paintings are a form of money. That Manet
or Van Gogh isn't worth squillions because that is its intrinsic value, but
because it’s scarce and monetary value can be attached to it. So everyone who
owns a valuable painting is by definition part of the super-rich.
In this story the happy ending is that the Klimpt paintings
are transferred from a public gallery in Vienna to a privately owned gallery in
New York, where they are on public display. The heroine realises that the
return of the paintings doesn't resolve her sense of loss of world and family,
her guilt at fleeing and leaving her parents behind – she still has to live
with that. Well, guess what? Other holocaust victims have to live with that
too, only they weren't ever rich, so they didn't either have to deal with
losing their valuable art, or have any prospect of getting it back.
And a small quibble. In the apartment, at Maria’ wedding
(and what sort of name is that for a Jewish girl anyway?) the exquisitely
bourgeois Viennese Jews dance a hora. Would they have, or is this just the film
trying to connect them with the European Jewish world as imagined by an
American audience?
No comments:
Post a Comment