 |
      |   |
Noontime Nuggetz: The Art Of The Steal TrailerIFC Films has picked up the controversial documentary about the Barnes Foundation, The Art Of The Steal. It’s slated for release on February 26 — no listings for local theaters yet — and the film, if the trailer is anything to go buy, is not nice to the politicians and art world of Philadelphia. 25 Responses to “Noontime Nuggetz: The Art Of The Steal Trailer”Leave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment. | YOUR PHILEBRITY.COM: Editor & Co-Founder: Joey Sweeney Contributing Editor: Jim Adair Contributing Writers: Conor Corcoran Schoolly D Ad Sales & Marketing/Promos: Katie Winkler Interns: Madeline Bates Sharon Margolis Co-Founder/Philebritus Emeritus: Benny Philebrity Send listings info here. NOTICE: Interns wanted.
Archives |
February 8th, 2010 at 1:37 pm
That looks amazing…especially since what is presented in the trailer is all true!
February 8th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
“is not nice to the politicians and art world of Philadelphia.”
It shouldn’t be.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Albert Barnes would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that the art establishment of elitists whom he couldn’t stand when he was alive, have now funded a hate and lie campaign in the form of a film to “protect” his collection from the general public.
What this film will never address is the fact that the Barnes Foundation has no money. That all of these art elitists what have spent their money much more wisely by developing a fundraising campaign and a viable business model to keep the Barnes Foundation up and running. Instead, they fund a filthy attack against the city for the crime of saving the collection.
Lower Merion residents never wanted the Barnes Foundation in their neighborhood. They resented that a black college was authorized to oversee the foundation. They didn’t want “outsiders” in their neighborhood.
The unintended consequence of the Barnes famed teaching laboratory for residents of moderate means, was that they became crazed, fanatical followers of Barnes and have perverted his original mission and joined the ranks of the elitists to shut the public out.
These art elitists were probably hoping that the Barnes would declare bankruptcy so they could buy the art at auction.
What would really bring justice to this tawdry story would be to raze the Barnes Foundation and build a townhouse development.
The Ritz will surely show the film, as I saw the preview last week at the Ritz at the Bourse along with a poster ad of the movie. I noticed in the previews that they only a glimpse of that crazy jackass, Robert Zaller. No doubt marketing wanted to keep that kook under wraps while promoting the movie.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:29 pm
iamdante, you should probably watch the film before you go on a tirade about what you think it’s about so you can back up your misinformed rant. The film supports Albert Barnes “mission” and gives him a voice that has been silenced for much too long.
February 8th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
philleez, It’s a self-serving film that lies about Albert Barnes’ mission. You should remove your head out of your ass before questioning my knowledge.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:17 pm
I’m confused. Have you seen it? Because I have. If you did see the film you would realize how ignorant some of the comments you’ve made are.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:23 pm
Really Philleez? Then please show me where I’m being ignorant Mr. Know-It-All.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
Christ, where do I begin?
By “art elitists” I can only assume you mean the people that are looking to stop the relocation of the move, which I also assume you believe to be the “neighbors”. The film does go into detail about the fact that the foundation had run through its original endowment and subsequently how the foundation burned through much of its money on meaningless lawsuits against the neighbors. And while the film does not sympathize with the neighbors it certainly doesn’t place all the blame on them. Frankly, nobody’s hands were clean throughout this story, and the film shows that. The film also goes into detail about Lincoln University as well as his original educational mission.
Frankly, it is a little troubling that I’m spending any time trying to tell you about details that happen in the film when you’ve clearly made up your mind. See the film, or don’t, but don’t act like some kind of authority on it if you haven’t taken the time to sit and watch it.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
By “art elitists,” I’m talking about people like Christopher Knight, art critic, Los Angeles Times, and author, John Anderson and the “Friends of the Barnes,” including that crazy freak, Robert Zaller, who funded and are promoting the movie. The folks who tell of this great, vast yet, undefined, conspiracy based on hearsay and innuendo. You’re telling me it’s a balanced take on the long, complicated subject, and I’m telling you’re full of it.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:25 am
I think you should get your facts straight before you open your mouth. Sounds like you have personal problems with Robert Zaller and I can see that you’re not interested in any film that has a contrary view to your position. As for your “hearsay” comment you should see what Rendell and former Attorney General Mike Fisher have to say in the film. But I’m sure you won’t.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:44 am
My facts are straight. That’s the problem. I can see your only interest in the film is that it confirms your position, no matter how poorly the film supports it. I look forward to the day when the Barnes mansion becomes middle class townhouses. BTW, Robert Zaller is hyperbolic nutjob.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:13 am
You didn’t see it !!!! If you think that any part of Albert Barnes mission was to have his mansion turned into townhouses only proves how ignorant and misinformed you are. Keep letting politicians and Philadelphia power brokers pull the wool over your eyes. That’s a good side to be on. Have fun.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:46 am
You’re an idiot. You can’t even comprehend what I wrote, much less understand the complexity of this issue as well as who is really pulling the wool over one’s eyes. Your “side” lost. There’s a big whole in the ground by the Parkway where the foundation will have a new home filled with the types of people the elitist art establishment, the Barnes fanatics, and the Lower Merion neighbors hate. Enjoy.
February 9th, 2010 at 10:20 am
I don’t have a “side” retard. I can comprehend what you wrote which is why I was compelled to write in the first place because it was filled with a lot of lies and ignorant statements. The issue is complex and the film goes into great detail about it. I don’t care what you think you know about this issue because you may have been involved in some aspect of it at one time, or you have been following it closely, or you may live in the neighborhood. I know all about people like you. You make up your mind about something before you know all the facts and act like you’re an expert.
Once again, YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE FILM, so your opinion is worthless to me. I’m glad you think $25 million of your tax dollars (assuming you live here) is a good use of public money for that big “whole” in the ground on the Parkway. I don’t. I’m not part of any elite art establishment. I don’t have a “sise”. You have your own feelings about this controversy that no one is going to change your mind about. Have fun at the new Barnes. Asshole.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:22 am
That’s it, when you can’t argue the facts, you start name calling. Typical of your “side,” since you were the first person to talk about being on one’s “side,” you are on “their side,” or as you would say, “sise,” Mr. English.
Your opinion is worthless to me, because you revealed what “sise” you’re on and that anyone who isn’t on your “sise” is a “retard” or an “asshole.”
You haven’t presented a single opinion that supports your “sise’s” argument. All you do gripe about expense and government and some conspiracy and whatever, blah, blah, blah….nothing…You point to the movie but refuse to discuss it, as if a deceptive film is going to change history.
And thank you, I am going to enjoy the new Barnes and will help work to make it even better. I will walk to view the collection and be able to see it without having to make an appointment two weeks in advance. I won’t have to worry about crazy neighbors looking out the window as if I’m some invader. I won’t have to deal with Barnes crazies who have become as insular and elitist as the art establishment who Albert Barnes hated. If I drove I won’t have to get a parking pass ahead of time. I won’t have to be there at the exact time and leave at the exact time. It will be great to have a wonderful collection housed in a beautiful environment in a welcoming city. I am going to love it.
Justice: The Barnes building becomes a townhouse development, the Barnes fanatics are too wrapped up in their bigotry and newly found elitism to ever enter the building, the art establishment is reduced to sulking in their leather-furnished hideaways, and Robert Zaller’s head explodes.
February 9th, 2010 at 11:52 am
I HAVE pointed out things in the film. You just refuse to acknowledge them. I can see that your biggest problem is with the neighbors, who comprise a very small part of the film. I agree, they were giant pains in the ass and they did not help matters at all, and the film shows that. It also goes into detail regarding Richard Glanton’s role in all of that. However, that is not the biggest part of the story by a long shot. But once again you also refuse to acknowledge my main point – YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE FILM!!!!! You have dismissed the people that you don’t agree with as “crazies” and “elitists” without fully understanding the full story, even though I know you think you know it. All I ask is that you watch the movie and if you still feel the same way then I can respect that, and we can agree to disagree. This is a very complex story and I I think everyone will benefit from a heated intelligent debate over it. Sorry for the name calling by the way.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
The full story is known. It isn’t a secret. It isn’t hiding somewhere in back alleys or smoke-filled rooms. It’s been published openly for years. It isn’t a conspiracy. The film is spin…Financed and promoted by the people who are opposed to the move, who provide no alternatives to keeping the Barnes in Merion, who would rather see the Barnes Foundation continue to be their little social club for the same people Albert Barnes despised, as it crumbles.
I have a problem with nearly everyone involved with this issue: The neighbors, the art establishment, and Barnes fanatics. Their arguments are weak, their motives are selfish, and their rhetoric is despicable. This film is financed and promoted by these people.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I just wish you would get your facts straight. I have done a lot of research since I saw the film and your facts are simply wrong. The film was not funded or done in cooperation with any of the organizations that you mention. I encourage you to substantiate your claims, otherwise stop trying to “spin” your agenda by trying to right it off as propaganda. It’s simply not true. I also hope that you have a problem with the politicians, the philanthropists and the other special interests that are also responsible for this mess. Nobodies hands are clean in this story and the film is less about the small town politics and infighting and more about the clash between art and commerce. See for yourself.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Best back and forth comment argument on here in ages. To think I was going to say the doc looks a little one-sided. Now I won’t say a peep in fear of my throat being ripped out before my eyes!
February 9th, 2010 at 4:14 pm
The doc. isn’t a little one sided. It is totally one sided. Why else would the “Friends of the Barnes” be promoting the film? It’s on the home page of their Web site. I mean, Christ, the name of the movie is “The Art of the Steal.” I saw the trailer in the Ritz at the Bourse and online. It is absolutely hyperbolic in tone and content. The story is about the “theft” of art. The crazy nut Robert Zeller compares moving the collection 5 miles to the greatest thefts in the world. He’s compared it to Naziism, for chrissakes.
I plan on seeing the movie WHEN IT IS AVAILABLE TO BE SEEN. But I’ve seen this shit for years and years and years. I know the arguments. I know the accusations. I know the type of crazy that only the Barnes elicits.
Philleez keeps saying, there’s more, but yet he refuses to reveal it, as if it’s something sinister and never before seen. All of a sudden this magical movie is going to reveal something that will rock our worlds. That there is a smoking gun. But yet he won’t reveal it. That’s because Philleez is promoting the movie. Philleez already revealed which “side” he is on.
The only side I’m on is sanity and a sound argument. For all the years this has been debated the crazies cannot do either. This movie is no doubt more of the same.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:04 pm
Agreed, highly entertaining, though silly, back and forth. Now…I HAVEN’T seen the film (got it, philleez?), but it’s mostly irrelevant to the issue of the Barnes move. Of course it’s one-sided, it’s got an agenda, it’s a film (Rashomon, anyone?). The film is “about the clash between art and commerce.” The Barnes move is “about the small town politics and infighting,” and, as iamdante points out, “the fact that the Barnes Foundation has no money.” No one’s stealing the Barnes collection, it’s moving- to a site that aims to replicate the original (well, maybe minus the gardens and the cranky, self-righteous neighbors), increase its visibility, and support itself financially. If the foundation could have figured out a way to run itself responsibly, it could have stayed where it was and followed the spirit of Barnes’ will, but it didn’t and it’s not. I moved some of the collection during its partial tour in the nineties, and it was in chaos then.
February 9th, 2010 at 6:57 pm
iamdante, would it make you feel better that I started to laugh out loud when I saw the trailer before The White Ribbon last week? While both sides have strong, legitimate reasons…the film and most of the Friends Of The Barnes crew seem outrageously spiteful.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Patricio, you would have really laughed if they actually showed Robert Zaller with his electrified hair and nutty professor outfit screaming about Mesopotamia and Constantinople and God knows what else. But they did sprinkle his declarative crazy talk in the trailer. With the exception of Julian Bond, I had to put on my shades in order to shield my eyes from all the pasty white people. I saw it before, “Police, Adjective.” I can’t say I laughed. It was more like a WTF?! moment. I must say the “art” trailer was quite a contrast from all the other previews, which were basically European versions of U.S. action films.
As far as their arguments, they seem to want Barnes paintings in the Barnes space for perpetuity without a plan or clue as to how to fund this. And if they don’t get what they want, it’s because the entire city and state has conspired against them. Really, it’s hard to even tell what they want anymore or what they want from others.
March 3rd, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I just saw this movie and have been reading the comments on this site about it.
To address a few of iamdante’s points:
“Albert Barnes would be rolling over in his grave if he knew that the art establishment of elitists whom he couldn’t stand when he was alive, have now funded a hate and lie campaign in the form of a film to “protect” his collection from the general public.”
—- Actually the art establishment whom Barnes hated are exactly the people who will be controlling his art in the future, mainly the Annenberg Foundation and The PMA. For a man who didn’t want the art used as “upholstery for rich people’s walls” it’s funny to see how many cocktail parties the Philly establishment can setup out of this whole mess. I agree with you that the art classes have been overrun with wealthy folks who have free afternoons to spend, but I say that the Barnes trustees are to blame for this. Their mission should be to make the Barnes Foundation accessible (not just the paintings in some new structure somewhere else, but the actual place Barnes created). They have failed. This is their fault, not the fault of annoying neighbors.
“What this film will never address is the fact that the Barnes Foundation has no money. That all of these art elitists what have spent their money much more wisely by developing a fundraising campaign and a viable business model to keep the Barnes Foundation up and running. Instead, they fund a filthy attack against the city for the crime of saving the collection.”
—- The Barnes could have money. There are many options to save it in it’s present state. Selling paintings and property that are not included in the indenture, upping attendance and days open, taking advantage of a bond offer Montgomery county has put up. Did you know that Bernie Watson, Chairman of the board of the Barnes used to run the William Penn Foundation? Funny how the William Penn Foundation is donating 10 million dollars to the move, but he can’t raise a dime? Sounds fishy to me.
“Lower Merion residents never wanted the Barnes Foundation in their neighborhood. They resented that a black college was authorized to oversee the foundation. They didn’t want “outsiders” in their neighborhood.”
—- Can’t defend the residents of Lower Merion, but I will say that the issues and stakes are much larger than the neighbors. The feelings that you have toward the neighbors are exactly what Ed Rendell is using to justify this move. I have those feelings as well, but to me the Foundation as a whole is too important to break up over that.
“The unintended consequence of the Barnes famed teaching laboratory for residents of moderate means, was that they became crazed, fanatical followers of Barnes and have perverted his original mission and joined the ranks of the elitists to shut the public out.”
—- Again. You’re hung up on the neighbors. I understand why. I get frustrated about them as well (don’t know what you’ve got til it’s gone). I feel the focus should be on the Barnes trustees actually getting their act together. Too bad their leader, Bernie Watson, is a Philadelphia civic booster who used to head the convention center.
“These art elitists were probably hoping that the Barnes would declare bankruptcy so they could buy the art at auction.”
—- Well, with the fiscal state of the other foundations on the parkway and the massive costs of the move… The Barnes may not be able to sustain itself on the parkway. Throw in the fact that it will be another institution to compete for local funding. I mean, my streets didn’t even get plowed this winter… Maybe you and I will be grabbing paintings off of ebay in a few years. That would be nice. If our wills mean anything after the precedents set by this case, we might even be able to leave them to our kids.
“What would really bring justice to this tawdry story would be to raze the Barnes Foundation and build a townhouse development.”
—- I hope not. Funny though.
The Ritz will surely show the film, as I saw the preview last week at the Ritz at the Bourse along with a poster ad of the movie. I noticed in the previews that they only a glimpse of that crazy jackass, Robert Zaller. No doubt marketing wanted to keep that kook under wraps while promoting the movie.
—- Check it out and come back for more conversation.
March 20th, 2010 at 10:18 am
Excellent observation jackson_squared. I loved the film. Don’t count on Dante to chime in with any legit conversation about it though, your insights are way too detailed and nuanced for him. He’s not interested in any debate, he made up his mind before he’s seen the film.
The most shocking thing for me in the film is Rendell and former attorney general Mike Fisher’s candor and admission of the events that have led to this move. I have read many reviews and some say this is a “one sided” story, but no one points out Rendell and Fisher. Why do you think that is?