During the movie, Larry is running around the museum trying to understand what is going on and ends up having a conversation with a living historical landmark. The landmark was a giant Easter Island head, also known as a Moai. The heads were built between the years 1250 and 1500 by the Rapa Nui people. These giant landmarks were a display of eastern Polynesia art in the form of sculpture work and gave us an idea of their culture and how they pay respect to their dead ones. The stone blocks are carved into head-and-torso figures, and they average 13 feet tall and 14 tons, which goes to show us how much time and patience it took to complete one. The short and funny conversation which involved the Moai asking Larry for gum, left a memorable impression on the audience (since it’s an iconic scene) and it raised attention to curious viewers who may not have known what the sculpture was. 

Larry began to find his ways around the new life of the museum and more artwork began to come visible to the audience, with or without them knowing. The movie gives us many different cultural references with different forms of characters. For instance, some of the characters they introduced throughout the movie were; Indians, cowboys, and Romans. The Roman character was named Octavius and was a general in the Roman military during his time. The movie displayed the general in military uniform and his high ranking was shown throughout his well-polished and flashy armor. The headwear, “cape”, and gold-plated armor made it clear to us that he was someone of importance. The form of art to show rankings and importance in the military was exactly spot on as to how it was during the ancient Roman times. The movie was accurate to display Octavius in the uniform they had put him in and allowed the audience to get an understanding as to how military armor varied throughout the soldier’s rankings. The producer also relied on well-known stereotypes to display the personalities of each character, such as the Indianan being very respectful, the cowboy being wild and hostile, and the Roman soldier as humble yet cocky & arrogant due to his military ranking.

The movie continues to be very entertaining and appealing all the way until the end. The audience got a good laugh and interesting story to go along with the many references to art, historical artifacts and architecture. The producers also incorporated many important characters from some of the most influential and memorable times in history. They included Sacagawea, cavemen, civil war mannequins, and even paintings such as “the crying girl” by Roy Lichtenstein. These characters weren’t only a huge part of the movie but also took part in discreetly adding in educational scenes that relate to many of the things covered in this class. Even if you have absolutely no prior knowledge of historical artwork or sculptures, you can still easily enjoy the movie and understand what is going on throughout the whole thing. However, if you do have prior knowledge on these types of things, I feel as if it’s noticeable and clear to say that the movie did a very good job to include these concepts in the movie to make it more realistic. Without any of these forms of art, the movie wouldn’t have been as interesting and entertaining. The fact that it took place in a historic museum helps the producers be able to take many forms of art and cultural artifacts and turn them into something that everyone can find interest in. Historians would enjoy this movie very much due to the multiple displays of artwork that was shown throughout, and the accuracy of the artwork that the producers made sure to include. 

The Huns were nomadic people who traveled to Europe after leaving Central Asia, to threaten the Roman Empire. The Hun were a fearsome tribe of people. Old stories tell tales of the boys having their faces slashed with swords as infants, to teach them how to endure pain before they can receive nourishment. In the movie the Huns are wearing hats lined with fur and these headdresses are very similar, if not exactly like those you would see in old pictures/drawings of the Huns. They wear big, bulky armor covered in repeating patterns, and their clothing is heavy with fur lining the inside and out. Their clothing indicating that they can endure whatever they may face on their travels. A detail the movie missed to incorporate would be the scars that the male Huns would have across their faces. I would have liked for them to include this detail so that I could have a better visual aid as to what the scarring may have looked like. This movie portrays the Huns and their culture to all have been very aggressive, savage people. This stereotype may give off the wrong impression to those who don’t know anything about the culture because obviously not every person involved in this culture behaves in such a manner. Creating such stereotypes in a movie could be problematic but I also think they’re used to clarify who they’re trying to reference. The stereotypes weren’t used in a negative way throughout this film, I think they were just used to tell a story and make sure there is clarity between the different cultures.

Another exhibit the movie focuses on is the Roman Empire exhibit. The director decided to make the soldiers of the Roman Empire miniature figures. I think that portraying the soldiers as miniatures was a good way to be able to show just how many soldiers there really were involved with the Roman Empire. If the soldiers were created life-sized, there would be no room in the exhibit to portray how many men fought for Rome. Thousands of tiny men approach the night guard in an act to attack him. All of the men are dressed in red and silver clothing/armor. While all of the soldiers wear the same silver helmet, the Chief wears a silver and gold-trimmed headdress with red feathers coming out of the top of it. The Chiefs colors are the same as his soldiers, but his outfit differs to show that he is in a position of power. Their weaponry includes catapults that launch fireballs, shields with Roman artwork on the front of them and flaming bows and arrows. Their weaponry in the movie is simulating the weapons they’d use in the time of the Roman Empire. The characters speak in the manner they would as if they were from that time period and the Chief begins his attack by saying “The Roman Empire knows no boundaries”. This phrase sheds light on the context of how the Roman Empire was one of the most extensive and powerful empires in ancient history.

The director of this movie incorporated an immense amount of detail into each of his scenes and exhibits, making it very easy for the audience to identify the ancient context that is being portrayed. All of the clothing that the characters wear symbolize the period that they are from and show a lot about the individual cultures at hand. When all of the exhibits interact with each other, it is clear that they are only aware of what they know from their specific time frames. A lot of historical context was needed in order to create this film and after further research, all of the context that was used within the movie, their recreation of ancient history is pretty spot-on. I
think the overall outcome of this movie was positive. They didn’t try to use the stereotypes in a negative way and they helped to clear up confusion between the cultures mentioned. Considering this movie was created for a younger audience, the stereotypes help to not complicate the story too much and highlight the main aspects of the cultures. The effect that the stereotypes had on this movie was a positive effect and honestly made this movie enjoyable for me.

The film does a fantastic job at explaining the collection that Mr. Barnes was able to acquire over his lifetime. It went on to explain exactly how he was able to attain this massive collection and showed how he would go over to France and buy paintings that were deemed “not professional” and from a “terrible time period of artwork”, this was surprising to me as I felt that modernist and post-impressionist artwork was always considered to be a higher class of art that was a world-renowned style.  The movie taught me however, that this is not the case and that this form of painting was highly criticized for its style and didn’t have near the value it does today which is why Barnes was able to acquire so many of them.  The film goes on to discuss what exactly modernist artwork is. This is positive because it explains the area of artwork that is collected and displayed.  The main thing that I enjoyed about this film is how it depicted Barnes as a passionate art collector who wanted to preserve his collection and use it teach young artists and educate other collectors.

The film did a great job of depicting how the collection was gathered by Barnes and was very informative about his life and lifestyle.  He was a pharmaceutical genius who made a fortune from selling drugs, to which he used to fuel his art collection that was located in Lower Marion, near Philadelphia.  The film then switches gears and gets to the main conflict of the event which is what to do with the artwork when Barnes had passed away.  In his will he claimed he wanted all of this art to remain where it was and to never be separated or made accessible to the public.  This started a huge controversy amongst many parties who felt that keeping the artwork from the world was a crime.  There were others who argued that it was Barnes collection and that his will should be followed exactly, preventing the artwork from going on display. Mr. Barnes really wanted to keep the painting as a form of education for those who had a keen interest in art and could gain insight and meaning from the painting and not only that but learn from it rather than the average person just paying to see it without any intentions of using it fuel their own creativity.  The aspiring artists would be able to view the gallery through approval from the foundation which would also present a cost, much like the way a university is set up charging fees to use their facility and receive and education.

The film is interesting in that it does focus on the artwork and goes on to explain that Barnes collection in a remote area of Philadelphia is worth an estimated twenty-five billion dollars, making it one of the most valuable of all time.  He was able to acquire over 9000 paintings including 181 Renoirs, 69 Cezannes, 60 Matisses, 44 Picassos and 14 Modiglianis.  These are huge names in the art community as Picasso and Modigliani painting sell for hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars for original works.  This is what caused the huge controversy as making these painting available to the public could generate a huge revenue for museums and the city of Philadelphia in general. It is obvious that people wanted to exploit this collection and hoped to make a fortune off it but Barne’s will prevented it from being moved, sold, or viewed by anyone other than a student of the art community.

The main focus of the film begins to unfold as the director describes the various lawsuits and court hearing that take place in order to make these works visible to the public and to buyers and in turn going against the wishes of Barnes.  The other aspect that allowed for this is the fact that his education center or private museum, for lack of a better word, was drowning in debt and could not support themselves any longer making it even more difficult to respect Barnes wishes.  The lawsuits continued until finally the will was broken and the artworks were separated and began to travel all over the world to different museums and put on public display.  The film talks about possible conspiracies involved where they thought that huge donations and other funding helped come to a final court hearing of allowing the artwork to be moved.

The movie attempts not to take sides and just give facts about what had occurred in terms of physical events that had taken place. However, they are biased in the end and feel that the wishes of Barnes should not have been disrupted, meaning they should have stayed in their original collection not sold or viewed by the “average” person.  They do this by explaining the results of hearings and the destiny of the art in a mundane fashion.  I enjoyed the back and forth debate that the viewer is faced with in terms of would you want your wishes disobeyed and on the other hand should these works really be private and not be allowed to be enjoyed by everyone regardless of education background or even financial background.  I think that overall I enjoyed learning about this case and it taught me a great deal about the true value of art, as a 25-billion-dollar collection was something I didn’t even know was possible.  It also informed me about the process of the art trade in general, I didn’t know so much goes into this community which was evident at the number of people and lawyers who were involved in this case.

Although I wouldn’t want my death wishes disobeyed I don’t believe it was right of Mr. Barnes to keep his collection from the world as they have a huge impact on the art community as a whole.  His collection has so much to offer for those studying modernism and wish to see famous artwork of the time period, and along with this, artists made their work for the people to enjoy most importantly and I think keeping it from society was wrong of Barnes to do. Overall, I disagreed with the view point of the film-makers and instead choose to side with the decision to make the artworks open to the public even if this meant separating the collection.

As I read on Rotten Tomatoes, a blogger pointed out that this movie is somewhat like any other heist movie and how the plot isn’t unique from the others. I can see their point but there are only so many ways to make a heist movie. They tried to make it their own with their plot twist and I think that what made this movie different from the other heist movies. The Art of the Steal is about four thieves who make it their mission to steal things with high value but Nicky Calhoun (Matt Dillon) who is Crunch Calhoun’s (Kurt Russell) brother framed him for an earlier heist they were both involved in which put him in jail for five years. After getting out Crunch was attempting to stay out of trouble and applying for odd jobs, he needed money and the other men convinced him to complete the team and do one more last heist for lifetime amount of money.

My favorite character was Guy de Cornet (Chris Diamantopulc),  who would duplicate the art pieces they would use to swap out of the galleries,  he was from France. The way they portrayed him duplicating the pieces made it look very realistic. As in any TV show or movie like such they will use gadgets and tools to show a more authentic setting. I understand this is a movie but how fascinating he made it look was interesting. The thieves were so familiar with the paintings and their authenticity that any of them would just look and know if it was the real one or not. I think they used this to show their familiarity with art pieces and that they’ve been stealing expensive art for a while. The movie attempted to add in facts about the pieces to make it more legitimate. They used facts about pointillism and who the father of it was to give the audience thieves who were also interested in the pieces themselves and not only the money.

While the whole crew other than Nicky Calhoun (Matt Dillon) were on the same page; the rest of the crew was coming up with a plan to give him what he deserved. The Art of the Steal is about revenge and falsehood of brotherhood. I learned some people will do anything if you put a price on it and other won’t stop until they feel even with whoever wronged them. I enjoyed how the movie showed us the hidden steps and cleverness in others point of views. In my opinion this added a sense of mystery and accomplishment as if we were in the movie ourselves.

Overall, this was a good movie was an interesting plot. I think it does have influence from other heist movies, but in its own way it is unique. First, because of how they pulled out an ex-con from retirement and most heist movie crews are already formed.  Secondly, how they were able to pull off an unpredictable ending and not spoil it with tons of foreshadow. Lastly,  how they showed us the different point of views from the other characters. I liked this technique the best because most movies do not show us other point of views other than the main characters and this movie kept its audience in the loop of the chaos. This was directed by a Hollywood director, Jonathon Sobol, his main goal was to make a worthwhile movie for the Hollywood audience. Although, he added true facts about real artists it didn’t really matter because the audience does not care if it’s true, they care if it sounds right or looks ‘cool’ on screen. But because the facts are correct, he makes up for the percentage of the viewers that have basic knowledge on popular artists; they will appreciate it. As can be seen in my analysis, The Art of the Steal was an average movie that deserves more credit for its attempt in making a unique heist genre Hollywood movie.

In 1922, a man by the name of Albert Barnes established the Barnes Foundation. The Barnes Foundation is one of the most controversial and valuable collections of Post Impressionism and modern art in the entire world. Albert Barnes helped invent Argyrol which is where he acquired his fortune to buy these works of art. There are 181 Renoirs, 69 Cézannes, 59 paintings by Matisse, 46 by Picasso, 7 by Van Goghs, and 6 paintings by Seurat. He kept this collection in a twelve- acre conservatory in Merion, Pennsylvania. Barnes was said to be way ahead of his time artistically, intellectually, and politically. He wanted his collection to be used solely for educational purposes and only by his students.

In the beginning, many critics, and newspapers talked down on this collection saying it was, “primitive, debased art.” Barnes knew that these statements were false and took this to heart. He used this hatred towards the main goal of his foundation. He did not want this art in any museums, or newspapers where the city of Philadelphia or anyone could make profit off them. Barnes quotes, “The main function of the museum has been to serve as a pedestal upon which a clique of socialites pose as patrons of the arts.” He only wanted people who really understood the value of his art and that could truly appreciate it. Years later when his collection became well known as important and valuable, everyone hated him. It was a battle between him and the city of Philadelphia.

Albert Barnes was very stubborn when it came to his ideals and the opinions of others. He understood that keeping his collection from the public would bring along hatred towards him and his legacy, but he did not care. Before dying in 1951 from a horrific automobile accident, Barnes, being the smart man he was, created a will in order to protect his prized possessions. Although Barnes was married, he had no children to take over his dream. He left his foundation to his protégé Violette De Mazia. She was one of the first teachers at the school who was one of Barnes main supporters, who he could trust to run it the same way he would. He sought this art to be forever held in his possession without it ever being sold, loaned or moved, and she kept it this way for 30 years until her passing. After this no one knew who would take over the establishment, because Barnes never told anyone he had changed his will to leave control to Lincoln University.

Lincoln University was a college for black males in America to receive a good education. He knew they were the farthest thing from being involved with the social drama that surrounded the art. For Barnes, he knew this would be a slap in the face to the city of Philadelphia. For years they protected the art until funds for the school started to diminish, and that is when the current president at the time, Richard Glanton, created an art advisory board. They collected very well- known art critics from around the country to be trustees. At this time, the building in Merion where the paintings hung started to deteriorate, and would soon be unfit to hold them anymore.

Unfortunately, instead of raising money through charity to restore the gallery they decided to rent the paintings out to museums across the world. This was not a bad idea to raise money, but it was the exact thing that Barnes wrote in his will that he did not want to happen. The advisory board did not support this idea, and that is when Glanton took to the press and showed a reporter everything that was wrong with the building including leaky roofs, and a broken climate control system. This is just what he needed in order to get the judge to sign off on the closing of the foundation for a couple years and allowing the paintings to be rented out while it was being redone. They interview and include Glanton in many parts of this movie, they let him explain his side of the story and show us why he did what he did. Glanton warns us that removing him from the board was the worst decision they could have made. The directors come back to him after all is said and done to prove that he was correct in making that statement.

The documentary gives great insight from both sides of this controversy and lets the viewers see directly into the eyes of both without being biased. They do this by interviewing people who supported keeping the Barnes foundation in Merion, and by interviewing the other side who wanted the art in museums. I think the directors did this on purpose so it was not single sided and would keep people second guessing themselves on which side to take. While watching this I first sided with Barnes, but as it continued I began to question my decision. I really respected Barnes perspective of keeping these priceless paintings for educational purposes only, and I hated the opposing side trying to compromise them just to bring tourism and profit. But there are so many people in the world that love art for the way it is, and would do anything to be able to learn more about these paintings created by the most iconic artists of all time. With these paintings being kept in a residential neighborhood not open to the public; how can you not try to fight to let the world in on the most famous Post Impressionism and modern art. I enjoyed watching this documentary because it gave a story line to follow and kept me interested without knowing any prior knowledge. Until the end of it I thought that the Barnes Foundation would stay at its home when in fact the complete opposite happened.