The film version: Han Van Meegeren centre, Esper Dekker (left) and Allied Capt Joseph Piller (right) depicted in post-WW2 Holland
Credit: ArkansasDemocratIt was not clear in this film whether van Meegeren was a] actually a Nazi supporter, b] an anti-Nazi Dutchman who wanted to fool the Nazis and take their money or c] a talented artist who survived WW2 as best he could. The viewers were assured that the film was based on a true story, fitting in the important material so that we understand what happened back in the horrors of 1945, just as the war ended. As background, the film showed bombed out buildings, starving children and traitors being shot in the streets. But it had to deal with the creation & management of art, how it related to war-time culture and commerce, and what kinds of moral compromises were sanctioned.
I am not sure that this film avoided the problems of ambiguity and confusion. I am assuming that because the events took place just after the war in Europe ended, it was during the chaotic interim period before the Allied Forces returned control to the countries once occupied by the Nazis. Firing squads were shooting those deemed to be collaborators in the street, as the crowds watched.
It was not explained why an ex-lieutenant in the Dutch Resistance, Joseph Piller, was now wearing an Allied uniform, investigating the art gallery he saw as a front for a German espionage ring. Nor do I know why everyone spoke in English to each other, even though the story specifically reflected Dutch war experiences.
Tracking the sale of the Vermeer at a huge price, Piller found van Meegeren in his fabulous home that survived the war intact. But Piller soon had him in a prison cell—until there was a territorial fight with local Dutch authorities." Piller considered his group morally superior to the Dutch rivals. When they assumed control over van Meegeren, Piller stole him from prison and hid him in a small gallery. Van Meegeren promised to answer all of Piller's questions, IF he was allowed him to paint… and drink alcohol.
It may be that Piller's obsession with finding and punishing those who collaborated with the Nazis was fuelled by his estrangement with his wife. While he was underground with the Resistance, she was gathering information by working for and with occupying German officers.
The storyline may have diverged from the facts, but the photography was stunning: on one hand the rubble of the post-war landscape and on the other hand, the sumptuous parties where van Meegeren entertained wealthy Dutch society. And Germans.
The films suggested the trauma at the end of the war stressed the importance of real Vermeer master-pieces as a vital part of the national identity. It suggested that a sale to the enemy would have been a devastating betrayal. But I don’t think Dutchman in 1945 could have cared less about protecting Vermeer’s reputation.
Youth-Time
Hannema was convinced that there were more Vermeer paintings around, but they had been unrecognised since the C17th because they’d been hidden. So van Meegeren painted “his Vermeers” much larger than Vermeer ever did! Yet when the pompous, uber-confident Dutch expert saw the forgeries, he insisted that Vermeer had painted them. In real life The Museum Boijmans flourished under Hannema’s directorship, but he was gaoled for his conduct during Germany’s WW2 occupation of Holland.
At the trial, van Meegeren ironically had to insist that rather than collaborating with the Nazis, he was actually thieving German funds. That meant he had to prove his innocence by showing that the painting in question was not a real Vermeer, but was his own forgery. And that he knowingly sold Vermeer forgeries to important Dutch collections by fooling the leading Vermeer authority then, Dirk Hannema.
The film wanted to raise questions about: so-called authentication by experts, validation from critics, and their commercial impact and conflicts of interest. If the film was exploring what integrity meant in an occupied territory during wartime, I think it failed. I wasn’t even certain why Piller battled on behalf of van Meegeren before and in court.
When Han van Meegeren was found not guilty and was released, he lived for only 8 weeks post-trial. During that short time, the Dutch forger had become a national hero in the film; huge crowds were clapping van Meegeren outside the court. Presumably this was because van Meegeren had noted that many Dutchmen, and others, had effectively been pro-Nazi, during the war. Post-war, they were on his side!
.jpg)
.jpeg)
.png)
15 comments:
I saw the film and Guy Pearce was terrific as van Meegeren.
Hello Hels, I think that tales of art forgery are dramatic enough in themselves that there is no need to fictionalize them, which is also guaranteed to cloud the artistic, political and moral issues at stake. (I am often disappointed to read of the myriad of Nazi sympathizers, whose real motive was anti-semitism, who slither back to their original countries under a cloak of super-patriotism to evade culpability and responsibility.)
.
Last summer in Cleveland I got a book about the American art forger Ken Perenyi, which I am looking forward to reading. Reading about the psychology that allows such forgers to succeed makes me more wary in my own collecting! By the way, did you get that photo of a Vermeer that I recently emailed to you?
--Jim
Deb
I did wonder why they chose an Australian actor to play a Dutch artist, but he was a natural. It could not have been easy to act as a man tried for treason by selling national treasures to the Nazis.
Parnassus
Reading about the psychology that allows such forgers to go ahead, either successfully or otherwise, is fascinating. Artists who fake famous artists' work may have more than one motive, or changing motives, depending on the changing circumstances in their community. I would imagine that in 1945 in occupied Netherlands, people were just trying to survive as best they could and nobody trusted anybody else.
My sentence about "what kinds of moral compromises were sanctioned" turned out to be more insightful than I knew when I wrote it :)
Sarah Roller showed that Van Meegeren worked legitimately in art for a number of years, producing commercial designs as well as sketches, drawings and paintings which were popular in the Netherlands. He travelled Europe, making good money from portrait commissions: many of his patrons recognised the influence of Dutch Masters in his work. But critics began to suggest his work was not relevant in the contemporary world which was filled with avant-garde Cubism, Surrealism and Modernism.
So van Meegeren began to turn to completing forgeries in order to supplement his income. Aside from financial gain, it seems van Meegeren also wanted to prove his critics wrong: he’d also been accused of mere imitation, showing little artistic genius of his own. Forgeries were a way of snubbing those who had implied the skill of copying and imitation was any lesser: he believed if he could convince people his work was by real Dutch Masters, he would have won a victory over his critics.
HistoryHit, Feb 2021
Joe
I was on van Meegeren's side in the early years of his art career, avoiding modernist art movements yet doing well from portraits. It only fell apart when he needed to supplement his income, a crisis we are all aware of.
So how did he move smoothly into forging, conning would-be customers, collaborating with the occupiers, thieving German funds and tricking art experts? No wonder the confusion was never resolved, even now :(
Fakes and forgeries are frequently making the headlines. This is probably because it is easier nowadays to spot them due to technology.
Anyway, buyers should thoroughly inspect identification and authentication of the art piece, before buying it.
`Interesting story . You should have a look At Fake or Fortune episode on you Tube about Van Meegran . It was so very interesting .
Duta
I think van Meegeren was such a talented artist, even most of the experts were fooled. Until they checked the paint and the canvas, and excited buyers weren't going to do that.
War hides a lot of crime.
mem
yes! It was my favourite programme on all tv :) Even though the van Meegeren episode was back in 2011, I remember it in detail because it promoted wide reading.
shrishtyunikart
thank you for reading the post. Have you seen the film?
I've seen this book but never read it. I didn't know it was a film. I think I need to read the book before (and if) I see the film because films often don't seem to do the book any justice. Saying that, a few have, but how can any film that's a few hours long be what a book is all about since that book is many hours long? Happy weekend Hels. hugs-Erika
Erika
I would normally agree with you i.e that if a book is riveting, the film version that follows is likely to be a disappointment. But that wasn't the case in this case because I had never even heard of the original novel: The Man Who Made Vermeers by Jonathan Lopez (2008).
So if you see the film, remember it is a fictional version of a unclear event - and absorb all the details freely :)
Hi Hels - I hadn't come across this film before ... but yes I'd note your advice when we watch one of these films ... thanks for the introduction to it - cheers Hilary
Post a Comment