Book Review: The Forger's Spell: A True Story of Vermeer, Nazis, and the Greatest Art Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Edward Dolnick

Reader #82 wrote: THE FORGER'S SPELL: A TRUE STORY OF VERMEER, NAZIS, AND THE GREATEST ART HOAX OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY by Edward Dolnick
(ISBN-13 978-0-06-082541-6, ISBN-10 0-06-082541-3) is primarily about Han van Meegeren, a painter who forged several Vermeers which fooled even the leading art critics of the day. Dolnick goes into a lot of technical detail of how van Meegeren did this, and even more on the psychology of convincing people that forgeries are real. He also explains how critics in the 1930s were fooled but we can tell immediately these are fakes. One reason, he says, is that van Meegeren's women have features that were considered beautiful in the 1930s when he painted them, but not now. So while his audience saw beauty, we do not. He actually makes a science fiction connection, saying, "science fiction always tells as much about the era when it was created as about the era it tries to imagine. In the future as it was
portrayed in the fifties, for instance, husbands commuted to work in personal rockets and wives stayed home and cooked up meals in a pill. For a decade or two, readers found it all quite plausible." (page 221)

One might compare this to films. We can look at a film made about Troy for example, and be able to tell whether it was made in the 1930s, the 1950s, the 1980s, or the 2000s. Even if someone tries to make a film now that looks old, there are often things that give it away. Some are technical, but others are harder to define. The Timothy Hines version of WAR OF THE WORLDS was made to look Edwardian--though obviously no one was making color sound films then--but it is clearly a product of the 2000s rather than, say, the 1950s.

I have two quibbles with THE FORGER'S SPELL. One is that the book is told in a strange order. For the first hundred pages Dolnick talks about Nazi art looting and thefts, then he jumps back to the creation and selling of forged Vermeers in the 1920s and 1930s. As each major character is introduced Dolnick has to jump back in time again to give the background of that character, which gives the narrative a "stop-and-start" quality. Then he finishes with the discovery of the forgeries, after the war. So Dolnick tells the middle chapter of the story, then the beginning, and then the end.

It is not until the epilogue that Dolnick addresses why a painting thought to be by painter X is worth millions, but whenit turns out to be by painter Y, it is worth $1.98. (Actually, good forgeries are worth more than that, but as curiosities rather than as art.) We have this idea that art should be valued as art, but it seems that much of it is valued as relic. Van Meegeren asked, "Yesterday this picture was worth millions of guilders, and experts and art lovers would come from all over the world and pay money to see it. Today, it is worth nothing, and nobody would cross the street to see it from free. But the picture has not changed. What has?"

Dolnick's answer is three-fold. First, "the world was full of people who thought of themselves as art lovers but were in fact merely snobs." Second, he quotes Alfred Lessing, who said that Vermeer was great because "he painted certain pictures in a certain manner at a certain time in the history and development of art." And lastly, Dolnick says, "When we praise a work of art, we have in mind not only the finished product but the way that product was made. ... [The] forger has the unfair advantage of working from someone else's model." (page 291) Grade: B.

Book Review: Agatha Raisin and the Quiche of Death by M.C. Beaton

Reader #82 wrote: I really like the BBC radio adaptation (I cannot find the name of who did it) of AGATHA RAISIN AND THE QUICHE OF DEATH by M.C. Beaton (ISBN-13 978-0-312-93916-8, ISBN-10 0-312-93916-7), so I decided to read the book (and possibly the whole series of Agatha Raisin books). While the book was okay--and had I read it cold, I might even have said good--I discovered that the best parts of the radio adaptation were not in the book at all. The basic plot is there: London public relations executive Agatha Raisin retires to a cottage in the Cotswolds, where she tries to gain acceptance by entering the local quiche-baking content. Her quiche, however, is actually store-bought, and what is more, has poisoned the judge! But the adaptation has an acerbic wit that is missing from the book, where the characters are flatter and less appealing, even the ones who are supposed to like. The book is very popular--there are seventeen sequels--but not up to my expectations. Grade: C

Movie review: Short reviews part 2

Reader #83 wrote: THE NAKED SPUR Made the same year as Shane, but THE NAKED SPUR outshone it in the box-office. Aside from the acting power the budget was not very high. It does have some nice high country nature photography, filmed in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. Under Anthony Mann's direction it was one of the first films in which Jimmy Stewart got beyond his aw-shucks, country boy image and was shown as a driven and disturbed man. In this film he is full of rage and suspicion. The plot is sort of a portable TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE crossed with 3:10 TO YUMA. Stewart is a bounty hunter looking for a former acquaintance with a big reward on his head. Along the way he picks up a gold-hungry old prospector and a disreputable ex-soldier (Ralph Meeker). They get their wanted man (Robert Ryan) and the young woman who is traveling with him (Janet Leigh wanted a role where she had to do more than just pretty up a set). The three bounty hunters have to get their prisoner back to civilization to claim the reward. Ryan is clever enough to play his three captors off against each other. Three men want the reward split as few ways as possible. One man wants to kill his three captors. One woman is deciding what she wants. This is a good story and the scenery is a plus. Grade A.

THE BARON OF ARIZONA This is a 1950 film by Samuel Fuller. Fuller worked outside the studio system and was what we would call today an independent filmmaker. Many of his films had a sort of amateurish or unpolished appearance. Perhaps they have the feel of the short film that the studios assigned to their new directors to give them practice. Nevertheless Fuller frequently took on themes that were taboo at the time. Here Fuller tells the story of real-life James Addison Reavis (1843-1914) and one of the greatest frauds in American History. Reavis used forged papers in an intricate plan to falsely justify his purported claim to virtually all of the land in Arizona. Supposedly it was his inheritance from a land grant by the King of Spain. Spanish deeds had to be honored by the US Government under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The government could not prove his claim was a fraud. With a plan perhaps more elaborate than cinematically intriguing Reavis creates and plants forged evidence to make his claim. The story is not polished, but will appeal to fans of THE HOAX and CATCH ME IF YOU CAN. In spite of some awkwardness and the mostly static telling the story is basically good. Grade B.

Movie review: Short reviews part 1

Reader #83 wrote: THE LAST WINTER. 2006 brought one of the better efforts from maverick horror film maker Larry Fessenden. It is not special effects heavy. The film shows a drilling crew led by Ron Perlman having some odd and unprecedented problems. It seems this year it is just not getting cold so the roads are slushy rather than icy, a big inconvenience. But something else is desperately wrong. The warming is causing something very bad to happen under the permafrost, though nobody is quite sure of the nature of the evil. People are dying, and those left alive have an inexplicable sense of doom. Fessenden seems to set many of his stories in the cold North. He is good at creating an eerie, chilly mood. This film reminds me a lot of John Carpenter's THE THING, but without the explicit scenes of a monster. Fessenden tends more to Val Lewton's approach of showing very little of the real horror and letting the viewer's imagination run wild. This is a very strange, mysterious film. Grade B.

THE FALLEN IDOL. This 1948 drama is one more fine film from Carol Reed, the man who directed THE THIRD MAN, ODD MAN OUT, and a personal favorite of mine, the almost impossible to find OUTCAST OF THE ISLANDS. A young boy idolizes his family's butler (played by Ralph Richardson). As pleasant as the butler is, that is just how nasty his wife the head of the service staff is. When the wife is accidentally killed the boy believes the butler is guilty of murder, but loves him enough to try to lie for him. The story is by Graham Greene and Reed is his very best screen interpreter. The photography is excellent sharp monochrome with very black blacks and very white whites, in start contrast to the writing. I liked the film so much I watched again THE THIRD MAN, Reed's best known class. Two Greene/Reeds in one day makes for a very good day. Grade A.