SummaryWhile Joseph Piller (Claes Bang), a Dutch Jew, was fighting in the Resistance during the Second World War, the witty, debonair aesthete, Han van Meegeren (Guy Pearce) was hosting hedonistic soirées and selling Dutch art treasures to Hermann Goring and other top Nazis. Following the war, Piller becomes an investigator assigned the task of...
SummaryWhile Joseph Piller (Claes Bang), a Dutch Jew, was fighting in the Resistance during the Second World War, the witty, debonair aesthete, Han van Meegeren (Guy Pearce) was hosting hedonistic soirées and selling Dutch art treasures to Hermann Goring and other top Nazis. Following the war, Piller becomes an investigator assigned the task of...
While the legal stuff provides the film’s crowd-pleasing element, some of the foundational building blocks give The Last Vermeer a little heft, elevating it to a level where one is almost tempted to call it a quasi-art house production.
This very good-looking production dares to take on several contentious issues. Such as the role of the Dutch resistance before and after the fall of the Reich, the level of collaboration within Dutch government (only hinted at here) and society. Also, the importance of art as a social and economic construct v/s the assessment of talent. Who decides which is more important when it comes to art, the government, the art dealers, historians, the people? Surely not the general public, the majority can’t afford town it, so it falls to who is left and what they want to achieve from the outcome – after all, every country strives for great writers and artists to lift their world standing.
Here we have a unique story about a master art forger, Han van Meergeren, fundamentally a crook - who may have fooled the ****, or did he collaborate with them? It’s good to see such high production values being invested in a quality movie set in the aftermath of WW11. As in all ‘fact’ based movies, facts can be a movable feast but at least we see glimmers of situations being dealt with as they might have occurred during these times. Performances are also of high quality - even though perhaps, some may have been cast rather manipulatively IE; maybe those who are shown to have collaborated, being somewhat typecast on the weak side? Maybe they were but in movies, this can come across as a form of biased hate revenge. The courtroom scenes are well-staged and hold interest throughout and certainly cast doubt on the ability of art ‘experts’ to prove their claims. That said, it also raises the question of whether our art forger really is a hero, or just another opportunistic collaborator? Will we ever know? Several trials over many decades have followed, raising doubts over the authenticity of these ‘forgeries’, bringing into further question the claims of the Dutch government and many so-called art experts. The fact that it’s taken so many tests and trials - over such a long time span, makes one question our ability to fully confirm these facts. Recommended viewing for serious lovers of movies dealing with historical themes.
"The Last Vermeer" paints an intelligent, intriguing picture of World War II involving art, **** and an unlikely Dutch hero. Dan Friedkin's directorial debut manages to deliver a thriller while offering instruction on the art of Johannes Vermeer. Guy Pearce stars and gives a work of art performance as the flamboyant Han van Meegeren, a Dutch painter, art dealer and enigma who became famous for selling a rare Vermeer to **** second in command, Hermann Göring. This act led Meegeren to be tried in 1945 as a war criminal. Was he guilty of collaborating with the ****? Or, was he innocent and a hero to the Dutch people? Captain Joseph Piller, played by actor Claes Bang, is the former Dutch Resistance officer who believes Meegeren's innocence, helping and defending him in court. The screenplay, written by Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby (writers of 2007's "First Snow," also starring Guy Pearce) & John Orloff, is based on an adaptation of Jonathan Lopez's, "The Man Who Made Vermeers."
It’s handsomely filmed, well-acted, and hollower than it wants to be, with a mid-movie revelation that rearranges the moral stakes in ways that dampen the telling.
The courtroom finale, eating up much of the third act, is a corker. And Pearce holds our focus, still or animated, chewing up a scene or so underplaying it he’s still the center of attention. Like the Great Master he is, he knows how to grab the eye and hold its focus, with or without a menacing mustache.
There’s no reason why this couldn’t have been good hokey pseudo-historical fun along the lines of, say, The Imitation Game. (Let’s just ignore that some folks perceived that film as Oscar-worthy.) All it required was putting the exceptional character front and center throughout, rather than shrouding his gift in pointlessly vague mystery.
The film capably, if expectedly, proceeds down this standard procedural path, progressing from investigation to trial, with flourishes of genius every now and again from Pearce, having some campy fun as van Meegeren. But even with a few courtroom theatrics and some profound ethical issues to chew on, The Last Vermeer is ultimately a dreadfully milquetoast outing.
It was a good movie, based on true story, interesting to watch. I enjoyed it, even though it lacks something to make it truly great, but nonetheless good movie.
(Mauro Lanari)
A theological issue
Friedkin's debut is cute and worth a watch, moreover quite often it offers ideas that can be taken as a pretext for a deeper reasoning. "Generated, not created", says the Nicene-Costaninopolitan Creed, and the more authors, artists, creatives in the history of humanity have reached peaks at the limit of the divine, the more they have recognized this limit. The multi-millennial prejudice that whoever creates shares something with the theomorphic condition insists on attributing to it a creatorial role and not, precisely, generative or self-generative (=aseity, "causa sui"). The incipit of the Bible is called "Genesis" even if it speaks of a creation (oops).
Guy Pearce has created his most eccentric character and enjoyable performance as Han van Meegeren, a Dutch artist who’s accused of selling art treasures to ****. When the titular painting is recovered, it’s up to a Dutch Jew (Claes Bang) to determine the artwork’s origin and Meegeren’s guilt. This film presents an interesting look at Amsterdam right after World War II, when collaborators were literally being shot in the street. The investigation unfolds in typical political/historical style with intelligent dialogue, inevitable setbacks, compelling performances and, as would only be expected, luminous Vermeer-inspired cinematography. It’s made even more fascinating by the fact this is based on a real character and his true story.