IFFB: Stolen Reviewed

One of the two volunteers sitting next to me observes that the seats in the Somerville Theater are small and uncomfortable. "I feel like I'm at Fenway." The lights go down and the movie starts late (this seems to be a reoccurance here at the festival).

The tagline to Stolen asks, "Is it still a masterpiece if no one can find it?" In 1990, the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston suffered the largest art heist ever. In the middle of the night, thieves dressed as Boston Police lifted a collection of works valued together at over $300 million which included five Degas, three Rembrandts, a Manet, a Flinck, and, the well known materpiece "The Concert" by Johannes Vermeer. This Vermeer is now considered the world's most valuable piece of stolen art.

None of the works have been recovered. Knowing this (as most Bostonians do) it’s like knowing of the Titanic’s fate going into James Cameron’s epic. In the end it doesn’t ruin your enjoyment of the movie as a whole.
Stolen follows Detective Harold Smith, a renowned fine art detective, as he goes on a search for the missing paintings 12 years later. He believes that people are the key to tracking down the paintings. The philosophy behind this is that the paintings have probably changed hands a couple of times now, and more people have come into contact with the art, be it personally or by conversation.

Smith is suffering from skin cancer, which isn’t really an issue in the film but worth mentioning. At the start they raised the reward for information leading to the return of the art from one million to five million. You would think someone would come out of the woodwork with information but the hotline is mostly filled with crackpots who relay laughable leads. One says that the paintings are still in the museum hidden behind other paintings.

The hunt is very exciting, which is something I didn’t expect going in. What makes the film drag is a series of flash backs using actual letters between Gardner and her art advisor, which features the voices of Blythe Danner and Campbell Scott.

I see no reason for these pit stops being part of the film other than adding name value. A couple people in the audience thought the director was leading to a revelation that most of Gardner’s collection was bought as stolen art. However, she denied this theory in the Question and Answer session which followed.

I had no problem with the included back story on Gardner and how the museum became to be. These bits gave background to the art which I felt helped us relate to the search going on today. Watching the film you wonder as they get closer and closer – “Could they have recovered one of the paintings and I just not have heard about it?”

What is unfortunate is that of course nothing has yet been recovered and the story hits a dead end suddenly. We learn that the detective Harold Smith has passed on.

Somehow we feel ripped off. Maybe it’s because of the great build up. Maybe it’s because we’re use to a happy ending. With this said, it’s my guess that the flash back scenes were added as an after thought to help fill out a movie which has no ending.

I liked this movie enough to recommend it to a few people in the lobby, but think the story isn’t over. The director should stick with Harold’s son as he attempts to finish his fathers life work, and leave out the lame flashbacks. If you're interested in Art or Boston history, this film is worth seeing.