The Art of the Steal (Friday, February 26, 2010) (17)

This is a documentary about the Barnes Foundation outside of Philadelphia - arguably the greatest single collection of impressionist and post-impressionist works of art in the world. Founder and creator Albert C. Barnes gathered the works in the early 20th Century and was widely mocked by the Philadelphia establishment at the time for buying what was then considered to be bad art. He then set up his foundation in a suburb of the town, in Lower Merion, for students and scholars and made a point of not allowing it to be loaned or toured.

After Barnes death, the bylaws of the foundation kept the rigid structure he had set forth, but left its board in the control of Lincoln University, an under-funded Historically Black College in Philadelphia. Over the years as the collection aged and its building began to need work, money was needed.

Richard Glanton, then president of the board, decided to raise money by breaking the bylaws and touring the collection around the world. He then got in a ridiculous battle with the neighbors over what he perceived to be a racist slur. A big lawsuit followed that drained even more money from the Barnes coffers.

In the end, the foundation was out of money and looked to Philadelphia for help. Everybody in the city wanted to move the collection and everybody had a reason why Barnes' vision of a collection out of town for research and not profit was outdated and unsustainable. Ultimately with court approval, the foundation was able to raise $150million and allowed to move inside the city and out of sleepy Merion.

Almost none of this story and none of the film is fresh and new. It has been told many times in newspaper and magazine articles and Internet reports. I've read the story at least twice. The filmmaker, Don Argott, not only recycles old material, but he's incredibly one-sided with the story. He paints Glanton and politicians like Ed Rendell as villains and a handful of board members or former associates as heroes.

It's not totally polemical because it does interview the opposition and give them their time to make their points, but not totally fair either. It's a very one-sided argument, but seems almost too lazy and uninspired to be venomous. Overall the story itself is wonderfully Shakespearean in nature (a great collection put together by a controlling king that is then essentially sold off by his careless princes) told in a one-sided fashion.

The elegance of the story - especially that the Annenberg Foundation which was created by one of Barnes' biggest enemies is now the white knight arriving to save the day - is all but lost in the midst of the blame being slung around. It is not nearly as interesting as it could be and Argott deserves blame for this. In the end, this is a very decent movie, but not at all a great one.

Stars: 2 of 4