Reviewing the Reviews: Woman in Gold

This weekend a friend and I went to see Woman in Gold. It was a rare pleasure. The story of Holocaust survivor Maria Altmann's struggle to reclaim a stolen portrait of her aunt from the Austrian government, it's tense and fiery, with a lot of heart and a genuine understanding of the family and cultural connections that were at stake during the Holocaust. Reviewers have dismissed it as melodramatic, hamfisted, lacking nuance, and so on. And they're right. It's not subtle! But much like Pacific Rim, the lack of subtlety isn't a bug, it's a feature. Woman in Gold is a tale about avenging a martyred culture, and that kernel of smoldering fury that lies at its heart has no room for subtlety. Woman in Gold is not melodramatic. It's concise.

Woman in Gold deals with cultural trauma with a level of empathy, insight, and clarity I've never seen before in a film. Though it's nominally about art restitution, the soul of it lies in its exploration of how something like the Holocaust, and the subsequent shattering of European Jewish cultural identity, can ripple forward in time and impact those born far later. I'm in particular a huge fan of the film's very conscious decision to evoke that trauma in form of the PURE ANCESTRAL WRATH which permeates every element of the film's construction, and makes the story a very personal one for every Jew who sees it.

It's also one of the rare movies about Jews that's actually about Jews. See, Jews are accustomed to seeing pretty much every movie that OUGHT to be about us - say, anything concerning the Holocaust - focusing instead on some Gentile standing tall with a shield and a cross. (I'm looking at you, Schindler's List.) The fact that a movie which is supposed to be about us for once actually is makes me really happy. (Though the decision to cast the stellar-but-still-very-Gentile Helen Mirren and Tatiana Maslany as very Jewish characters in a very Jewish film is...perplexing, and the decision to cast the mediocre-and-also-very-Gentile Ryan Reynolds is...dubious at best.)

I understand that giving the audience a Gentile they can identify with is an effort to broaden the appeal, but I'm unimpressed, to say the least. By viewing a Jewish story through a Christian lens, that kind of film loses out on any chance it had to inspire genuine understanding of and empathy for its Jews. Wisely, Woman in Gold chooses to focus on perspective and choices of actual Jews, forcing the audience into our shoes for a moment.

Of course, not a single review I read actually cared that Woman in Gold was about Jews. Most of them didn't even seem to notice.

Of the six or so reviews I read, EVERY SINGLE ONE very neatly sidesteps or sidelines the fact that this film is specifically about Jews and Jewish heritage. (The LA Times review doesn't even mention that Altmann is Jewish.)  Many bemoan the film's treatment of the obstructive Austrian government, much as reviewers bemoaned Selma's treatment of Lyndon Johnson. Their complaints, while arguably accurate from a historical standpoint, ignore the unique perspectives from which these films were written.

From the perspective of an oppressed minority, someone who understands your plight, who has the power to help you, but refuses to do so is a villain. Full stop. They may not be the worst you have to face, they may even be redeemable, but in the moment their utter apathy to your existence is horrific. As a uniquely black film, Selma therefore portrays Lyndon Johnson, who had the power to protect blacks with the stroke of a pen but chose to drag his heels, negatively. Woman in Gold portrays the Austrian government, which could have easily returned the plundered art pieces to their rightful owners but chose to hold on to them for its own benefit, in a similar light.

The worst reviews come from the most venerable publications. The New York Times, Telegraph, and Variety each pretend Woman in Gold is really about the concept of art ownership - the question of whether art can or should be a possession, the extent to which it should be democratized, and so on. It's an important topic, and would be a good critique to bring up if this were literally any other movie about art. In the case of Woman in Gold, however, shifting the discussion to the airy topic of art theory ignores the very pressing fact that A GENOCIDE HAPPENED, and the overriding demand for justice outweighs any theoretical, academic concerns about who owns art.

The damage of that singular attempt to plunder, enslave, and ultimately annihilate an entire people ripples forward through history in the form of a cultural scar that manifests as alienation, isolation, and a host of other insidious problems invisible to those who don't live with them. The enormity of the crime is such that it can NEVER be repaid. You can't give us back our grandparents and great-grandparents, our heritage, our homes, our ability to live our lives without the lurking suspicion that some day, for no particular reason, Gentiles might collectively decide it's a good time to murder us all.

You can never pay it back. But you can at LEAST admit what you did. You can at LEAST give us back the things you stole.

These critics' attempts to divert the discussion are painfully ironic, considering that Woman in Gold depicts the Austrian government of using the exact same tactics to ignore, belittle, and delay. Particularly striking was a moment early in the movie, when a minor Austrian functionary meets Maria to say - (pardon the paraphrasing, I'm working from memory) -  "Not everything is about the Holocaust. Why don't you people ever quit?"

But that's a code, and it's a simple one. It means, "Your existence is inconvenient to me. Can you please stop?"

And when a film critic tries to turn a conversation about the Holocaust into one about art theory, all I can hear is that. Just below the surface.


(By the way, I'm planning to start writing more reviews of reviews! If you liked this piece, and there's a review of a book/movie/show you want me to talk about...just comment right below!)