The Rape of Europa (film)

irishrose · Freshman Joined: 22 Sep 2007 Posts: 215 Gender:

I just saw The Rape of Europa tonight. Here’s a review from the Times. It’s a documentary based on a book of the same title by Lynn Nichols. It outlines the story of fine art during the Nazi occupation and Allied liberation of Western Europe. It, of course, covers Hitler and Goering’s infamous plundering and the intentional destruction of art that was deemed not to serve the German cause. It also explores some of the Allied, specifically U.S., considerations of art during liberation efforts, and some of their tragic failures on that front. And it ends with some phenomenal stories of rescue and restoration. The details throughout the film and the range of information is impressive, vigorous and always interesting. There are some incredibly powerful scenes and stories. And to add to the importance of the film, there are achingly tragic pictures and film clips illustrating the total destruction of many important cities that housed centers of western art.

For me, it was one of the most emotional Holocaust/WWII documentaries I’ve ever seen. And yes, considering the unprecedented loss of human life, I understand the implications of that statement. But moments of the film literally took my breath away. Part of that might have been because I was unprepared for how this film would affect me emotionally; whereas, with most WWII documentaries, I am awaiting the tragedy. There are moments that play off a bit contrived, and at times the history seems rushed. But, on the whole, I highly recommend it.

irishrose · Freshman Joined: 22 Sep 2007 Posts: 215 Gender:

I just wanted to add that the film also raises some intriguing moral and legal dilemmas. If you intend to see it, I’d suggest you skip this post. Not that a documentary can really fall victim to spoilers as such, but I want to let you know that the rest of the post outlines two of those dilemmas in detail.

The first is fairly straightforward, and one that is probably relatively familiar to most of us. According to the documentary there was a deep public relations concern about U.S. bombing and shelling on European cities and buildings that housed precious collections. As part of fascist propaganda efforts, the United States was painted as the foreign militant power intent on destroying European art. The United States—sensitive to this public relations issue and apparently, at least somewhat, genuinely concerned about preserving such precious art—implemented some policy decisions regarding those concerns. And this introduced the dilemma of whether or not it is an acceptable policy to further endanger humans in an effort at respecting art preservation.

Secondly, the film is bookended by the story of Gustav Klimt’s “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer,” which is a story that I was somewhat familiar with before the film. If you don’t know the history, this painting, along with other portraits, was commissioned by Adele Bloch-Bauer, who was an Austrian citizen. In her will, Adele bequeathed the portrait of herself, along with other paintings, to her husband with instructions that they should be donated to Austria’s national gallery. Adele died sometime before Nazi occupation, but I’m not sure when. Upon the Nazi occupation of Austria, Adele’s widowed husband fled the country. The family’s entire fine arts collection was looted. Some went to Hitler for the museum he was planning, some went to Goering’s personal collection and the rest were hand selected by Austria’s museums and galleries. A handful of Klimt paintings, including the Adele Bloch-Bauer portrait were placed, coincidentally enough, in Austria’s national gallery. At the time of Bloch-Bauer’s own death, he bequeathed his entire estate to nephews and nieces.

The Klimt paintings, still held by Austria’s national gallery, became a point of contention. The gallery argued that Adele had clearly intended that they receive the Klimt portraits. The Bloch-Bauer descendants argued that when Adele had willed those portraits to her husband with the instructions that he donate them to the national gallery, she did not know what was to befall Austria or her family. Further, they argued that the portraits had been stolen from Bloch-Bauer, never returned, and thus he never had the opportunity to choose to donate the portraits. Particularly, he never had the opportunity to make that choice in light of Austria’s history with regard to the Third Reich. So, should the portraits be returned to the Bloch-Bauer family, in recognition of and retribution for their theft? Or should they remain in the possession of the gallery, in recognition of Adele’s pre-Nazi occupation intentions? Interesting…eh?

Last, I’ve already mentioned how powerful this film is. But I didn’t note how personally touched some of the interview subjects obviously are by the stories they are telling. Now this is a film about art, essentially about possessions, set in a context of profound human suffering. But somehow, and with tender honesty, these people speak of these objects with a regard that seems to make them transcend their value as mere possessions, into something infinitely more human. Damn, I can’t communicate what I mean here well enough, but if you watch the film I think you’ll see what I’m getting at.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT