"Anyway we did an elaborate thing of folding the painting into the brief case and people were so offended by it that I sorta hadda cut it out and make it much briefer." -- John McTiernan, director.
I first saw the modern remake of The Thomas Crown Affair when I was working at an art gallery and the dislocation between what appears on the screen and the actuality of the administration and staffing of a museum were fairly stunning. For the first time I knew how a doctor felt when watching e.r. or a cop watching a police procedural -- trying to enjoy the piece of entertainment for what it is while at the same time know were all the inaccuracy and whitewash appears.
Thomas Crown (Pierce Brosnan) concocts an elaborate scheme featuring a bunch of non-descript East Europeans who are trying to steal a bunch of paintings from one end of the gallery while he 'borrows' a Monet from the other. So far, so intriguing. Funnily enough I can live with most of what happens -- I worked in a provincial gallery not the major metropolitan Manhattan artifice which features in the film. But this moment pops me out every time and only the appearance of Rene Russo in those boots flicking her car keys in that way can drag me back in again.
The problem comes when he steals the painting. He rips it from the wall, knocks it out of the frame, opens up a briefcase he had stashed under a nearby bench, lays the Monet into a case which he then closes, literally folding the painting in half. He carries it home, where in a later scene it appears entirely unharmed, hanging on the wall. Can someone explain to me how he managed to do this without destroying the painting!?! If you fold canvas in half it creases. Add in the oil paint and it'll fray as well; then there's the wooden back frame which would have been too rigid the fold anyway. So what ever happens you've got a conservator's nightmare at best and an international treasure destroyed at the other.
On the dvd commentary John McTiernan elaborates that they did have a whole plan set out for how they would justify the folding of the painting. He doesn't go into much detail, but it has something to do with the breaking of the back frame to give the painting greater flexibility presumably so that it would bend into the case rather than fold. So this is in fact a great example of the decision a director has to take between going with pacing in the editing suite rather than reality. And what really interests me that he says that people were offended by the process of the getting the painting into the case 'safely' because it took too long. Which sounds like some kind of madness. Or am I an art lover who takes things too seriously?
8 comments:
No, you're not taking it too seriously. I really hate watching that part because I keep imagining the frame splintering and shredding the canvas, let alone what happened to the paint.
Anyway, this is one of my all time favorite movies and I ended up googling it today because I was watching it again and was wondering if they had an explanation for how the painting was a damaged wreck...
Yeah i just saw it again, the only explanation i got was: that there was some type of blade in the suitcase that cut only deep enough to cut the wooden frame but not the canvas, hence the painting could be folded and although perhaps flimsy, could be unfolded and be stable if held correctly. He wouldve had to crazy glue it though when he gave it back as a pizzaro.
Just rewatching it. The frame isn’t cut. As he takes it out of the briefcase he holds it up to the secret space behind the wall and shows the audience the back of the frame, which is intact. I think the whole thing was artistic license and has no real life ability unfortunately.
I really like the film but have always wondered exactly the same thin.
Great movie, but like others folks, this scene bothered me immediately the first time I saw it. (Director's "solution" is pathetic.) As an artist, the only way I can get through the scene is to pretend the painting was smaller, small enough to fit into half the briefcase, so no folding. Otherwise the painting would be very much damaged, and folding stretcher bars an impossibility, and the removal from the brief case intact just absurd.
Pretend the painting was half as big. It's the only way to get through it.
As an amateur oil painter and professional film and TV editor, I feel I can comment on this. When director John McTiernan made those comments, his time was limited - as all DVD commentaries are - and he was not able to go into detail. The briefcase was specially designed by Thomas Crowne for the robbery. The wooden frame behind the canvas was meant to be broken in two when he shuts the case because there is no other way to get a painting of that size into a standard size briefcase. If you look at the still photo in this blog, you will see a black panel on the right side of the case covering the right half of the painting. This panel is made of soft black felt and was meant to go between the two halves of the canvas when it folded over onto itself so the two sides of the painted surface would not come into contact with each other—thereby protecting the paint—also, this felt panel is thick enough, with a soft rounded edge, that it would prevent the canvas from creasing. When McTiernan says he had to “cut out” the more elaborate part of the sequence because people were offended, he is not only referring to the robbery scene when Crowne folds the painting into the case, but also the scene when Crowne gets home and opens the case to enjoy his prize. There is a judicious cut in this scene from when he first opens the case to when he is suddenly carrying it on an unbroken wooden frame to the secret display compartment. What has been cutout here is an extended sequence where Crowne removes the canvas from the broken frame and remounts it to a new frame, using glue, wood stapes, and a rubber mallet. All of this was filmed, but as McTiernan says, it was unfortunately cut. As to the validity of all this, I can say that I have removed finished painted canvases from their wooden frames (called stretchers, or stretcher strips) many times - either to roll them up and ship them, or to mount them on new frames, and it is quite easy to do without damaging the painting. Linen canvases are treated and extremely durable. As long as the painting is completely dry and well-varnished—which the Monet in the movie clearly is—the painting will remain intact. So it turns out, the unedited version of these scenes would not have been so farfetched after all. Hope this helps.
I just watched it (again) on PlutoTv and immediately started googling and here i am. Still confused. LoL.
Post a Comment