Fact vs. fiction in 'The Goldfinch': The real Dutch painting's remarkable, tragic story

CLOSE

Oakes Fegley and Ansel Elgort play young Theo Decker over two periods in his life following the death of his beloved mother in “The Goldfinch.”
USA TODAY

First, importantly, “The Goldfinch” painting that serves as the title and centerpiece of the new movie (in theaters Friday) really does exist. And Dutch painter Carel Fabritius’ masterpiece is fine.

The painting was never involved in a 20th-century terrorist explosion, nor pilfered from the resulted rubble, as depicted in Donna Tartt’s Pulitzer Prize-winning novel “The Goldfinch,” which has been faithfully adapted to the screen by director John Crowley.

But art historians believe the 1654 oil painting survived its own devastating explosion that same year, a blast that killed its painter, a tragedy alluded to in the film.

On Oct. 12, 1654, the young Fabritius was living in the western Netherlands town of Delft when a gunpowder warehouse exploded after a worker inspected the area with a lantern. The talented student of Rembrandt was one of the victims, as were most of his paintings.

Does ‘The Goldfinch’ stand up? Read our review

Ranked: All the best films we saw at Toronto Film Festival

“The explosion destroyed a quarter of the town,” says Victoria Sancho Lobis, curator of the upcoming exhibition “Rubens, Rembrandt and Drawing in the Golden Age,” opening Sept. 28 at the Art Institute of Chicago. “The idea of (an explosion) taking place in a museum echoes the end of life for the painter that created ‘The Goldfinch.'”

“The Goldfinch” remains on permanent display at the Mauritshuis in The Hague, Netherlands, where it was moved to a larger gallery after Tartt’s book. Boris de Munnick, a press and publicity officer at the museum, says the work’s popularity with visitors (especially American visitors) can be gauged by the quantity of “Goldfinch”-themed merchandise in the gift shop, which has risen from one item to 40.

The painting, featuring the domestic bird held by a small chain, offers a compelling look at the artist’s prodigious talent. He signed the 13-by-9-inch piece proudly in large letters. 

Post to Facebook

Posted!

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

• 1 of 10
• 2 of 10
• 3 of 10
• 4 of 10
• 5 of 10
• 6 of 10
• 7 of 10
• 8 of 10
• 9 of 10
• 10 of 10

Last SlideNext Slide

“Fabritius takes such care to portray the bird so lifelike, endowing this modest subject with all his skill and talent,” Lobis says. “He carries this off with such artistry that it transcends the experience of daily life.”

The museum allowed filmmakers to use 3D scans of “The Goldfinch,” which impressed Crowley with their “molecular detail.”

In the film, the painting is exhibited at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, an exhibit which never took place (though “The Goldfinch” did travel to New York’s Frick Collection in 2013). 

The Metropolitan gallery rooms were re-created in a massive Yonkers warehouse. More than 80 artworks were replicated for the exhibition, including Rembrandt’s “The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp,” which is featured prominently and shown damaged by the fictitious terrorist attack.

In reality, “The Anatomy Lesson” remains unharmed, permanently housed at the Mauritshuis in a separate room from “The Goldfinch.”

One movie scene was shot outside the true Metropolitan Museum of Art, which shows debris-covered bombing survivor Theodore Decker (Oakes Fegley) smuggling “The Goldfinch” out of the museum in the chaotic aftermath.

Theo wraps the small painting in a copy of the New York Post tabloid for safekeeping and it became his secret possession as an adult (played by Ansel Elgort). Later, the treasure falls into the hands of organized crime as drug-buying collateral. This, of course, never happened. 

But Lobis appreciates that the 2013 book and the movie will continue to make “The Goldfinch” one of the most popular paintings in the Dutch museum and the world, and to draw attention to the tragically short life of its creator.

“I love that a work from the 17th century can continue to have such meaning and relevance to those of us around today,” Lobis says. “These works are a portal to another time and place.”

Crowley was persuaded of the allure of “The Goldfinch” after seeing the work in person, a power that even he concedes cannot be conveyed on film.

“You are convinced that it’s actually breathing. That there’s a tension in it. It looks like it’s about to take flight from that perch and the chain will rattle,” Crowley says. “It’s almost saying, ‘Don’t judge me. If you think I’m to be pitied, so are you.'”

Post to Facebook

Posted!

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

• 1 of 42
• 2 of 42
• 3 of 42
• 4 of 42
• 5 of 42
• 6 of 42
• 7 of 42
• 8 of 42
• 9 of 42
• 10 of 42
• 11 of 42
• 12 of 42
• 13 of 42
• 14 of 42
• 15 of 42
• 16 of 42
• 17 of 42
• 18 of 42
• 19 of 42
• 20 of 42
• 21 of 42
• 22 of 42
• 23 of 42
• 24 of 42
• 25 of 42
• 26 of 42
• 27 of 42
• 28 of 42
• 29 of 42
• 30 of 42
• 31 of 42
• 32 of 42
• 33 of 42
• 34 of 42
• 35 of 42
• 36 of 42
• 37 of 42
• 38 of 42
• 39 of 42
• 40 of 42
• 41 of 42
• 42 of 42

Last SlideNext Slide

Article source: http://rssfeeds.usatoday.com/~/606731460/0/usatodaycomtravel-topstories~Fact-vs-fiction-in-aposThe-Goldfinchapos-The-real-Dutch-paintingaposs-remarkable-tragic-story/