Highlights from Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held on 7 June 2016 regarding S. 2763.

loosely transcribed by Marc Masurovsky

Note: The questions and answers might not have been rendered using those exact words. Hence, in many instances, the gist of the exchanges between Senators and witnesses has been provided as carefully as possible. Should there by any misrepresentations, they are my sole responsibility.

Preamble

12:11 pm: After waiting in a hallway for nearly three hours, we are inside a near empty meeting room inside the Dirksen Building waiting for the inevitable. The lobbyists for the art market are huddled in a corner, dressed in appropriately expensive outfits, mostly dapper men, not a single strand of hair out of place, caricatures of male fashion models.

Act One: The Testimonies

The hearing began at one in the afternoon.

Senator John Cornyn (R-Tex) declared that heirs should come forward to achieve just and fair solutions. The proposed legislation sets up a period of six years during which they must discover their objects and claim them. It eliminates laches and statutes of limitations. However, « claimants are given a chance but that chance should not last forever. »

No sooner than he entered the hearing room, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY)  announced that he was going to leave in five minutes because of a lunch. Before leaving, he announced that there is work to be done, reclaiming art that had been stolen, even though the statute of limitations has passed. Schumer asked Ronald Lauder about the actress, Helen Mirren, who had played the role of Maria Altmann in her historic bid for restitution of her family’s Klimt paintings held at the Belvedere in Vienna. 

Schumer expressed his gratitude to the movie « Woman in Gold» which paved the way to give claimants their day in court. Morally it is the right thing to do. S. 2763 will be a drop of justice in an ocean of injustice. He also took the opportunity to take full credit for S. 2763 and asked that the bill be passed as soon as possible. Then he left the room.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex), in his introductory remarks, evoked D-day, the liberation of Nazi camps, the discoveries of stolen treasures in Europe, « not just spoils of war, » but the fruit of Nazi policies stretching back to 1933. « The Nazi goal was to dehumanize the Jewish people, leading to the Final Solution… We are still trying to cope with the consequences of the Holocaust. Today it’s about looted art, the ‘greatest displacement of art in human history.’ Many works found their way into American museums, often by happenstance. It has been difficult for claimants to prove their losses, due to absence of documentation.

The HEAR Act (S. 2763) is intended to ease the burden on families by establishing a six year suspension of the statute of limitations, during which cases can be filed on the merits which will not be thwarted by technical legal defenses. Families are encouraged to come forward and make known their claims and steps taken to achieve fair and just solutions (Washington Principles), resolve claims expeditiously based on the June 2009 Terezin Declaration. Senator Cruz acknowledged that there were many issues « on which we disagreed. However bipartisan cooperation made the bill a reality. »

Senator Cornyn left the room.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) declared that this hearing is a milestone to ensure that this Congress speaks on the side of justice. He discussed his family’s escape from Europe and the loss of life for those who remained behind. « Time is long past to return these ill-gotten gains of that unspeakable horror. » Echoing Cruz’s words, he mentioned that the destruction of documentation had aggravated the theft. Statutes of limitations should not be invoked to deny justice.

It is already starting to feel like theater.

Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) thanked the witnesses for appearing. « We need to fulfill our commitment to return the artwork to its rightful owners. And when the senators are ready to place the bill on the agenda, we will put it on the agenda. » Strong words whose import we did not realize at the time because of Grassley’s close ties to the American museum lobby.

The witnesses were sworn in.

Ronald Lauder, representing the World Jewish Restitution Organization, indicated that he represented Jewish people everywhere. After the war, art theft was continued by governments, museums. People who should have known better participated in this. That’s what brings us together today. How do we render just and fair decisions for art works in dispute and still missing ? We’d like to see every piece of art returned to rightful owners. A confiscated work of art may have been purchased with good intentions, without knowing that it was stolen.

The United States committed itself to recover works of art that had been looted, by endorsing the Washington Principles and the Terezin Declaration.

According to Lauder, there are museums in the US which run the clock to allow the statute of limitations to kick in in order not to return the art. They feel no need to uphold the Washington Principles [of December 1998].

The HEAR Act provides that claims should not be denied because of the passage of time and especially because they would not have had knowledge. Once the claimants have knowledge, they should not wait and they should file their case within a six year period to be heard without technical defenses used against them.

Why should we care now ? We should care deeply. Denying the justice is wrong and perpetuates the crimes of the Nazis. Behind every stolen work of art, a murder was committed. If people are interested in justice, they should support this legislation.

Helen Mirren recounted Maria Altmann’s saga. As an actress, Mirren had to go on her own journey and put Altmann’s memories in her mind. She read a lot of research material, to render the absolute reality of those days when Altmann lost everything and had to flee Vienna. In her view, lack of transparency, lack of access to information and the lack of assurances that they could have their day in court discouraged the victims. « The right thing to do is to return the art to its rightful owner. The act of removing the art by the Nazis was unconscionable. »

In her words, "Restitution is more than reclaiming a good. It’s a moral imperative. Art restitution has very little to do with financial gain, it is about retaining their (the Jewish people’s)history, their culture, their memories and most importantly their families. Maria’s story is a story of noble justice, it deserves to be told by future generations."

And finally, Mirren hit it on the nose :

« Art is a reflection of memories. Dispossession loses memories. It’s like having no family. Lives of so many people could be rejuvenated. Greed, self-interest will always be with us. Justice is so much more difficult. We all dream of justice. We have the ability to make changes today. »

Monica Dugot, a senior executive at Christie’s auction house in New York took no position on the HEAR Act. However, she shared her personal experiences as a restitution advocate while at the Holocaust Claims Processing Office in New York and then as a senior executive at Christie’s overseeing restitution matters. She made a point of emphasizing that smaller looted pieces were recirculating and that was inevitable. And yet the emotional value of the art works is beyond estimates.

Thorough due diligence protects Christie’s reputation on the market. Its role is that of an intermediary or a broker, a neutral third party between current possessors who consign their objects for sale and those claiming the pieces as their stolen property. The choices are either restitution or a negotiated financial settlement which might lead to the sale of the piece.

« We vet all pre-1945 works that pass through our hands. » Although Christie’s resources are limited, it has handled at least two hundred claims. Ms. Dugot indicated that Christie’s preferred negotiated settlements.

Agnes Peresztegi, representing the Commission for Art Recovery, is committed to assist to the restitution of looted art. In her words, « expropriation is a form of genocide. Works of art removed during an act of genocide should be viewed as permanently tainted. »

The burden has been too often placed on the claimant to prove ownership. She made a point of emphasizing that the HEAR Act would not be retroactive.

It should not extinguish claims in States which are more sympathetic to claimants.

Simon Goodman, a relative of Friedrich Guttman whose vast collection of art works and objects of art was plundered during the German occupation of Holland and France, has spent twenty years « trying to recover Friedrich’s collection. » When his father died in 1994, Simon discovered the correspondence detailing the often-fruitless attempts to recover the family’s objects. The Dutch government wanted to be paid before returning any art work or it simply absorbed looted objects in Dutch state collections.

Simon’s quest began in 1995. In late 1995, a pastel by Degas was found in Chicago. The current possessor, Daniel Searle, claimed that the statute of limitations had run out. He had exercised no digilence at the time of purchase.  In 2002, he found a Nazi inventory of each room in his parents’ house.

Act Two : The Questioning

Senator Cruz: Why are we still working on this ? 

Ron Lauder :  Many records were destroyed. Although families had no records, museums had records and they stonewalled. Lauder wonders whether the hearing would have taken place had the movie [The Woman in Gold] not been made.

Senator Cruz: Has the US lived up to its commitments to resolve claims expeditiously ?

Ron Lauder : Yes and no. Museums tend to stop restitution if the piece being claimed is one of their best pieces. The US has the will to live up to its obligations and the HEAR Act allows the US to do so.

Senator Blumenthal: He credits the movie "The Woman in Gold" to provide support for this cause. 

The HEAR Act is an exceedingly modest proposal for thousands of people who have been waiting to present their case. I felt anger and outrage at the museums and other reputable isntitutions which have invoked these technical obstacles. I won’t name them. They have been complicit in this injustice. Indiretly aided and abetted the thuggery of the Nazis. Made a pretense of following the rules of morality. Do you think we can enlist museums to be on the right side of justice ?

Ron Lauder : yes, you can. No museum wants to go on hanging on to Nazi-looted art. If we can, we win the battle. Too often, these museums have made it so expensive for claimants to do the work. We’ve had dozens of claimants complaining that they were making it very costly for them to recover their objets. This HEAR Act levels the playing field.

Agnes Peresztegi: Museums take the claims to the legal department and their main duty is to preserve their collection. They feel hesitant to even review the claim. If the HEAR Act could remove this obstacle, museums would be more encouraged to resolve the claims.

Simon Goodman : We acted as soon as we could but gathering evidence was the main uphill battle. Most of it became accessible at the end of the 20th century. It’s a point of honor for me to resolve what is outstanding.

Helen Mirren : As far as I understand, Maria Altmann realized after reading some press articles that something was possible to recover. It took a decade. Very long and difficult battle. She had the advantage of a young lawyer [E. Randol Schoenberg] who came on board. Even if she had wanted to, it would have been difficult. We owe Maria Almann a great deal.

Ron Lauder : 12 years and 4 million dollars of travel and time.

Senator Lee asks a question about laches.

Agnes Peresztegi : When Holocaust survivors came to the US, they were not ordinary citizens. It would be unjust to impose a different level of due diligence on Holocaust survivors.

Senator Lee : laches is an equitable doctrine. The application would be inequitable ?

Agnes Peresztegui : Yes. Theft is an issue of state law. Not federal law.

Senator Lee : Why is this an appropriate use of Federal law ?

Agnes Peresztegui : California tried to address this issue and enacted a state law which addressed Holocaust claims, which was struck down by the 9th circuit, ruling that it could only be addressed by Federal law. The argument was grounded on foreign policy of the US since 1943.

Senator Lee : Is it impossible for any one state to recognize this rule without engaging in foreign policy ?

Agnes Peresztegi: Yes. …The US has a consistent policy regarding the restitution of Nazi looted art.

Senator Lee : this law would not preclude us of doing the same for victims of other genocides ?

Agnes Peresztegi: No, it would not.

Senator Cruz has left the room.

Senator Coombs: how would the HEAR Act support your family if it had been passed when you had filed your claims ?

Simon Goodman : We won the first motion to dismiss. But the family felt that we should settle out of court because we did not know what the outcome of litigation would be. We were on strong moral ground and on weak legal ground. …This bill would be a huge help and establishes a moral record.

Senator Coombs: what info would be different under the HEAR Act ?

Agnes Peresztegi: The HEAR Act will bring certainty. It makes clear where the law stands.

Senator Coombs: are there other ways of delays ?

Monica Dugot: The market needs to convey good title and there should not be any taint on the object. Without making any comments on the bill, the template in place at Christie’s is to look at the facts, case by case.

Senator Coombs: What about ISIS looting cultural artifacts ? What impact does this law have on the appreciation of cultural treasures worldwide ?

Helen Mirren : This is happening to people as we speak. Their lives are taken as well as their history. What affected me the most is the idea of losing all trace of your existence on this planet, even if you survived, nothing, no one to talk to, no pictures, the disappearance of simple human things, this is why this has nothing to do with money, reclaiming one’s place in history.

Senator Tills: How many objects are outstanding ?

Ron Lauder : 2-300,000 major works of art are still outstanding. The lesser ones, we will never know.

Senator Tills : How many objects have you recovered ? and prospects to identify the others ?

Simon Goodman : There is a lot of searching left to do. One important painting entered the NY market in 1955. I have recovered and/or received settlements on 20 ptgs. Received 200 antiques. And there was a recent settlement on two golden clocks with Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany.

Senator Tills : What does a settlement look like ?

Simon Goodman : A settlement is for 40-50% of the value. Weigh that against the cost of going to court. For a painting in Switzerland, we have not a leg to stand on. The consignor is willing to provide 50% of the value.

Senator Tills: What is the Difference between legal systems in the US and Europe.

Agnes Peresztegi: After statute of limitations runs out, title is transferred to the current possessor. In the US, title does not pass. European nations set up standing committees because they could not change the laws. In the US, most of the museums are privately-owned. In Europe, they are publicly-owned. Ministries of culture decide on how museums behave. The US does not have such a government body. Hence you need to change the law, and you can.

Senator Klobuchar (D-MN): She invoked the case of a Leger painting at the Minneapolist Institute of Arts. It took 10years to do the research. Can one reduce that time ?

Monica Dugot : Monica would not comment on the law and asked « Aggie » to intercede.

Agnes Peresztegi: in those days, there were hopes that one central database would answer anyone’s question. Today, there are more digitized data available.

Senator Klobuchar: has international cooperation improved ?

Ron Lauder : Swiss stonewalled. Regarding the Leger, people knew it was stolen. Knowledge is one thing, acting on it is another.

Senator Klobuchar: I am impressed you knew about the painting

Ron Lauder : I am a collector.

Senator Klobuchar: Really ? Just joking.

Helen Mirren : I am here because—supposing someone came to my door, walked into my house and took everything that I owned, forced me to sign a piece of paper handing it over. It was wrong then and it is today. I don’t see any difference. I feel very strongly about it.

Senator Hatch : USHMM’s website to reflect on the lessons of the Holocaust. The HEAR act is part of that legacy. The job is still not over.

Ron Lauder : A major part of the Nazi regime’s mission was to destroy/confiscate art, use the art to make a new Museum in Linz. Art was a critical part of the program.

Senator Franken: He makes reference to the Prague conference of June 2009.
What other measures should be passed to ensure that the US facilitate the return of looted art to rightful owners?

Agnes Peresztegi: We need more info about what museums hold. Museums only display 1/3 of their collections. Museums in the UK undertook to digitize all of their paintings and sculptures. You can publish all the objects in a museum. If there is suspicion in the UK, one can consult the images. Why shouldn’t we know what these museums hold ? There are many creative ways by which to move forward.

Senator Franken : If there were digitization of this info, it would be useful. Christie’s returned objects to many different claimants, how have other parties been involved in misapproprations ?

Monica Dugot : We look at provenance for everything that comes in. A lot of the work that has not been returned is in private hands. We emphasize that every object has clear provenance and if there are questions, we have to look into the history of ownership. It’s only been 10-15 years that provenance has been highlighted. Published sources might be erroneous, so we have to look at everything. The info out there is voluminous and not centralized. We work on deadline which is a problem for us. We have to do thorough provenance research in a matter of weeks. Or a month.

Simon Goodman : MFA&A [Monuments Fine Arts and Archives] could not deal with individual claimants. They returned what they had found to the countries where the objects had been stolen.

At the close of the hearing, Senator Cruz indicated that Chairman Grassley offered to expedite the legislation through the committee. He hoped to see some justice after 7 decades. The record will be kept open for 5 business days until June 14, 2016.

The end (for now).

S. 2763: Restitution kabuki

an opinionated piece by Marc Masurovsky

Note: The title was inspired by a close friend who is intimately involved in art restitution matters.

The authors of Senate Bill 2763, the “Holocaust Expropriated Art Recovery Act” (HEAR Act), have as a major sponsor Republican Senator and former presidential candidate Ted Cruz. Another Republican co-sponsor is Senator Cornyn. Neither of them has been known to utter a word or express a single public thought about Holocaust claimants and/or about Nazi looted art. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who is no friend of art restitution advocates, is a co-sponsor of S.2763 with Senator Blumenthal from Connecticut.

On the afternoon of Tuesday, June 7, 2016, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing regarding Senate Bill 2763. The witnesses included Ron Lauder speaking on behalf of the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO), Monica Dugot of Christie’s, Agnes Peresztegi of the Commission for Art Recovery, Dame Helen Mirren, actress noted for her role as Maria Altmann in “The Woman in Gold”, and Simon Goodman, one of the heirs to the collection and property of the late Friedrich Gutmann.

Let’s deconstruct the title of the proposed bill:

Expropriated Art: is “expropriated” a legal term or just an evocative word to denote forcible removal without the owner’s consent? It might have been selected so that an acronym could be used to publicize the bill—in this case, HEAR. What if we had used displaced or misappropriated as substitutes for “expropriated”? Then we would get HDAR or HMAR. Not very elegant.

Does this proposed legislation cover all acts of illegal misappropriation of Jewish-owned cultural assets between 1933 and 1945? Or does the proposed legislation only cover those instances where a “public agency”, writ large, orders the “taking” of private property from Jews? Depending on how you answer these questions, the field of objects covered by this proposed legislation could change rapidly.

Recovery: it’s a word like any other, but does it actually mean “restitution” or simply the act of “recovering”? Merriam-Webster defines “recovery” as “the return of something that has been lost, stolen, etc.” What would have occurred if the Act had been called the “Holocaust Expropriated Art Restitution Act”? It would have been far more specific and more claimant-friendly. Then, the framers of the act could not be accused of playing footsy with the art market by keeping the wording ambiguous, because “recovery” is an ambiguous term, much as recovering from addiction leaves room for a relapse. Why ambiguous? Well, US troops “recovered” looted art throughout "liberated" Germany and Austria. Did it mean that it was “restituted”? No, it simply meant that it had to be shipped to countries where local officials would then “restitute” the objects to their rightful owners, or not.

Why the ambiguity? Is S. 2763 really a hat tip to the art market, a flirty wink to indicate that, no worries, your interests will be taken into account when this law finally passes?  In other words, “recovery” might also mean “just and fair” which usually means “financial settlement” where the seller or current possessor of the claimed looted item gets to hang on to the prized ownership title to the looted object.

“Recovery” is another way of saying that the art market continues to hold tremendous sway on how restitution works for Holocaust-era claimants.

At the end of the day, so the expression goes, it is always a business decision how a looted object gets "returned” and “recovered.”

Are claimants’ rights genuinely protected by S. 2763? Or is this bill a subversive sop to the art market and a gift to the Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) and to the American Alliance of Museums (AAM)? These two groups have fought for years to put an end to the claims process, callously indifferent and disdainful about how cultural objects are stolen, misappropriated, expropriated, displaced, whatever the word is to connote illegality.

As currently drafted, S. 2763 might be nothing more than a final attempt to address art restitution in the United States, offering the art market the equivalent of a social peace during a six-year period of claims hopefully unimpeded by statutes of limitations and laches (assuming that the final version of S 2763 keeps out laches, no guarantees given!). Claimants would presumably get a « fair day in court » where their claims may be assessed solely on their merits, again within a six year framework or less, depending on when the claimed item had been located and identified and the evidence garnered to back the claim.

S. 2763 is looking more and more like a thinly disguised message to claimants,.a last opportunity to file for restitution assuming that they know where their object is and they have the proper documentation to support their claim. If not, how will they obtain the evidence in the time allotted to them? How will claimants afford a court action against a current possessor especially if it is a museum or a billionaire collector with access to a well-supplied war chest ?

S. 2763 stacks the cards against claimants, however which way you look at it. Even if they do manage to garner the documentation, claimants will not be able to afford the hefty litigation fees associated with a proceeding to obtain restitution.

It is not possible to endorse S.2763 if a mechanism is not explicitly created which ensures that claimants will be supported in their attempt to recover their lost property. The Federal government should subsidize this commitment for at least ten years to ensure that claims are properly addressed and have a fair chance of being heard, by minimizing research and legal costs to claimants.

S. 2763 favors wealthy claimants with access to significant means to support research into their claims and legal action to recover identified objects which sit either in public or private collections. It is clearly not designed to help the vast majority of claimants, who lost cultural assets that are not museum-worthy. It provides succor to the very few, those who are familiar with the claims process and are able to demand the return of high-end items which their lawyers are willing to recover for them at rates the average claimant cannot possibly afford.

The claims process has always been skewed towards those who have lost cultural assets considered of great value in today’s market and towards whom gravitate most lawyers as well as market players.

A Woman in Gold, a film by Simon Curtis

by Marc Masurovsky

Let’s be clear about one thing. I went to see this film not expecting much, in the wake of that disaster called “Monuments Men.” So, with some trepidation, I chose to view “A Woman in Gold” with Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds. Ms. Mirren plays the role of Maria Altmann, the niece of Adele Bloch-Bauer, who may have been one of Gustav Klimt’s flings in pre-1914 Vienna, so popular was he with the girls.

Ryan Reynolds plays a meek version of the formidable E. Randol Schoenberg whose wits, ingenuity and tenacity, enabled him to prevail over an intemperate, obstreperous Austrian government, unwilling by principle to return what was not theirs, namely the Klimt paintings removed by Nazi officials from the luxurious apartments of the Bloch-Bauer family. It pays to read documents and interpret them wisely, logically, and critically, which is what Mr. Schoenberg did with the help of Ms. Altmann and Mr. Czernin, the intrepid Viennese journalist who blew the top off Austrian deceit and denial relative to the government’s role since 1945 in blocking restitution claims in order to profit from wartime thefts of Jewish property. By sticking to the facts, he correctly pointed out that Adele Bloch-Bauer’s wish to donate the paintings to the Belvedere Museum in Vienna after Mr. Bloch-Bauer’s death was just that—a wish—The paintings were not hers, they were Mr. Bloch-Bauer’s. Moreover, the paintings were stolen and transferred BEFORE Mr. Bloch-Bauer’s death.

Randol Schoenberg

Maria Altmann

So, a crime had been committed and the Austrian government built a defense on a fiction. Mr. Schoenberg's realization that the Austrian government profited from the image of Ms. Altmann's property to make money in the United States sealed the legal strategy that took them straight to the US Supreme Court.

I saw the film with several attorneys who are steeped in art restitution matters, but who represent “average” claimants whose lost art objects do not even come close in value to the ethereal and irrational level of 100 plus million dollars which was ascribed to “Adele Bloch Bauer” back in the early years of the 21st century.

I surprised myself and left the theater not as upset as one of my colleagues who had a viscerally negative reaction. In his view, the film made it seem as if only the wealthiest Jewish families were the victims of Nazi plunder. There is something to be said about this criticism. Less than one per cent of all cultural items stolen by the Nazis and their allies have attained values coming close but not equaling that of the Klimt’s “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer”. Fewer than 20 per cent of all cultural items plundered between 1933 and 1945 were ever returned to their rightful owners, most of them valued in today’s hypertrophied art market at less than 100,000 dollars.

Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds in character

Aside from this, the film conveys two powerful messages rendered more poignant by Helen Mirren’s stature and presence as an irascible yet warm and proud Maria Altmann.

-art restitution is about personal loss, it takes an emotional toll on the victims, and the objects that were illegally misappropriated by Nazi agents and their collaborators hold more than financial value. They pack memories of lost lives, missing relatives, reminiscences of places from which they were driven away by the New Order imposed by the Third Reich. Restitution is a personal, gut-wrenching matter for most claimants.

-the only way to win a restitution battle is to go for broke. Your fight is made more difficult because of the prejudice, indifference, and condescension displayed by the current possessors whether private or public from whom the claimants seek some measure of justice. So, the message of the movie is: never give up even if you don’t think that you can prevail, because by taking on those very authorities which have profited from your loss, you set an example for others.

The only problem with the “go for broke” strategy is that few people can afford it. If only there were organizations or institutions that could advocate on behalf of claimants with few resources at their disposal, the world would be a different place.

But unfortunately, reality is starkly different. Ms. Altmann was fortunate enough to be the rightful owner of some of the most expensive paintings in the world and represented by an extremely creative and persistent young lawyer who achieved the impossible—restitution.

The film’s weaknesses stem from the caricaturing of those evil Austrians into a monolithic group of crypto-antisemites with nothing better to do than to display collective arrogance against (wealthy) Jews who lost their property and seek its return. Elisabeth Gehrer, the minister of culture at the time of the Altmann case and also-let’s not forget—the case involving the Leopold Museum against the heirs to Schiele’s “Portrait of Wally” was portrayed as an inflexible figure. But she facilitated the passage of the only federal restitution law that exists in this world of ours. It is not the Altmann case that broke the ice in Austria. The Wally case did. So, somewhere, Ms. Gehrer’s heart was bent on reforming the Austrian zeitgeist when it came to righting the wrongs of the past even if in small doses.

The film blindsided the late Hubertus Czernin, the maverick Viennese journalist who broke open the dams of denial and deceit relative to the Austrian’s government exploitation of Jewish-owned properties, many of which have adorned the walls of Austrian museums. His persistence earned him the opprobrium of Austrian government officials—a compliment, one might add—and his reporting softened public opinion as well as that of the Austrian restitution authorities. There is a “johnny come lately” acknowledgment by Randy Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds) in thanking Hubertus right after Ms. Altmann gets the okay to recover her paintings.

The use of syrupy flashbacks to denote Maria Altmann's longing for the life and loved ones that she lost  became grating after the fifth time. There are other ways of conveying loss and nostalgia. We'll leave it at that.

Last but not least, it is difficult to capture all the complexities tied to a case which goes all the way to the Supreme Court.  The oversimplifications left us panting for more but that's ok, as long as the pathos continued to stir us up.

One should thank the film’s screenwriter for having given Ms. Altmann some stirring lines which she might or might not have spoken in real life, but they helped humanize her as a claimant whose heart was broken by Austrian Nazis; it is not clear whether the return of the paintings ever helped to mend her wounds. How can one forget the loss of one’s parents? The restitution must have helped somewhat. Hard to tell.

The Bloch-Bauers as well as other members of Austria’s Jewish elite were just that—members of an elite that had all the trappings of an informal aristocracy. They had their counterparts all across Europe. The Nazis vied for their property and massacred them where they could. Most were able to flee.

However, the vast majority of Jewish victims of Nazism were middle-class, working class, or farmers, or peddlers, ill-fed intellectuals and artists, members of orthodox and Hasidic communities, scattered across Europe. Every object that they lost, regardless of its esthetic or pecuniary value, contains a part of their soul and constitutes a direct link to the communities that Nazism tried to destroy and in many instances succeeded in doing so. These victims had few advocates after 1945 and today they have even less and will never recover their lost properties.

In the end as in the beginning, a loss is a loss, no matter how wealthy or poor you are. And restitution is the only form of justice that can help mend the wounds of persecution and plunder.

As Maria Altmann rightfully put it, it is about justice.