The within story of artwork in Russell Crowe’s new movie

The whole lot, with a sarcastic title Artwork of Divorce gross sales raised over $3.7 million.

Nevertheless, that was not the entire extent of his assortment. We all know he has no less than a dozen works by Clarice Beckett, as he loaned them to the Artwork Gallery of South Australia for a retrospective of his work final yr. Auctioneer Geoffrey Smith, who counts Crowe as a pal, mentioned the actor owned about 30 works by the Melbourne-raised artist, which fetched a report worth of greater than $330,000 at public sale.

Styx research a portray by Arthur Streeton. Is it actual and does it belong to Russell Crowe?Credit score:Stan:

Within the movie, artwork knowledgeable burglar Styx (Benedict Hardy) admires Foley’s spectacular assortment. Standing in entrance of a gaggle of sentimental tonalistic work, he declares: “Clarice Beckett, Genius. We will transfer them in a heartbeat.”

These footage have been actual, says Crowe. “On a cyclical foundation [during filming]The Clarice Becketts, the John Peter Russells, they might arrive, they might be on the wall.”

“Clarice Beckett, Genius”. Russell Crowe is an avid collector of his Tonaist work.Credit score:Stan:

Because the thief strikes by way of the home, his eye is caught by three small works from the massively influential exhibition 9 by 5 Impressions staged in Melbourne in 1889. There, in close-up and gilt frames, are work by Tom Roberts, Arthur Streeton. and Charles Conder. “You have hit the trifecta,” Styx says. “Now you are searching for $3 million at public sale, straightforward.”

In keeping with Crowe’s declare that any clearly seen image is genuine, these are the actual deal.

Are these pictures really from the 1889

Are these footage actually from the 1889 “9 by 5 Impressions” exhibition?Credit score:Stan:

Shifting on to a different job, Styx declares: “William Dobell, A girl in a restaurantfinal bought for $939,000.”

Previously owned by Joanna Dusseldorp, widow of Lendlease founder Jack and grandmother of actress Marta, the property did promote for that worth (together with purchaser’s premium) at public sale three years in the past. It’s in personal fingers, though Crowe just isn’t recognized to have been the purchaser.


The thief strikes on, appraising John Peter Russell – “so uncommon… that is actual cash” – and Streeton. However none of them can maintain a candle to the image of a number of card gamers. “That is f–ing Cézanne. It is a $200 million product. Who’re we coping with right here?’

Actually who?

Are these works as actual as Crowe claims? In that case, what number of of them are his? Did some come from collector pals? Had been others supplied for filming by one of many nation’s largest public establishments?

(This one Card gamers it’s speculated to be a replica. Of the 5 works by the French post-impressionist, 4 are in public establishments outdoors Australia, and one other is reportedly owned by the Qatari royal household.)

In a press release, a spokesperson for the Artwork Gallery of New South Wales mentioned the ability “didn’t present art work from the gallery, however Russell frolicked filming on the artwork gallery premises”.

In response to additional questions, Crowe’s reps reiterated that “all of the artwork you may clearly see within the movie is actual.

“Russell did use work from his personal assortment, however doesn’t specify which of them,” the assertion continues. “The Artwork Gallery of NSW additionally made loans for the manufacturing.”

About the author


Leave a Comment