Damn! Damn! Damn! I’ve got a gun, and a promise of a million dollars upon completion of the theft but … but … but … the painting has a velvet rope in front of it!!! Ah, screw this. I’m going home.
:eek:
Having just visited the museum a month ago, I can say that the museum is small (but with a ton of stuff crammed in it). And in fact, both the Scream and Madonna are somewhat close to the main entrance. So, the time it takes to run from the paintings original locations to the main entrance would be maybe 30 seconds at most, probably much less if there weren’t 2 sets of doors in between.
If I remember correctly, the Screem at th Munch museum (the stolen one) also had a velvet rope in front of it. But the Scream at the National Museum (stolen 1994) didn’t.
:eek:
I was wondering when you were going to make your appearance, Munch.
By the way, I suppose everyone else figured this out long before I did, but my cross-association of “The Scream” and “Scream” (the movie) made me realize something that must have been obvious. In my defense, I’ve never seen the movie, and only the trailers.
It had never occured to me that the mask in “Scream” was inspired by Munch’s “The Scream”. :smack:
You know it bad when Hollywood movies depict much better than they actually are.
In another weird coincidence, my TiVo randomly grabbed an episode of Beavis & Butthead off MTV2 over the weekend, and it’s the one where the boys visit an art museum, steal an abstract nude off the wall, and cut out two areas of the canvas so they can carry around the figure’s naughty bits.
Hey, yeah, you’re right. I never thought of that either. Love the painting, hate the movie. 
Good lawd!
That thing went from £13.00 around 12:00pm to £30,100.00 around 3:00pm today. :eek:
Think someone’s getting a £30,100.00 WHOOSH? 
The NY Times article about the theft quoted an American detective who specializes in cases like this and who worked on the 1994 case and he thought the likeliest scenario was that the painting was stolen by street hoodlums who didn’t think through the whole plan and are now faced with the realization that they have in their possession something that is so valuable that it cannot be sold.
Silly wolf_meister, don’t you know that Interpol can’t issue a warrant without knowing the suspect’s hair color and distinguishing features, and the kind of car he drives? But I have some inside information that the thief was a red-haired woman in a trenchcoat and a fedora.
What cracks me up about the auction is that postal insurance is not being offered.
I find the gag clever, myself, much like a Goya painting stolen in 1960 making a cameo in Dr. No’s lair in the 1962 film.
[quote]
Ah, shit…I just noticed that they swiped Madonna as well.
[quote]
Good news. Guy Ritchie has said he’ll go up to £35 for her safe return.
When the Mona Lisa was stolen it was all part of an elaborate scam and the thief himself was one of the victims.
Two con artists knew that the most dangerous part about a major art theft was trying to ransom the painting. They also knew that there were millionaire art collectors who would buy a famous enough painting without worrying about its origins.
So they asked around and apparently found at least six millionaires who would pay for the Mona Lisa if it became “available”. Then they found a burglar who was willing to steal the original for a share of the ransom money.
Security was light back then. The burglar succeeded in stealing the Mona Lisa and went back to his hide-out and waited for his partners to show up with the ransom plans. And kept waiting.
Meanwhile, now that the original had been stolen, the conmen were able to whip off several good forgeries and sell all of them to their buyers each of whom thought he had the real one. The two men made no effort to contact their partner and instead took off with all the money.
After two years, the burglar began to suspect his partners weren’t coming back. He then tried to make his own arrangments to ransom the painting back but the go-between he chose decided to sell him out to the police. The burglar was caught, got a relatively light sentence by claiming he had stolen the painting for patriotic reasons, and the Mona Lisa was returned to France.
At this point, several millionaires realized they had been conned. But what could they do? Claim that the painting they thought was a stolen masterpiece was only a forgery? The two conmen were never arrested.
That’s a pretty clever scheme. Is there a book or magazine article or something about the episode?
A brief summary of the 1911 Mona Lisa theft here.
That article proposes a motivation of simple patriotism: Perugia did not want a master work by an Italian artists hanging in France. Another theory asserts a South American masterminded the theft, after preparing six copies in advance. Supposedly, after the robbery became public, he claimed each copy to be the original and sold them individually to six millionaires in North and South America.
Combine that story with Little Nemo’s and I think we have the makings of a decent little caper flick.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Plausible… But where’s the evidence? Our only source of information here is the thief. Since the con-men were not arrested, we presumably don’t have any information from them, and since the buyers are keeping their mouths shut, we don’t have any information from them, either. And obviously the thief would not have been told the whole plan, or he would have backed out.
So the information we actually have is thus: Thief was approached by two men who said they’d pay him a comission for stealing the Mona Lisa. He agrees, and does so. He never hears from them again.
Now, the scam scenario is one plausible explanation for this set of facts. But I can think of others:
The two masterminds expect to be able to make money off of the painting itself, and hire a man to steal it for them. But after it’s stolen, the potential buyer backs out, or they discover that there’s not a buyer in the first place, or they’re worried that the thief is under surveilance to attempt to trap them too, or otherwise realize that they’ve bitten off more than they can chew. So they abandon the plan, and never contact their thief
The thief’s ex-girlfriend wants a clever revenge on him. So she has a couple of her buddies (who have no intention of profit at all) approach the thief with the offer, and then scram. Thief ends up holding onto the hottest piece of hot merchandise in the 20th century, and spends years worrying, while ex-girlfriend laughs at him from a distance.
The con artists fully intend to go through with their entire plan of ransoming the painting or selling it to a single collector, but some other moneymaking idea of theirs has run them afoul of another group of crooks. They’re sent to sleep with the fishes before they have a chance to pay the thief a second visit.
Any of these scenarios (and probably several others) are plausible, but it seems to me that it’s just conjecture.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3590068.stm
I wonder why he dismisses “stealing to order”?
:eek: :smack: