Made You Look: A True Story About Fake Art (2020) User Reviews

Well-paced and interesting

[mujali-48677 · 7/10 · 27 February 2021]

I'm giving this documentary seven stars because it had a good story and kept me interested all the way through. Hearing art snobs talk, always looking for words that will make them seem intellectual, their peculiar mannerisms etc is quite amusing. There are some people that you warm to in this and there are others who are so shallow, unlikeable and cold, like there's some basic humanity missing from them.

I agree that with most people you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but with some of this lot go with your gut instincts, folks. For all their wealth it just shows you that inner peace can not be bought. Eleanor De Sole for instance, who oozes self-importance, entitlement and snobbery, who actually cried at trial because she felt so hurt by Ann Freedman, someone she had met just the once lol, so not exactly best of mates were they. It was so obvious that Eleanor and her husband were more bothered about their wounded pride than anything else. I didn't believe a word she said when she was trying to convince us that the tears were genuine. It was deceptive and conceited af. Remember, these are people haven't got a scooby doo about art, they are utterly clueless, they buy artworks so that they can boast exclusivity...so they can stick it on their wall and show off to their mates at their posho dinner parties. Imagine having friends where you're always trying to out-do each other; that's not true friendship, that's actually really sad and tragic.

Anyway sorry for the rant, but this is the level of vanity on display here, it's in a league of its own. And it made me think about where our priorities are as a species. There are human beings who don't have access to basic amenities like clean water and yet there are others who spend millions of dollars on drawings, some of which turn out to be fake.

Billionaires mad someone got one over them

[jcweb-44764 · 8/10 · 27 February 2021]

Not to say Ann Freedman is not guilty, but she had a lot of support to think the paintings were real. Honestly, seems like there were a lot more reinforcing that the paintings were authentic than there were those that questioned it. I felt the De Sole's were more just pissed about wounded pride than seeing that maybe it was a mistake. No forgiveness for being human from them. And you can believe something, and then as evidence presents itself, realize you were wrong. Isn't that the way the brain is supposed to work? Regardless, who cares about rich people being ripped off - welcome to the club, jerks. At least you still have a roof over your head and food in the table.

Be real

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 9 March 2021]

I have to admit, I was not eve aware of this story. And the story is real ... unlike the art on display here. Which is fake - and either apparently fake or not so much. Now are we gullible and believe one side or are we with those who were confident from the start? Not an easy question to answer for sure.

The really good thing here is that you get both sides (or even more) and can make your own ... picture! Just be sure not to pretend your own picture isn't a classical painting by someone else ... wait does that make sense? Maybe not, but it sounded funny. And while the subject matter is quite serious I personally found quite a lot of comedy in this too. What's your verdict then?

Made you Look: A True Story About Fake Art

[henry8-3 · 6/10 · 25 February 2021]

Documentary exploring a notorious $85m art fraud interviewing those who were involved incl potential criminals, those negligent and those who confirmed, then denied in court the authenticity of the pictures.

This is a presented by the numbers doc that makes for an absorbing tale even if you aren't interested in the subject matter. What it makes clear is that the whole industry is cluttered with intellectuals and collectors who seem content to drone on about great art and make millions from it, until they are hoodwinked and then they all go into denial and follow it up with great wisdom after the event. You'll never see so many people, even the most negligent, getting away with their actual or moral crimes. Fascinating stuff - never boring.

Anne Freedman should be in prison. But of course these types..

[zkiko · 7/10 · 25 February 2021]

..never seem to be touched by justice. How obvious it was from the beginning to me that the minority and way less privileged would be imprisoned and the dealer that is making 800% profit roams free. Anne Freedman loved the attention and status she got from those paintings, and did everything to keep the illusion alive. That was were she became a criminal. A conniving one. It's written all over her ugly face. All those pictures of here in those artsy circle jerk super 'elite' gatherings, prancing around in a fur coat are just nauseating.

So many unlikeable people in one documentary. I'd rather be with the homeless and unprivileged then spend a day with these utterly poisonous, backstabbing, conniving, disgusting animals. ESPECIALLY the likes of an Anne Freedman. And that disgusting Sotheby couple.

There are people rotting in prison for stealing something worth less than a thousand bucks. Or for dealing a bit of marihuana. Here we have a dealer of fake goods- knowingly- making millions of profit...and she roams free. No guilt, no remorse. This is not just the privilege of being rich, this is the result of a combination of privileges and the profit of being covered by your own 'kind'.

Good documentary. Naaaaasty people.

Interesting but should raise a collective 'urgh'

[souplahoopla · 6/10 · 16 January 2022]

No spoilers, you know right from the start this is a documentary about forged paintings sold as real before the scam was figured out.

Now I did enjoy it, it was very interesting, and has a kinda true crime feel about it. Which I guess it is. The progession of the story is compelling, even if you don't like art, and hearing both sides of the story does make you scratch your head with who is telling the truth. So definitely worth watching.

I think I balked a bit during the interviews with the millionaires. Talking about their sob stories about buying a fake painting, having done no investigations themselves, and have no insurance presumably/stupidly?, and had to sue. Trying to dress it ip like we should all feel so bad for them. Wah wah wah. Get a grip. It's the average person's equivalent of buying a gucci tracksuit then finding out its a knock off. Annoying yes, but you get on with it. But that's my personal bugbear, and probably should have been included for balance in reality.

It is worth watching too, and left me wondering how many fakes are out there now!

Conscious Deception or Self-Delusion? Biggest Art Fraud Case of All Time

[classicalsteve · 9/10 · 7 March 2021]

Intending to profit from fakes and forgeries by convincing a buyer literally to buy into a fake work is a crime. Knowingly creating fakes and frauds in order to profit monetarily from them is also a crime. A "fake" (such as a painting) is a counterfeit item which is purported to be of a certain origin when it is not and the intention behind the item is to decieve. Ann Freedman, former president of the now defunct Knoedler Gallery, didn't create the paintings she sold for approximately $80 million. She didn't even find them in some run-down old house in Mexico or Upstate New York. The paintings were brought to her by a businesswoman, Glafira Rosales, who pretended she was acting on behalf of an anonymous family of collectors. However, all the paintings brought to her by Rosales were fakes.

Freedman claims she was duped like everyone else. Or was she? That's the main question this documentary attempts to answer, or at least, offers the viewer all sides of the story, from art scholars and authenticators to other art dealers to moneyed collectors. No question Freedman is interviewed the most extensively for this documentary, and becomes the main focus of the story as much as the paintings. Interestingly, the documentary cuts back and forth between interviews showing moments where the interviewee's stories don't jive. In several interesting moments, Freedman would claim that one art expert authenticated a work and the expert would assert they never claimed the painting in question was real. In other words, most of the interviewees deny true culpability.

The abstract art style in the US began in the 1930's and picked up steam as a viable artistic movement in the 1940's, after the Second World War, and included such renowned artists as Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko, Willem de Kooning, and Robert Motherwell. Even Jackson Pollack, dismissed during most of his lifetime, was regarded as a genius shortly before his death in a car accident in 1956. The movement lost its allure and abruptly ended circa 1960 with the rise of pop art by Andy Warhol and similar artists. About 30 years after the movement was more or less over and most of the original artists had died, a resurgence of interest in American Abstract Art among collectors began significantly to augment. Original works by these painters began to sell for millions and in some cases $10 million's. Elite moneyed individuals whose incomes were in the eight, nine, and ten figures per year competed for original works, and the market continues to thrive. To offer a perspective, landscape by Willem de Kooning sold for $300 million in 2015.

From 1994 to 2009 (about 15 years), Freedman sold paintings from an almost unbelievable art well: a collection of paintings by these same American abstract artists from an anonymous source. The original buyer was originally born in Europe (possibly Spain) and supposedly lived in New York for a time, or so went the narrative. He bought the paintings through dealers who had connections to the actual artists, such as Motherwell and Pollock, mostly during the mid-to-late 1950's at the height of the movement. He then relocated his family to Mexico circa 1960.

After the original buyer's passing, the sons and daughters decided they didn't care for the paintings and were willing to sell them into the art market through Rosales at largely discounted/wholesale prices. Rosales claimed the family was so filthy rich they really didn't care that much about the money they'd receive from the paintings. As one art connoisseur explained, rich people are fanatical about money. Paintings by Rothko and Pollack were bought for around $750,000 and resold for $5 million to $8.5 million. Several art experts pointed out that these prices, both at the wholesale level and the selling level were incredibly out of proportion. Most of these works should have been sold for much more, and typically an art gallery is lucky to get about 30 to 40%. Mark-up's of nearly 10 times the wholesale price is almost unheard of. And this is one of the main arguments why some people in the art world believe Freedman was a knowingly culpable participant.

Everything was peachy for Freedman and the Knoedler Art Gallery until several authentications of paintings were returned because of dubious results. Paint and pigments which either didn't exist or were never used by the artists were showing up in these paintings. There were even misspellings of the artists' supposed signatures. However, Freedman stuck by her paintings, believing literally until the 11th hour they were real. As Maria Konnikova, author of "The Confidence Game", points out, victims of con games tend to double down on their beliefs in the canard even when presented with all the evidence. Not until irrefutable evidence reared its ugly head that Freedman had to admit something was amiss. A mistake worth $80 million! An enjoyable documentary about one of the most troubling cases in art fraud history.

(As far as I know, if someone created a fake Jackson Pollack, hung it up on their wall, and claimed it was a Pollock to impress their friends but didn't sell the piece for money, he or she would not have committed a crime because there is no victim. Although if the paintings were ever proved to be fakes or copies, that person might lose not only a lot of credibility but a lot of friends. "Clark Rockefeller" was a human fake because he was not a Rockefeller but really a German provincial. He showed off fakes and copies of modern masters in New York to perpetuate his false narrative regarding his pedigree.)

Not so funny in the rich men's world

[dierregi · 7/10 · 9 November 2022]

It feels good to watch a documentary about problems one cares nothing about. This one is about the biggest fraud in the art world, perpetrated by a snake-eyed dealer named Ann Freedman, with the support of the gallery owner for whom she worked.

According to Freedman's version, she "believed" that an obscure woman, totally new to the elite NY art world, could get hold of a truckload of canvas by Rothko, Pollock and many others easily forgeable painters. The beauty of the fraud is that those artists were all deceased and painted abstract work, hence they could not refute any attribution and the material to forge their work was relatively easy to get, since it wasn't any obscure, sophisticated chemical paint, difficult to produce and to "age" believably. Besides, abstract work doesn't require the same level of skills one would need to paint a fake Rembrandt or even an Impressionist whatsoever.

Freedman was an expert dealer and yet she kept selling fakes for 10 years, managing to keep her ailing gallery afloat, making deals for 80 million $, until the day an irate buyer discovered that his precious Pollock was actually a fake and the s*it hit the fan. The most grotesque part of the story was the trial about a fake Rothko, described as "beautiful" and totally undistinguishable from a real one, given Rothko's style, which proves the point that modern, abstract "art" is just a cult object, used by the mega rich to show off and devoid of any artistic value.

The fake Rothko was just as "beautiful" and even more so of other real ones, but turned to be totally worthless not because of lack of artistic qualities, since it was acknowledged as having the same of an original. It's not a matter of beauty, but exclusivity.

The Freedman woman unbelievably got scot free and she's still working in the NY art world, where she's probably conning people too stupid to even know what she did, how she lied and how totally untrustworthy she is... and since they're that stupid, they probably deserve to be conned.

Perfect documentary about art hypocrisy

[boboceaelena · 9/10 · 28 February 2021]

A documentary that show that the art critics and experts are the same as wine experts when you ask them to asses a wine blindfolded. Sad to see that the "cultivated" people don't buy art because they make them feel something but because it's a Kooning (or other famous name) presumably.

Google is everyone's friend

[ladyofargonne · 7/10 · 16 July 2022]

A simple background check would have uncovered Glafira Rosales' boyfriend had committed art fraud before. No vetting what so ever. Squarely on Ann Freedman. After 30+ years of experience everyone else trusted her including Michael Hammer. The way she openly mocks the accent of one of the victims tells me all I need to know about her character. Very interesting and entertaining documentary.

Modern Abstract Masters. Buyer Beware!

[artdonovandesign · 10/10 · 25 February 2021]

A very well presented documentary and a scathing indictment of abstract expressionist art, in that it can be so easily forged and accepted as original art by every top, bona fide art expert. Well not ALL the experts. The forensic scientists that were called upon to test the paintings, proved beyond all doubt that these were100% forgeries.

The eminently guilty gallery director, Ann Freeman, had a one of the fake Jackson Pollock's hanging on her wall for ten years....WITH HIS SIGNATURE'S NAME MIS-SPELLED! That's right! Pollock mis-spelled his own name when he signed the front of his painting. I think that's a big red flag, huh?

What was so startling in this doc was, much like Bernie Madoff and his greedy clients, there was enough blatant, drooling avarice on the part of gallery owner, the gallery director, the painting's seller AND the painting's buyers, that I think they ALL got what they deserved....sort of.

Disheartening at best, as the rich never really lose, never feel remorse and everyone pretty much gets back to business as usual.

Intresting...Sort of

[cmbyerly · 7/10 · 16 April 2021]

The documentary was good. However, the victims are completely unsympathetic. I would have left them out. They are a bunch of people who have made millions off the sweat of others complaining about how they were swindled. Meh.

Visual anesthesia

[taedirish · 2/10 · 2 March 2021]

When dealing with a subject matter like art forgery, it takes a keen directors eye to develop a story that both engages and entertains the viewer. This director failed on both fronts... This is 90 minutes of white 1% snobs all throwing each other under the bus... Surely there must have been another way... Despite the poppy action music, this movie put me to sleep, several times. I should market this movie to be played in hospitals during surgery in place of anesthesia...

Movie to pass the time.

[Daly_Reviews · 6/10 · 15 April 2021]

Made You Look is a time passing movie which gives a window into the strange world of art deals through the question of how could a multi-million dollar international art fraud occur?

Fascinating documentary

[Billiam-4 · 6/10 · 19 August 2022]

Fascinating documentary works on several levels, since there are more than just one mystery behind this infamous art forgery scandal; what it does reveal quite clearly is that the whole money-heavy art world thrives within a "I want to believe" mood and not so much with true expertise.

The collectors were the idiots

[josep-colomer · 8/10 · 27 February 2021]

Made You Look: A True Story about Fake Art. It is an American documentary, directed by Barry Avrich, about the largest art fraud in American history. A number of paintings falsely attributed to Jackson Pollock, Willem de Kooning, and Mark Rothko were sold by a total of $ 80 million to covetous collectors. The movie focuses on the forgers and the art gallery owner and manager's cynicism and meanness. Yet, I was more shocked by the billionaires that bought the artworks and then asked for a reimbursement when the fake was revealed. Suddenly, they did not appreciate the beauty of the paintings they had purchased and hanged at their mansions. Had they ever done? In the broad picture of things, I think the documentary's most interesting message is about how some art has become a luxury good. This is defined by economists as a product that that must be sold in small quantity in order to maintain its reputational value, independently of their utility or, in this case, the aesthetic pleasure it might provide. It involves a total challenge to the abstract art originated in the 1950s that was despised and derided for many years but became the object of braggadocio and speculation a few decades later. Perhaps an ephemeral outburst?

Must watch

[elainehbell · 10/10 · 7 March 2021]

The sheer hilarity of watching the uber-rich wring their hands and shake their fists at being duped into buying fake artwork for millions of dollars is well worth the watch. Seriously, man. The world has much bigger problems and the millions of dollars going into paintings that they obviously don't care enough about to be able to discern the difference between a real and a fake are clear evidence that money needs to be spent on more productive things. Imagine how many people you could feed for ten million dollars.

Art for art's sake

[lidiafrumoasa · 9/10 · 3 March 2021]

Of course that lady Ann Freedman is still selling "art" and Pei Shen is enjoying his life back home, painting for himself. What else to do ? They are not guilty as so many people think they are. They were just selling another "Rothko" which, truth be told, looked the same as the original. The "art" of Rothko and Pollock it is not even "art" in the true sense. As our wonderful thinker Roger Scruton once said : "When art becomes merely shock value, our sense of humanity is slowly degraded. Art once made a cult of beauty. Now we have a cult of ugliness instead. This has made art into an elaborate joke, one which by now has ceased to be funny." So true... No wonder why these so called "art critiques" are merely players and fake thinkers. How could anyone call Rothko, Pollock or Duchamp ARTISTS ? perhaps amateor or experimentalists.. ..yes

Interesting but slow

[robandchris-76850 · 5/10 · 2 April 2021]

It starts off quite promising it's very interesting but it's just a little bit on the long side. About 30 minutes and I started just fast forwarding 10 minutes 10 minutes it would've been a good 60 minute show up but 90 minutes is just too long.

Very good

[ajae-54401 · 8/10 · 1 March 2021]

Startling look into the abstract art world.

It amazes me how these rich people are willing to spend millions of dollars for a painting with a blue square on an orange background. Clearly I picked the wrong field, because I definitely could paint a Rothko. 100% guaranteed. Give me the right paint and a couple weeks practice and I'll have you a Rothko look a like and I'll only charge you 2 Million! 80% discount!

Not one boring second.

[mklvntwar · 10/10 · 30 July 2021]

The moral of the story: No consequences for anyone . A little embarrassment, but our two tiered justice system will always protect certain individuals from felonies no matter what crimes they commit. Even if art is not in your interest ..... watch this.

Laugh out loud funny!

[lhmosca · 8/10 · 16 June 2021]

For real. I literally and honestly laughed out loud multiple times. How anyone can have "their breath taken away" by a blob of color on canvas is beyond me. Furthermore, paying over $8 mil for that? You get what you deserve when it's fake. The docu itself is done fine. It was interesting, even to someone who can't stand what most consider art. These people are so pretentious, it makes ones stomach roll.

A good comfy Sunday documentary

[devynalexanderskyeharris · 5/10 · 26 May 2021]

Liked: Information was paced out well, Kept me wondering without making me bored, fun animations.

Disliked: Only two little animations in a movie about art, some things in the end are breezed by without more info.

A pretty interesting story about a world I know little about, I was engaged the entire time. There were a few bits of production value I enjoyed but, they are quick and don't make a return leaving the film feeling a little bland.

This is What Happens....

[howdy2 · 10/10 · 20 March 2021]

This is what happens when you allow the all too human traits of ego, greed & avarice to blind you. Riveting! Well worth watching & studying.

Worth It For The Spectacle

[johnpwabbajack · 8/10 · 6 March 2021]

In this case the spectacle is Ann Freedman sputtering about her innocence.

Seriously, her name should be Karen. She completely refuses to take any responsibility for her actions and lack of good judgement. It is hilarious to watch her try to MacGyver a cogent excuse out of wishful thinking over and over again, I still chuckle at her complete lack of self awareness.

Seriously though, how is she not in prison?