MovieChat Forums > The Accountant (2016) Discussion > I'm not just saying this because Pollock...

I'm not just saying this because Pollock's work is garbage

posted 7 years ago by ZeroWolf (41)
6 replies | jump to latest

But he just made Dana a felon; receipt of stolen property. In the state of Illinois, that would be considered at least a Class 1 felony, punishable by 4 to 15 years in a state penitentiary. And it's not like she can sell it, certainly not for anything close to its...*cough*..."worth". Is she supposed to know a fine art fence?

Here's an idea: how about you give her cash, you numbskull!

Or, if he simply had to make her a felon, why not give her the Renoir? That was at least a nice picture, and he was trying to get rid of it anyway.

[–] KutWrite (1302) 7 years ago

How do you know the painting was stolen?

Wolff received such collectibles as untraceable payment for his services.

Now, if you want to say it was an untaxed gift, you might have a case. But who's going to tell?

[–] ZeroWolf (41) 7 years ago

In order for it to be untraceable it would be, by necessity, illegal, otherwise its passage of ownership would not only connect his various aliases, thereby making them useless, but would also connect him to the criminal elements for which he had worked. Furthermore, if they were legally owned he wouldn't need that girl to find him a buyer. He could publicly auction it for the best possible price.

[–] liscarkat (18410) 6 months ago

Its passage of ownership wouldn't connect him to anything, because he keeps the painting where no one else ever sees it or knows about it.

[–] CocoMonkey (28) 7 years ago

I think the real point here is - the dog picture on top was much better then the squiggly line rubbish underneath.

One looks like a kid did it - the other would be hard to copy with the dogs, detail etc.

Just shows you it’s all about name not the skill.

Why did she rip it open anyway? It was just a little lose in the frame. You couldn’t see under it.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 6 years ago

No. The real point is that SHE preferred the Jackson Pollock, so that is what he gave her. It was not a financial gift. It was a gift from his heart, to her heart. Such an insightful present, coming from a man who had to struggle with his social cathexes, is truly inspiring. Regardless of your personal taste, SHE didn’t like the kitsch of dogs playing poker, SHE liked the Pollock, and that is what HE gave her. She would not sell it in a million years. The definition of a cynic is “One who knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.” You, sirrah, are a cynic and a cretin combined.

[–] liscarkat (18410) 6 months ago

The dog picture took skill. Give a chimp a canvas, a couple of buckets of paint, and fifteen minutes and he'll give you a Pollock.