What was the deal with the painting? - The Accountant (2016) Discussion

[–] tripper-09331 7 years ago

She noticed it in his trailer (enough to gawk at and mention it to him) and apparently was a fan of the artist. He sent it to her as a sign of affection. His weird way of letting her know that he likes her.

"Common sense is not so common"

reply

[–] tripper-09331 7 years ago

Also of IIRC in the beginning he is on the phone talking about how many people are interested in buying it and that he will never sell. So the fact that he gave it to her as gift also showed how he cared for her. Plus it was wrapped in the poker dog painting which was a nod to their conversation when they first met.

reply

[–] matt_shade 7 years ago

It was more that he wanted to sell the other painting and the voice says selling the Pollock would be quicker and fetch more but he says drop the price on the other painting. So it's clear he did not want to sell the Pollock at this time.

Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000130/nest/263626706

reply

[–] Geoff1963 7 years ago

It was the most expensive thing he had, and he knew she would appreciate it. It was a BIG statement of affection.

reply

[–] Stewball 7 years ago

Also, they altered the painting for the movie, adding an eye in the middle and thus giving a profound meaning to the wall of Pollock's noise. The amended work addresses autism, and goes to a verse from the song at the end: "I can get through the wall if you give me a door"

I don't know if that's what they actually intended, but if it wasn't, that coincidence makes it even more profound IMHO. I'm still wondering if what they did was actionable by Pollock's heirs.

reply

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

Also, you know that a Pollock painting is worth several million dollars (more for a larger more famous one), right? That painting is worth as much as a house on Nantucket or 25 new Porsches.

reply

[–] Svish85 7 years ago

Yeah, art is stupid that way. But yes, I knew that, but wondered if there was some other connection with her that I had missed. Like Pollock being her long lost relative or something :p

reply

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

It was more about the dogs playing poker. THAT was their in-joke. But he had to give her something of value. He couldn't hide the light saber behind a painting of dogs playing poker. he COULD have put the light saber in a floral arrangement, but it wouldn't have been as cool a revelation.

reply

[–] Stewball 7 years ago

Noooooooooo! The Pollock is the center piece of the story....the puzzle within a puzzle. They've altered the original, which gives it a profound meaning that's especially meaningful to Wolff. And at an insane $100 mil current estimated value, it was far and away his most valuable possession; but that isn't why he liked it, no loved it, so much. It both slammed Pollock (which he could only know subconsciously since it's supposed to be the original in the story), but it spoke both to and for him.

reply

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

Oh. I don't know much about Pollack. I can't stand his work. I like Rothko. I didn't realize that it had been altered, or that it was worth quite so much.

I guess Wolff knows that Dana can't sell it, because, if she tried, the auction house/buyer would want to know how she acquired it, and that's a whole can of worms she doesn't want to open. Also, presumably, Wolff could accuse her of stealing it. Not that he ever would. I'm just arguing that Wolff gave it to her knowing she would keep it and not sell, and not only because it has sentimental value, but because trying to market it would been supremely complicated.

reply

[–] Stewball 7 years ago

I think he was a con-artist. But using it in this context imparted meaning which Pollock seemed to despise.

And it'd be simple enough to find a shiester to act as an intermediary if she wanted to sell it, which I feel certain she wouldn't, but the gift came, as true gifts do, with no strings.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

Wait, you think it's cool that he did that with the perfume? I never spend money on women unless it translates into sex. Money is too hard to make. Maybe if I were gene Simmons and had his money I might.

How often does your friend fly that route on that airline?

reply

[–] Geoff1963 7 years ago

I think it was a one-off.

My friend did perhaps have an underhand motive. If you want to spend money on a woman to get sex ( other than on a purely professional basis ), it might be useful to practice the activity when that isn't at stake, so you can handle the real situation better. "Panic is that which happens in the absence of training." Think of people who spend money on dating practice.

He probably also got a nice smile back, which a different friend refers to as something to "bank for later". So perhaps he did get sex, of a sort.

reply

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

WHAT are you TALKING about? Buying a woman dinner = spending money on a woman. Taking a woman to the Hamptons for the weekend = spending money on a woman. Taking a woman to Europe or skiing in Aspen = spending money on a woman.

I don't mean escorts. I mean taking a woman out for a 50 dollar steak.

My income is 250k to 300k per year. I date beautiful women about 12 years younger than I am. Being successful and older, I am expected to pay for hotels and plane tickets and stuff.

reply

[–] Geoff1963 7 years ago

You've misunderstood what I wrote, perhaps my bad.

I was meaning that if you want to invite a woman for all those very proper activities, then if you trip over your tongue every time, it's never going to happen. If instead you get in some practice at doing the inviting, while there is zero possibility of success and hence no "risk of failure", then when it comes to the real thing, you have a better chance. Maybe you are just so intrinsically self-confident, that you have no idea what I mean ; or maybe it was so long ago, you can't remember.

I'm not a fan of flying, so I took as many flight simulators as possible ; I could then imagine on a real flight, that it was just a simulation. My greatest successes at dating, have been when I pretended it was just a "training exercise". I once asked to dance a young lady with whom I'd had a serious falling out, fully expecting her to say no, so I could reply, "Then I guess a *beep* is out of the question". She actually said yes. I told another, quite genuinely, that I wanted to sleep with her in the non-euphemistic sense of the term ; so when that seemed to be what would happen, I was very ( pleasantly ) surprised by what actually happened.

reply

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

I'm sorry. I don't really know what you're talking about. Im not trying to be difficult. I just don't understand your point. Maybe this will clarify things: I'm 47 and have had sex with 37 thin younger white women in my life. I've been in two 4 year long live in relationships that were more or less like being married without the actual being married part. I'm good looking, thin, and charming, but I'm short. I am 5' 7" and do online dating and in my neck of the woods (NYC) most women say "do not contact me if you are under 5' 10" ". I respect their request, which means I can't contact anybody. I'm under 5' 10". So, I do not contact them (per their request).Maybe life is different in other cities.

Jessica Biel is an actress. She used to live 9 blocks from where I am typing this (my studio in NYC). I kind of moved to this neighborhood in 2011 with the hope of meeting and wooing her. THAT is how confident I am. But women online simply filter out men by height. I could be Zac Efron, Jason Statham, the young Mel Gibson, or Marky Mark and still get filtered out

reply

[–] Geoff1963 7 years ago

Wind back the clock to the first time you asked a girl on a date. Were you apprehensive, nervous, scared, fearful ; or so overwhelmed with terror, that you felt you were going to have a heart attack and throw up at the same time ? I'm guessing somewhere near the beginning of the list, or maybe not even that. Maybe my friend with the perfume was trying to practice at being romantic, to have a dress rehearsal as it were ; so that on the real thing, he could could stand upright and sound coherent. A few dollars would be a good investment.

reply

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

Yes and no. In 11th grade, I asked Kathy to the prom and was so nervous I could barely stand up. But three months later, when I met my first girlfriend while listening to music outdoors, I wasn't nervous, but we were with a group of people and just hanging out. I wasn't nervous, because we were all already socializing and everything seemed natural. She was as hot as Kathy, but I just met her, whereas I had been stroking off to thoughts of Kathy for about a year prior to asking her to the prom. So, actually talking to her made me want to throw up. Also, walking up to a girl to ask her out in public is way more nerve-wracking than meeting girls hanging out listening to a street band. That tends to be super mellow.

I've never been nervous to talk to girls at a party or something, but I've almost never just hit on a complete stranger without ANY context. In truth, I get approached a lot. So, I don't have to do the approaching. Last date I had, 12 months ago, arose from a woman approaching me at an ASPCA fundraiser. I was standing alone sipping whiskey and she started talking to me. I haven't been to a fundraiser in nine months.

People say I'm charming and witty, but because I'm short, I always act like women wouldn't be into me. I don't mean I lack confidence. I just to talk to girls like they're my friend's wife or something. I don't flirt. I just shoot the *beep*

reply

[–] Geoff1963 7 years ago

Some useful advice there. I hope you don't mind if I steal it.

reply

[–] schmidtkenn11 7 years ago

I have to say, this is the strangest string of posts I've ever seen. :-)

"Home is where they don't want you to leave." (Stephen King, Revival)

reply

[–] Geoff1963 7 years ago

That's the Internet for you.

As Forrest Gump says of life, and a box of chocolates, "You never know what you are going to get".
As Kenny Rogers sings in The Gambler, "... and in his final words, I found an ace that I could keep".

reply

[–] schmidtkenn11 7 years ago

I lived in NYC for 22 years and I never encountered women who were so shallow and superficial that they would not even consider dating a guy simply because he was too short, no matter how charming, handsome, or wealthy he was.

"Home is where they don't want you to leave." (Stephen King, Revival)

reply

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

When I lived in Brooklyn, it wasn't such a big issue. It's more of an issue in Manhattan, but, to be fair to women, about 40% of the men in my area seem to be 6' 2". So, tall guys are NOT rare.

Growing up outside of Boston, it was never an issue. Taller girls even showed interest.

I think it's mainly an online dating thing. I try to be specific about that fact in my posts.

Also, I have a narrow field of interest: White women who are thin, very fit, and under 40. I'm Jewish and tend to like Jewish women and redheads. If I dated Asian women or Latinas, it might be different.

Like I said, online is different.

reply

[–] takaladdie-net 7 years ago

I agree This is a great thread!

reply

[–] schmidtkenn11 7 years ago

Are women who do online dating in NYC really that superficial and shallow that they would make a guy's HEIGHT more important than how much money he makes or how handsome or charming he is?!? I lived in NYC for 22 years, and never experienced such crazy prejudice in all that time.

"Home is where they don't want you to leave." (Stephen King, Revival)

reply

[–] scottbusfield-270-365152 7 years ago

Actually, for a certain quality of woman, she'll require all three, generally money first and foremost, and charming is nice - though with enough money merely pleasant will often be enough. NYC is loaded with guys with "money" so they'll wonder why you're even talking to them if you don't have that qualification. But height is a big thing in the female hind brain and some refuse to compromise on that. They don't need to. And this applies to every city where you find women. You're obviously not trying to date the right women, the ones who get hit on at least two or three times every day.

reply

[–] schmidtkenn11 7 years ago

I'm not trying to date women at all. Get it? :-)

"Home is where they don't want you to leave." (Stephen King, Revival)

reply

[–] packro 7 years ago

I'll just leave this here:

https://twitter.com/heightismwatch

reply

[–] DonutLover 7 years ago

I date beautiful women about 12 years younger than I am.

To me this is a very sad statement. It's good to hear that you date (and perhaps screw) beautiful women but it's sad that you have to categorize them as being younger. To me that means that there's something wrong with you; some flaw. if you were happy and confident with yourself you would be attractive to women of all ages, especially those your own age who have more in common with you, psychologically speaking. But the fact that you consider those you grew up with to be too embarrassing to be seen with, or something like that, means that you don't value women for all the good, sexy attributes they have. You only want to value their surface appeal.

I bet there are so many gorgeous women your own age who you pass by every day. You loss, pal! You're missing out on the best stuff.

So fùcking what that you're short. Get over it. You're using that as an excuse not to connect with a woman and make a life. Blaming it on the girls is not the truth of the matter.

A simple mind is a tidy mind.

reply

[–] chillpillory 7 years ago

I guess you're right about the middle man.

There are always strings, but I don't believe in altruism. I'm not a cynic. I'm just not a Christian.

Perhaps Wolff needed to assuage his conscience, or wanted to feel as if he had conspirator in Dana. Those would be psychological strings.

reply

[–] Stewball 7 years ago

Not only did he send it to her after he'd left, he made it known in the note he left her that she deserved Wow, implying that he feared he couldn't provide that for her. His last thought before writing it was about his father telling them that sooner or later people would realize that he was different and they'd come to fear him. His father should have made it clear that there'd be likely exceptions to his warning.

reply

[–] DonutLover 7 years ago

Yes, I agree completely that his father dropped the ball there. I mean come on, all that training wasn't for nothing. He wasn't "just an autistic" as his father probably feared he would be seen. He was now a mean fighting machine. And a genius at that! Plus super handsome. She would have been into him, and he was a fool to leave. She already knew about his Asperger's and he had obviously worked a great deal on it over the years. Remember one of the opening scenes where he is nudging the gentleman farmer along in his office, using his hand to point upward, and sending unspoken signals to the farmer to say more, or higher, so that he (Chris) could give him the best tax deal? In other words, he had learned some communication skills that many aspies would not know how to execute. So in the end he sells himself short by walking away from what could be great love.

A simple mind is a tidy mind.

reply

[–] abetkasonk 7 years ago

idk dude..is the painting were so fame?

reply

[–] apm_bay 7 years ago

She ripped a perfectly good painting apart to reveal a few senseless splashes of color which humankind somehow values more…

reply

[–] DonutLover 7 years ago

Ha ha!

My question was how could she sell it if it was stolen? If it didn't have official papers.....I assumed it had been stolen and belonged to a criminal. But even if the criminal bought it officially, then I suppose she could sell it. If there was no record of it ever having been stolen. If it had been stolen, I don't think that she could sell it, at least not through a legitimate, legal auction house or to a museum.

Unless she went to Saudi Arabia, then she could sell it to anyone because they don't give a shít.

A simple mind is a tidy mind.

reply

[–] Stewball 7 years ago

The painting in the movie was modified, they added an eye looking askance from the center --and for the characters in the movie, IT is the original, and depicts an autistic looking out from a clutter of noise, Pollock's cynical everlasting theme. The eye gave it a profound meaning accenting the theme of the movie, and was a much deserved slap in the face Pollock's endless series of drip, mop and bucket "paintings".

reply