I was very familiar with artist Han van Meegeren’s history and was therefore a bit reluctant to see the film The Last Vermeer, given it was a novel and not a history book. This Dutch artist-dealer had been charged with collaboration with the Nazis for selling a Vermeer masterpiece to Hermann Göring, one of the most powerful Nazi leaders.
![]()
It was not clear in this film whether van Meegeren was a] actually a Nazi supporter, b] an anti-Nazi Dutchman who wanted to fool the Nazis and take their money or c] a talented artist who survived WW2 as best he could. The viewers were assured that the film was based on a true story, fitting in the important material so that we understand what happened back in the horrors of 1945, just as the war ended. As background, the film showed bombed out buildings, starving children and traitors being shot in the streets. But it had to deal with the creation & management of art, how it related to war-time culture and commerce, and what kinds of moral compromises were sanctioned.
I am not sure that this film avoided the problems of ambiguity and confusion. I am assuming that because the events took place just after the war in Europe ended, it was during the chaotic interim period before the Allied Forces returned control to the countries once occupied by the Nazis. Firing squads were shooting those deemed to be collaborators in the street, as the crowds watched.
It was not explained why an ex-lieutenant in the Dutch Resistance, Joseph Piller, was now wearing an Allied uniform, investigating the art gallery he saw as a front for a German espionage ring. Nor do I know why everyone spoke in English to each other, even though the story specifically reflected Dutch war experiences.
Tracking the sale of the Vermeer at a huge price, Piller found van Meegeren in his fabulous home that survived the war intact. But Piller soon had him in a prison cell—until there was a territorial fight with local Dutch authorities." Piller considered his group morally superior to the Dutch rivals. When they assumed control over van Meegeren, Piller stole him from prison and hid him in a small gallery. Van Meegeren promised to answer all of Piller's questions, IF he was allowed him to paint… and drink alcohol.
It may be that Piller's obsession with finding and punishing those who collaborated with the Nazis was fuelled by his estrangement with his wife. While he was underground with the Resistance, she was gathering information by working for and with occupying German officers.
The storyline may have diverged from the facts, but the photography was stunning: on one hand the rubble of the post-war landscape and on the other hand, the sumptuous parties where van Meegeren entertained wealthy Dutch society. And Germans.
The films suggested the trauma at the end of the war stressed the importance of real Vermeer master-pieces as a vital part of the national identity. It suggested that a sale to the enemy would have been a devastating betrayal. But I don’t think Dutchman in 1945 could have cared less about protecting Vermeer’s reputation.
![]()
The real court case, Amsterdam, 1947
![]()
The film version: Han Van Meegeren centre, Esper Dekker (left) and Allied Capt Joseph Piller (right) depicted in post-WW2 Holland
Credit: ArkansasDemocratIt was not clear in this film whether van Meegeren was a] actually a Nazi supporter, b] an anti-Nazi Dutchman who wanted to fool the Nazis and take their money or c] a talented artist who survived WW2 as best he could. The viewers were assured that the film was based on a true story, fitting in the important material so that we understand what happened back in the horrors of 1945, just as the war ended. As background, the film showed bombed out buildings, starving children and traitors being shot in the streets. But it had to deal with the creation & management of art, how it related to war-time culture and commerce, and what kinds of moral compromises were sanctioned.
I am not sure that this film avoided the problems of ambiguity and confusion. I am assuming that because the events took place just after the war in Europe ended, it was during the chaotic interim period before the Allied Forces returned control to the countries once occupied by the Nazis. Firing squads were shooting those deemed to be collaborators in the street, as the crowds watched.
It was not explained why an ex-lieutenant in the Dutch Resistance, Joseph Piller, was now wearing an Allied uniform, investigating the art gallery he saw as a front for a German espionage ring. Nor do I know why everyone spoke in English to each other, even though the story specifically reflected Dutch war experiences.
Tracking the sale of the Vermeer at a huge price, Piller found van Meegeren in his fabulous home that survived the war intact. But Piller soon had him in a prison cell—until there was a territorial fight with local Dutch authorities." Piller considered his group morally superior to the Dutch rivals. When they assumed control over van Meegeren, Piller stole him from prison and hid him in a small gallery. Van Meegeren promised to answer all of Piller's questions, IF he was allowed him to paint… and drink alcohol.
It may be that Piller's obsession with finding and punishing those who collaborated with the Nazis was fuelled by his estrangement with his wife. While he was underground with the Resistance, she was gathering information by working for and with occupying German officers.
The storyline may have diverged from the facts, but the photography was stunning: on one hand the rubble of the post-war landscape and on the other hand, the sumptuous parties where van Meegeren entertained wealthy Dutch society. And Germans.
The films suggested the trauma at the end of the war stressed the importance of real Vermeer master-pieces as a vital part of the national identity. It suggested that a sale to the enemy would have been a devastating betrayal. But I don’t think Dutchman in 1945 could have cared less about protecting Vermeer’s reputation.
Youth-Time
Hannema was convinced that there were more Vermeer paintings around, but they had been unrecognised since the C17th because they’d been hidden. So van Meegeren painted “his Vermeers” much larger than Vermeer ever did! Yet when the pompous, uber-confident Dutch expert saw the forgeries, he insisted that Vermeer had painted them. In real life The Museum Boijmans flourished under Hannema’s directorship, but he was gaoled for his conduct during Germany’s WW2 occupation of Holland.
At the trial, van Meegeren ironically had to insist that rather than collaborating with the Nazis, he was actually thieving German funds. That meant he had to prove his innocence by showing that the painting in question was not a real Vermeer, but was his own forgery. And that he knowingly sold Vermeer forgeries to important Dutch collections by fooling the leading Vermeer authority then, Dirk Hannema.
The film wanted to raise questions about: so-called authentication by experts, validation from critics, and their commercial impact and conflicts of interest. If the film was exploring what integrity meant in an occupied territory during wartime, I think it failed. I wasn’t even certain why Piller battled on behalf of van Meegeren before and in court.
When Han van Meegeren was found not guilty and was released, he lived for only 8 weeks post-trial. During that short time, the Dutch forger had become a national hero in the film; huge crowds were clapping van Meegeren outside the court. Presumably this was because van Meegeren had noted that many Dutchmen, and others, had effectively been pro-Nazi, during the war. Post-war, they were on his side!