- Thursday 20 June 2013
- My Account
- Logout
- Register
- Login
- News
-
Voices
-
Find by writer
- Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
- Rebecca Armstrong
- Memphis Barker
- Terence Blacker
- Chris Blackhurst
- David Blanchflower
- Archie Bland
- Ian Burrell
- Andrew Buncombe
- Ben Chu
- Patrick Cockburn
- Laura Davis
- Mary Dejevsky
- Grace Dent
- Robert Fisk
- Andrew Grice
- Stefano Hatfield
- Philip Hensher
- Ian Herbert
- Howard Jacobson
- Ellen E Jones
- Alice Jones
- Owen Jones
- Simon Kelner
- Dominic Lawson
- Donald Macintyre
- Lisa Markwell
- Comment
- Campaigns
- Debate
- Editorials
- Letters
- IV Drip
- Archive
- Our Voices
- Commentators
- Columnists
- Democracy 2015
- IV Drip Archive
-
Find by writer
- Sport
- Tech
- Life
- Property
- Arts & Ents
- Travel
- Money
- IndyBest
- Blogs
- Student
- Offers
Iv drip The juice you can't live without
Nevermind the Rotterdam heist, real-life thieves aren't glamorous
17 October 2012 10:08 AM
Forget Cary Grant in To Catch a Thief, and Michael Caine in Gambit. According to Anthony M. Amore in The New York Times, the criminals who steal priceless works of art in real life aren't even as glamorous as an aging Pierce Brosnan in the 1999 remake of The Thomas Crown Affair.
"Most of us envision balaclava-clad cat burglars rappelling through skylights into museums and, like Hollywood characters, contorting their bodies around motion-detecting laser beams," he writes. "Instead, they are the same crooks who rob armored cars for cash, pharmacies for drugs and homes for jewelry. They are often opportunistic and almost always shortsighted."
The extreme difficulty of fencing a famous masterpiece, means that those who do fancy the risk, likely only do so once and without much thought, argues Amore. Yet again, it seems the movies are better than real life.
Babies behind bars
Sonic youth: The high-pitched sound alarm
The art of living in small spaces
'Teaching bright children isn't rocket science'
Can technology lure us back to the high street?

