This movie, in my opinion, is as good of an art movie as it is a cinematic drama to please the masses. I really enjoyed how they showed the trials and tribulations of Jackson Pollock’s career. The movie really brings you into the craziness of Pollock and the actor Ed Harris was a great choice to play this character as he was really able to embody his slightly neurotic behaviors.

The way this movie showed how he painted was very interesting to watch, from the original style he painted to then showing how he came upon the style of drip painting that he was most famous for producing. I thought that the painting scenes were well put together in that you could very easily see the style of his painting and still not be caught up in a movie where the artist does nothing but paint. The way they showed his style of drip painting for example, it was very interesting to see the technique of dipping the paint and the way that the movie is filmed shows him going through the different paint layers and colors on the canvas. The movie portrayed Pollock’s paintings in a complex but also simple way with him choosing where to drip the paint carefully but also having it be out of his control how it hits the canvas so that there are no mistakes to him. There were many examples of Pollock’s paintings in the movie and they were always lying around the house or hung up on walls so the importance of painting in his life was made apparent in this movie.

The overall plot of the movie was very interesting, mainly due to Pollock’s crazy life which was filled with radical high and lows. All of the actors in the movie performed very well and the movie is hard to stop watching once you begin. I also think that the time periods that the movie went through were all portrayed very well. The first scenes of the movie to me were very interesting with Pollock living with his brother in New York City. I thought that the pre-war or just entering the war stage was shown well here with such things as the train station which had war bonds being sold along with train tickets, or the general solemn tone of the movie in the first few scenes.

As the movie went one thing that I noticed was that at times you could find yourself lost trying to figure out where they are in the movie. Since the movie jumps around in time just missing five minutes of the movie could cause you to miss a crucial scene to the plot or just not know where the scene is taking place and wondering who the new, unfamiliar characters are. This is hard to avoid in a movie where so many of the scenes occur in different places and at different intervals of time, but it can cause headaches for the viewer.

I did like how they portrayed Lee Krasner (played by Marcia Gay Harden) the wife of Pollock who stood with him through thick and thin and controlled his estate after his death. I think her role of support for Pollock was played so well by her that you end up hoping they come out on top together. Even when Pollock had mistresses she still stayed with him to keep him focused on art so that he could be successful, the role is played well showing how deeply connected she felt to Pollock to the point where she would stay with him although he was an alcoholic, adulterer, and showed little care for her at times. It is clear through this movie how much of an integral part of Pollock’s painting career Lee Krasner was and I felt that the movie and Marcia Gay Harden did a great job of showing her too. 

The relationship between Pollock and Krasner in the movie was not defined very well in my opinion. They were husband and wife but frequently throughout the movie Pollock would have various other women with him obviously for pleasure but they are not introduced well and their relationship to Pollock is not described greatly which can be a confusing part of the movie. I feel like a better explanation or any explanation could have been given to how he met the other girls he was with or just how close they were. Because of this you begin to sympathize more with Krasner as the movie goes along and see that Pollock had many flaws as well as talents. I think this was done on purpose to give you a glimpse into the real everyday life of him.

I would recommend this movie. It has its confusing draw-backs that can make it hard to understand at times but those are brief and few and far between in the movie. I thought it showed an excellent realistic portrayal of Jackson Pollock and the emotional and challenging life of an artist that he lived. The art in the movie was shown very well from the process/technique that was used to make it to the art shows with all of the finished products being shown off. Jackson Pollock lived a tumultuous life that I think was portrayed very well with this movie and I thought it was great that despite all the drama around his life and name they still showed the painting mind and side of Pollock.

After a quick title sequence featuring prints being made of one of these big eyes paintings, the story begins with words from our narrator, gossip columnist Dick Nolan, that accurately describe the climate of the film; “The ‘50s were a grand time, if you were a man.” We see Margaret rushing to pack a few suitcases and quickly leave her current marriage. She then finds herself in San Francisco, and that’s when our story really takes flight. She meets Walter, marries him quickly, and then the two take the art world by storm, but only Walter receives the credit.

The film managed to remain fairly accurate to the way the events played out. Margaret did meet Walter at an outdoor exhibit in San Francisco, and the paintings did rise to fame after being displayed and sold in a nightclub. This was also the place where Margaret first realized that Walter had been claiming that the paintings were his own. In the movie, Margaret overhears him boasting about the paintings to a group of young ladies, but according to the real Margaret Keane, she realized what was going on when Walter was making sales and someone approached her and asked if she painted as well. Other important aspects of the story remain historically accurate, like Margaret’s reasoning for painting such unique portraits. For Margaret, the classic idea of eyes being windows to the soul combined with a childhood surgery that left her deaf for a period of time is what inspired her to portray her feelings the way she did.

With the film being directed by Tim Burton, you have to expect at least one scene that can be classified as a bit of a trip. To me, although it was a short scene, it stood out more than most in the movie. As her husband gains popularity with the big eyes paintings, Walter decides to make the art as accessible to the public as possible, eventually having prints and post cards for sale around town. Margaret’s simple trip to the corner store turns into a bit of a personal nightmare after seeing the art displayed for sale. As she looks around the store and makes her way to the checkout counter, every person around her begins to appear as her paintings, staring at her with the haunting gaze of those disproportionate eyes.

Amy Adams, the leading lady of the film, does a wonderful job of capturing the southern sweetness and naivety of Margaret. She was just a simple woman looking for a new life with her daughter, having no idea what she was going to get herself into, and how it would affect the world of art. It’s no wonder that Amy Adams ended up receiving a Golden Globe for her portrayal of Margaret in the film. Christoph Waltz does a phenomenal job of portraying the delusional narcissist that Walter was. From the first time we meet him while he’s selling his art outside, we’re charmed by his charisma and charm. As the story develops and we realize just how egotistical he is, we witness Walter slowly losing his sanity, all the way up until his lies unravel in court and he attempts to make pathetic excuses for the last time. Waltz does a wonderful job at portraying the fall of a man who truly believed he was great. In fact, the real Walter Keane stuck to his word and still denied that his wife had created the paintings, all the way up until his death in 2000. 

Women have often been looked at as inferior by men, and that thought is especially evident when women try to make their way into spaces that men feel are their own. The film does a great job of showing the patriarchal climate that always existed in the art world, and just how much damage that environment can do to a woman. Margaret had no idea any of this was going to happen. She found solace in Walter, as he was established in her new city, could help provide for her and her daughter, and charmed her from the moment they first met. He used his personality to his advantage up until Margaret finally had the strength to stand up to him. He threatened her life if she were to come out with the truth, and she still had the bravery to stand up to him in court when the opportunity finally arose. Of course not every scene is perfectly accurate to the way things played out between Margaret and Walter, the film does a wonderful job of portraying the conniving nature of the situation, and allows us to understand all the difficult and overwhelming emotions Margaret was experiencing.  Before I first saw this film years ago I had never heard of Margaret Keane and her story, so I definitely think that producing these films helps to bring awareness to the realities that female artists needed to face. Overall, I think this is a great film that displays the empowerment of a female artist, despite so many difficulties weighing her down on her journey.

It seems fitting that the first shot of the film is that of a printing press hurriedly spitting out images of a big-eyed painting, as it’s through the mass printing of Margaret’s big eyes that Walter conquers not only the popular culture but makes himself known in the elite art world too. As a site of interest for the wealthy middle class, the art market of the 1960s was domineered by an exclusive circle who held what they defined as “art” to incredibly high standards: in an early scene, Walter takes his simple “Sunday paintings” to a hip San Franciscan gallery displaying Expressionist art, only to be told that “People want Kandinsky, or Rothko! They don’t want goopy street scenes”, by owner Ruben (Jason Schwartzman). To become successful, artists created works that conformed to the fashionable trends at the time, even if it wasn’t to their own style, and Walter’s Parisian street scenes just don’t cut the mustard.   Desperate to make money, he hangs his and Margaret’s artworks outside the restrooms of the hungry-I, a popular jazz club,hoping that its wealthy patrons will take an interest, only to find himself rapidly selling all of Margaret’s paintings rather than his own. From then on,Walter invades not only the homes of the middle class by selling the works Margaret secretly paints, but also the world of the local working class, selling posters and postcards to those who can’t afford the real thing. Ruben later sees the duplicated images in a shop window and exclaims: “Christ, it’s a movement!”. Certainly, following the Pop Art movement of the 1950s, it no longer mattered if artwork was tasteful or rose to any academic standards, what was important was its presence in popular culture. People wanted art that was deemed “cool” and trendy in any form, and even if they didn’t have the money to spend on an original, mass print meant they could access it in cheap copies, as Walter tells Margaret: “Folks don’t care if it’s a copy. They just want art that touches them!” Walter is proved right when patrons rush to the gallery to pick up cheap photocopies of the Big Eyes, and he is thrilled knowing he can cater to the wants of both the middle-class art world and the local mainstream audience, as he tells Margaret, “Would you rather sell a $500 painting, or a million cheaply- reproduced posters?!” This moment also suggests that art consumption was now based on trends and profit, rather than any particular talent; no doubt Margaret’s paintings were well done, but it seemed buyers wanted her work because it was immensely popular, not necessarily because of any artistic knowledge or interest.

It’s this combination of unique artwork and manipulation of new production methods that creates the commercial boom and sends the Keane name into the spotlight. However, it doesn’t come without consequences, as the eerie scene of Margaret in the supermarket demonstrates. She walks through aisles stocked with brightly-coloured multiples of cleaning products, drink bottles and food, most notably, soup cans not unlike those in Warhol’s famous Campbell’s Soup Cans. Like her paintings,these objects too have become copied over and over, blurring into one colourful mass. Suddenly, she turns a corner to see a display of Big Eyes posters,proudly proclaiming: “We have Keane!” Seemingly in disbelief, Margaret passes the display, only to lock eyes with another woman with freakishly large eyes.Hurrying away, she sees that everyone around her, including the checkout girl,and the family in line behind her, all have those huge eyes she gave the children she painted. If, as Margaret claims earlier in the film, she gets her ideas from “the world around her” then it is this warped world that has allowed her to be confined to the home while Walter enjoys the success from the outside world.

Indeed, the film’s bright bubblegum colours echo the optimism of Walter’s success, contrasted only by Margaret’s growing unhappiness from the loss of control of her own identity, both personally and artistically, as Walter tells her: “Keane means me.” Yet Margaret’s sense of artistic integrity is fully recognized and celebrated, with Adams’ character presented as genuinely talented, and being inspired organically from the world around her. Early on, Margaret tells her daughter Jane that “creativity wells up from within”. On their honeymoon in Hawaii,lying beside Walter on the beach, she tells him “Only God could make those colours”, suggesting she sees the world itself as an artistic creation. It is this gifted and appreciative personality that allows us to engage with Margaret, while simultaneously realizing the real struggle she represents, as the film concludes with the intense legal battle between the Keanes. While the courtroom scene is accurate to real life – a Time article confirms that a judge really did ask them to paint a Big Eyes in front of a jury – it also highlights the lack of representation female artists were given in the art world: Walter convinces Margaret to continue painting in secret because he argues that selling the paintings under his name is the only way to be successful. Similarly, the only other female artist mentioned in the film is Georgia O’ Keefe, the only exception to Walter’s statement of “People don’t buy lady art”. Yet against all odds, Margaret can demonstrate her honesty by completing a painting in under an hour, while Walter idles and complains of a sore shoulder, proving that authentic talent is no match for fabricated lies.

Overall, I would argue the film accurately portrays both the 1960’s art world and the struggle of female artists to have their voices heard. Certainly, some aspects of the movie are somewhat dramatized; the scene at the World’s Fair between Walter and critic John Canaday as a prime example. Canaday was a real person and did heavily criticize the “Tomorrow Forever” painting commissioned for the World’s Fair, with a Time article confirming that phrases such as “tasteless hack” and others used in the movie were quoted directly from his review. The same article also adds that, while Walter was probably upset at the review, there are no reports to suggest that he attacked Canaday or anyone else, meaning the scene in the movie where he attacks Canaday (Terence Stamp) is absolutely fictional. The movie generally doesn’t acknowledge any source of historical evidence, only showing a sweet photograph of Adams and the real Margaret Keane in the closing credits. All the same, I think Margaret’s story is one that deserves to be told; Big Eyes manages to offer fantastic insight into how the art market was changed through new technology that made art more accessible to the masses, as well as the fight of women to be recognized for their talent.

Bibliography:
Dockterman, Eliana, “The True Story Behind Big Eyes” Time, 25 December 2014
Ronson, Jon, “The big-eyed children: the extraordinary story of an epic art fraud”, 26 October 2014, theguardian.com (last accessed 17 November 2018)

Harris himself plays Pollock, magnificently I must add, and is able to relay to the audience the torment and burden, both physically from producing art and mentally through his alcoholism and borderline abusive tendencies, that Pollock battled throughout his whole life. In order to adequately prepare for the role, Harris partook in activities that the artist did every day, among some of the most noted being sleeping in the late artist’s bed, learning how to paint and even painting in the artist’s studio in Springs, East Hampton, New York, and smoking the artist’s preferred unfiltered Camel cigarettes. All of this preparation most certainly paid off, as Harris was able to portray Pollock’s character as closely to what the artist would have been like while he was still living as possible.

One of the most successful and engaging aspects for the audience was the portrayal of Harris painting in “live” action. This film strategy offered a realistic view of the what the process of creating may look like; Harris performing different techniques such as sketching, mixing paints, as well as the act of painting itself, could especially prove fascinating to an audience whom may not be otherwise familiar with them. These “live action” portrayals of Pollock painting in the film primarily began after the arrival of Pollock’s soon-to-be wife’ Lee Krasner, who is played by Marcia Gay Harden. The most powerful, though it may not have been the most realistic, representation of the creative and physical process of Pollock painting was when he was commissioned by the prominent art patron and socialite, Peggy Guggenheim, who is played by Amy Madigan. Pollock is depicted as being in a creative rut, coming up fruitless of both vision and of action, for weeks after the commission. Harris does a wonderful job of showing the frustration that the fruitless attempts caused and the tension between he and Krasner. At one point, Krasner threatened that if he did not produce soon, he would lose the commission. This prompted Harris to both literally and figuratively isolate himself in his tiny studio; just the blank canvas, paints and paint brushes, and himself being present. During this sequence, the filmmakers chose to depict Pollock as being almost lifeless; staring blankly into the distance for elapsed hours on end, while the seasons seemed to change outside through the windows behind him. This created a dramatic suspense for when creativity would strike him. There is, then, almost a definitive moment in which the light switch of vision and action flips on for Pollock. He sprung out of the chair in which he seemed to be bound to, and just started doing. He started to simply just paint. With a bucket of black paint and paintbrush in hand, Pollock started to fluidly and loosely, yet very purposefully and violently, cast the paint onto the canvas, not stopping, feverishly repeating the process fluidly with each color and detail, until he was left almost breathless, admiring his finished work. This sequence of standstill followed by abrupt rejuvenation and passion chosen by the filmmakers serves as a metaphor for the pattern of turbulence and instability of Pollock’s own personal life.

Perhaps the most realistic aspect of the film was the portrayal of Pollock’s personal relationship with his wife, Lee Krasner. The couple infamously had a turbulent, volatile, and sometimes abusive relationship with one another. Marcia Gay Harden, who plays Krasner in the Film, impeccably conveys to the audience Lee’s tremendous courage in her compromise of her own promising career and talent to foster and nurture Pollock’s visions, techniques, and brand of art as well as the nurturing of his soul, and as he exclaims to his mistress Ruth Kligman in the last fifteen minutes of the film, “I would be dead without her.” From the time Krasner entered Pollock’s life in 1942 until she left Pollock to travel Europe following Pollock’s extramarital affair with Kligman, she was portrayed as being Pollock’s biggest critic while simultaneously acting as his biggest supporter and admirer. In a notable scene within Pollock’s barn studio, after he had created his first splatter painting work, Krasner displayed nothing but utter admiration whilst gazing at the sensational work. Through exclaiming, rather breathlessly, “You’ve done it, Pollock. You’ve cracked it wide open,” she both praises Pollock, while also foreshadowing the fascination and obsession with Jackson Pollock, both as an artist and as a movement, that was soon to spread like wildfire beyond just the art community, spilling into popular culture outlets such as Life Magazine.

Some of the most powerful, emotional, and informational moments between Pollock and Krasner are presented, however, in their scenes of turmoil and conflict. When discussing the turbulent aspect of their relationship, it is important to reference two specific scenes in the film in which provide the most colorful scenes of violence and abuse. The first example occurs while the couple is in their farmhouse in Springs while entertaining guests. The scene involves Pollock, who was in an extremely drunken stupor, and art critic Clement Greenberg, who has always challenged Pollock’s work. Greenberg, who is played by Jeffrey Tambor, criticizes Pollock for having “too much blue” in one of his works, to which Pollock lividly storms out of the house, retrieves the so-called flawed painting, and marches it back into the house and aggressively places it on an easel, putting it on display for everyone to see. He angrily threatens to “fix” the painting to Greenberg’s “liking”, hurling profanities out of frustration, anger, and ultimately fragility, at everyone in the living room, including Krasner, who was trying to calm him. This scene is important because it shows Pollock’s volatile nature that would often lead to outbursts, as well as his sensitivity to critiques of his work. Throughout the film, he often spoke of how viewers of his work did not understand his purpose. At one point, in an interview with Life Magazine, he proclaimed, “If people would just look at the paintings, I don’t think they would have any trouble enjoying them. It’s like looking at a bed of flowers, you don’t tear your hair out over what it means.” Through the many similar interactions between Pollock and Krasner, reporters, journalists, critics, and comrades alike, the filmmakers are able to convince the audience that a movie about Jackson Pollock should depict all of the work and labor that goes into creating, not just strictly the art as a finished product. Additionally, they are able to convey that it was important to Pollock for his work to be seen not within a box of tradition or what was seen as “conventional”, but to see the art for what it really was; the art takes a life of its own and it should be interpreted as such.

The final catastrophic, blowout dispute between Lee Krasner and Jackson Pollock in the latter portion of the movie very well may chalk up to be the most disturbing and intense moment in the entire film. It is apparent in this moment that Pollock appears to have fallen back into depression and alcoholism has once again claimed the sanity and serenity of the artist, as he is stumbling, hurling chairs and dishes into the empty space around him, and seething venomous insults at Krasner for not understanding him and for not wanting to have children with him, which ironically enough, earlier in the film he admitted to only wanting because it was what was “next in the sequence of life”. This was both Harris’s and Harden’s most dramatic performance in the entire film, being that the tensions between the couple were clearly maximized and had finally come to head. Though the behavior exhibited by Pollock was shocking and could evoke a certain sense of despair from the audience because it stirs a gut feeling that the artist may not escape from his demons this time, the most commanding behaviors were expressed by Krasner’s character. Throughout the entire film, Krasner’s character was courageous and bold, nevertheless she always was soft towards Pollock, yet in this precise scene, Harden was able to match Pollock’s fiery passion and viciousness through her own biting verbage and frenzied body language. This was a pivotal moment that transformed Krasner’s character from a devoted wife who took on her husband’s burdens as her own, to an independent woman who had reached her absolute limits of her own sanity. Portraying this moment from what was perhaps the ugliest time in Pollock’s life in an accurate and convincing manner was absolutely crucial for the filmmakers because it challenges the audience to view Pollock’s work for what it really was; a personality of its own, whether it was stable and light-hearted, or violent and capricious. Stepping up to the plate of the challenge, Harden and Harris executed their performances flawlessly.

Flashback to 1941 where the movie’s story officially begins. Jackson Pollock is living with his brother Charles in a tiny apartment in New York City doing more drinking than painting, that is until he meets Lee Krasner (played by Marcia Gay Harden) another abstract painter at the time. Lee is fascinated by more than just Pollock’s work she puts her career on the back burner to become Pollock’s companion, to help him stay off the booze and on the canvas. Lee also helps Pollock tremendously when selling his art she sets up meetings with Peggy Guggenheim and Howard Putzel, two world-renowned artists and art critics. Peggy Guggenheim offers Pollock his first one-man viewing at “Art of this century Gallery” on November 8th, 1943.Peggy also commissions Pollock to create an 8 by 20-foot mural for her townhouse giving him full artistic control.

Ed Harris does an amazing job directing “Pollock” but an even better job portraying the expressionist painter. The creation of the mural scene not only shows how brilliant an actor and director Harris is but how Jackson pulls abstract art from his head and strategically throws them on the canvas to create a masterpiece. Jackson struggles for weeks to find an idea that perfectly fits the canvas. Creating suspense the director cuts from Pollock’s eyes to the canvas then back to his eyes suddenly something clicks Pollock drops his cigarette and furious strokes of black paint fly up and down the white canvas. Pollock knows what he wants.

Throughout the entire movie, Jackson Pollock has been going through ups and downs from creating his mural and marrying Lee to not selling any paintings and binge drinking. Jackson Pollock died in 1956 from a drunk driving accident. This scene in the movie was tough to watch because you see Pollock struggling to stay sane and finally he just gives up. Jackson Pollock’s death was very tragic and a waste of so much talent. Pollock was forty-four years old when he died but he still had so much to accomplish, he could have created so many more beautiful abstract paintings. This is why his death is so tragic. The movie gives a good visualization of the abstract painter’s life with help from Ed Harris the director and leading actor I would give this movie a 5-star rating. If you are into dramatic movies with a great historical background it is a must watch.

Margaret feels bad for lying to Jane about who does the paintings so she goes to confess her sins. She tells the priest she had lied to her child and the priest tells her “you were raised Christian, you know what we are taught, the man is the head of the household, perhaps you should trust his judgement.” Even when she was looking for support she was told to submit to Walter and at this scene Margaret started to believe this is how it should be. Walter knew people could not afford “his” painting so he started selling copies of posters and postcards. This is when we see him become very popular.

The next scene shows Margaret in the grocery store passing the copies of the painting and she starts to see the big eyes on the people in the store. This is not the most successful part of the movie because it started to become cartoon-like. While I did understand that it was to show how the Big Eyes were taking over her life, it didn’t fit the style of the movie overall. She is getting sick of not being recognized and started a new style that she was going to take credit for. Walters reason for not giving her credit to the big eyes painting “was people do not buy lady art” which was true to the time period however, the movie did not focus on how intense gender roles were at the time period. She signed her new style of painting with just her initials because “people don’t take woman art seriously.” Although they keep making this statement, it is not proven anywhere in the movie. If they possibly showed us a scene of people discussing a women’s art and why
they wouldn’t buy it, or shown us another women artist not being successful. It could’ve given us a better inside look as to how serious it was at the time.

They get very wealthy and are now living in Woodside, California in 1963 in a large home with a pool, five bedrooms, and an art studio. An iconic moment was when she is in her studio that no one goes into because they can’t know she is the artist behind the painting and her dogs gets in and she says “well, I painted em, I did every single one of em, every big eye, me,
and no one will ever know but you”. I enjoyed this scene because we could feel how trapped Margaret was in the lies when the only soul she could tell the truth to was her dog. As she is her studio she come across a box of Walters old street paintings and sees they were also signed by someone else. This part is displayed well because it shows us her hitting her breaking point, she now knows he has done this to someone else before. She finds out that he never could paint in the first place and when she confronts him he goes crazy. I am not a fan of this because he acts way over the top and it turns comedic. The narrator (Dick Nolan) a newspaper editor brings us
back on track saying “when people asked me why did she stay, was it fear, lack of confidence, Margaret was trapped in a lie she helped create and now the cover up was worse than the crime.”

In another scene, Margaret’s daughter Jane looked for her mom who was asleep in her studio. She goes in for the first time and saw her that her mom is the artist. This was done well because throughout the whole movie we see how her and her mother were growing apart from the lie that was coming in between them. And now that Jane knows the truth of her mom being the painter all these years we see them connect again. We see Walter being way over the top in a scene when he goes to stab a man with a fork in the eye. Although we don’t know how Walter was as a person at points his behavior seemed way too dramatic as I mentioned above. But Margaret was alive during the making of this movie and approved it all so this could have been his true personality. In the one scene he is drunk and acting out, he throws matches on Margaret and Jane. He slips a match into the studio they locked themselves in and the room catches on fire so they go out the pool door and drive away. This was a great scene because we see how she didn’t care about the money or the home anymore and just wanted to start a new life for her and Jane. They move to Hawaii and one year later Walter calls her when she files for divorce. He says he will only sign if she sends him the rights to every painting and one hundred more.

Margaret has an interview with a radio station in Hawaii where she tells the truth that she was the artist and she sues Walter for what he has done to her. At the trail the judge says “in my opinion there is only one way to clear this up, you’re both going to paint” and they both had to paint in front of the courtroom. This scene shows Walter fixing the chair and moving around while Margaret is painting and he can’t start anything because he does not know how to paint. Walter finally starts and complains about his shoulder saying he can’t paint today. Margaret won and still painted everyday until her death. This movie was amazing and showed us the details of what Margaret had to deal with as a woman artist in the sixties. It shows the emotional toll it takes on herself and her relationships when she was not being acknowledged for the hard work she put into all her paintings.