The film opens with clips of some of Maier’s former charges, now fully grown, puzzling over how to describe her. They use words like “paradoxical”, “bold”, “mysterious”, and “eccentric”. But if there was one thing they could all agree on, it was that Vivian Maier was very, very private. Following this is Maloof’s exposition of his first contact with Maier’s work. During work on a history project in 2007 for the city of Chicago, he went searching for photographs in an auction house, where he bought one box out of a set that was filled with negatives. Although he ended up not using the photos for his book, he eventually goes through them and begins to notice a pattern of rather phenomenal shots. Having been told the box belonged to a ‘Vivian Maier’ he tried looking her up and found nothing. Then, as the documentary shows with rather typical screenshots of a computer screen, he uploads some photos to Flickr and the work takes off. Before he knows it, he has a mystery to solve. Who could have taken so many photos and then just left them in a box unprinted?
Alternating between interviews with the parents and children who interacted with Maier and shots of her photographs, the documentary begins to explore the puzzle she left behind. Maloof finds his way to a storage unit that is practically overflowing with boxes filled with anything you could imagine. People said she kept everything—and they meant it. Newspapers, clothes, undeveloped film, uncashed income checks, even teeth! Maier was a pack rat, who it seems felt she had to keep everything and take it with her too. Families that hired Maier all described a similar situation; she would arrive with stacks of boxes that could fill a room. Another consistent memory from her charge is that she always had a camera around her neck, and she was always taking pictures. Despite taking hundreds of thousands of photos, nobody ever saw them. All the evidence seems to point to a very secretive woman who would not have wanted anyone to see her work. But then why take so many photos?
Maloof seeks to answer this question as he works to piece together her life’s story. His amateur sleuth work brings him into contact with the New York Public Records office, and he uncovers that Maier did not have much family, but the records that could be found suggest they were equally as private. The limited information that was uncovered about her family leads him to a small town in France where he comes into contact with an elderly cousin, who appears to be Maier’s only living relative. Very few people seem to know anything about Maier or remember her with any real clarity, but Maloof does his best to interview all of them in the documentary.
Maloof interviews other prominent photographers and gallery curators for an insight into the quality of Maier’s work and each of them praised her skill. They spoke of a humanity in her photography that is rarely seen. Her work displayed a sense of humor and a sense of tragedy. Maier appeared interested in what it meant to be human. Her work exemplifies the qualities of street photography. Her subjects were often individuals caught unawares or lightly posed in daily scenes of life. Maier shot in both black and white and color film. Maier seemed to revel in discreetly photographing her subjects and seems to reveal an affinity for the poor; possibly because like them, she struggled to get by. Demonstrating an awareness of politics and society, she addressed tough topics like the Watergate scandal through short films.
Audiences have the ability to see a range of different shots as Maier’s work has been interspersed throughout the documentary. The accompanying by a score of lilting, mysterious music that feels like it speaks to Maier’s character. Despite such beautiful works, the documentary highlights how she, at the time of the film’s release, had yet to be accepted by much of the art world. A number of artists became famous posthumously, yet Maloof faces push back as he tries to bring her the recognition she deserves. As a result of the way she sequestered her work the film and negatives remained incredibly well preserved. As the film ends, Maloof is still pressing on with the development of her film and spreading awareness about her talent.
Overall, the film does a wonderful job of answering many of the questions raised concerning the secretive nature of her work. The technique of interspersing interviews with scanned works allows audiences to experience it for themselves. However, much like the circumstances around her work, Vivian Maier remains an enigma. Interviews throughout the film told conflicting stories of her character going so far as to reference abuse and neglect. Viewers are left with several questions, including, why did she never reveal her work? Why take so many pictures and preserve the work so well if you intended for them to fade into obscurity? The driving force behind this enormous body of work remains unknown. As a result, despite what the title suggests, Vivian Maier remains as stubbornly elusive in death as she was in life.
]]>At the beginning of the film, Margaret is seen leaving her first husband and heading straight for San Francisco bringing only a few suitcases and her daughter with her. She then meets Walter Keane at a street fair where she is doing portraits of people on request. Walter is a few stands down sweet-talking two ladies into buying artwork. He then approaches Margaret and flatters her into going on a date with him. The two eventually get married and both become Keanes. At the time, neither artist is successfully selling their artwork. Margaret paints young children with disproportionally large eyes and Walter is known for artwork scenes of Italian streets as he claims to have lived in Italy for a while. Walter and Margaret’s personalities are very different. Walter is a big talker and con man while Margaret takes pride in her work and feels connected to each painting. Multiple times throughout the movie, she states how artwork is a personal and emotional matter. Walter convinces the owner of a club to allow the Keanes to hang their artwork on the walls. Much more interest is expressed in the big eyes than Walter’s street artwork. When someone notices a big-eyed painting, Walter happens to be nearby. He then jumps in and offers to sell the artwork claiming that it is his. Once Margaret’s work rises in popularity, Walter continues to take credit and convinces Margaret that the work will not sell if he says it’s hers solely because she’s a “lady painter.” Because Margaret is not a fighter and enjoys seeing her work being appreciated, she agrees to go along with the fraud although she is not happy about it. Walter becomes very famous and wealthy by selling Margaret’s work. He opens his own gallery, goes on TV, sells her work as copies in supermarkets, and makes his way into big events. When an interview was scheduled with Walter to discuss is motive for the work, he quickly realizes that he needs to fabricate a back story. He claims that he spent time in Europe after the war and was heartbroken by all of the orphans on the street. He also says that orphans of the world are his inspiration for the paintings. In the meantime, Margaret has been working so hard creating the art that has led to their wealth while hiding her accomplishments from her daughter, friends, and the world unable to enjoy her fame. Margaret eventually finds the power to leave Walter after she realizes that she is not the first person he has done this too. The Italian streets that he claimed were his were done by a different artist. Walter then gets filled with rage, and alcohol, one night and tries to harm Margaret and her daughter. This is where Margaret draws the line, moves to Hawaii, continues to paint, and eventually tells the truth about Walter to a local radio host. She then takes Walter to court and wins the acknowledgment for all of her artwork of the past and future after the judge holds a “paint off.”
Big Eyes has a few underlying themes that were appreciated by the audience. The film has a feminist theme as Margaret fights against being overpowered and dominated by the men in her life. At first, she felt so undermined and didn’t know how to be independent and think on her own. Eventually, she realizes how much she enabled this and fights against both marriages, which was not common in this time, and move to a completely different state fighting for what she feels is right. The film also questions the significance of art, fame, and popularity. It showed how art is only considered “good” if it is craved by the public. Although Big Eyes is not one of Burton’s most famous films and doesn’t follow his traditional themes, the film was well done. It’s a very emotional and personal look into Margaret Keane’s life and all that she faced along the way before her, quite literal, claim to fame.
]]>While he was born in Wyoming, the movie skips his early life and begins immediately with a scene of Pollock, intoxicated, in his early 20’s in New York City. This was an interesting choice for the director to make as it really set the tone for how the movie would go. I enjoyed this choice made by the director because often it can be boring for the viewer to be given too much background information on a main character’s early life. You are almost immediately introduced to Lee Krasner, who would later become his wife. She follows him home which lets the viewer know right away she is a bold and strong personality. She is seen physically shoving herself through the door to speak to him, about art, which seems like a symbolic chose the director made. Her coming through this door was literally her coming into his life and the start of his driving success. She also has a heavy New York accent, and being from New York myself this was a touch that I enjoyed. They begin discussing art immediately and it is revealed to us that Krasner is also an extremely intelligent and well-spoken artist. Krasner’s main interests are in modern and abstract art, and particularly Pollock’s works.
While Krasner and Pollock are shown in their early dating life, and beginning stages of their relationships, we are shown they struggle heavily with money. Pollock is not yet a successful or known artist. We see scenes of Pollock being so intoxicated he falls asleep in the streets and is covered in filth coming home at all hours of the morning. Despite all of Pollock’s flaws, and red flags, Lee Krasner still loves him, and supports his art. Lee Krasner throughout the film becomes a character that the audience sympathizes with a lot. I particularly enjoyed that the movie portrayed her as such a strong woman in Pollocks life, rather than as someone who was walked all over which could have easily been the light that the director could’ve portrayed her in. Throughout the film Krasner motivates Pollock, seeks out opportunities for him, and even gives a very impressive speech to Peggy Guggenheim when she comes to visit.
A scene I found to stick out the most is the scene where Peggy Guggenheim views Pollock’s art in his apartment. She begins the scene extremely furious that Pollock and Krasner are late, and visibly intoxicated. She enters the house, furious, insults Krasner’s art, and then shoves past her to view Pollock’s work. Despite such a horrid mistreatment, Krasner still follows Guggenheim into the room full of Pollock’s work and does all the talking on how genius the pieces are. This scene really proved to me that behind every man’s success is a strong successful woman.
Another scene I particularly enjoyed was later on in the movie after Pollock and his wife Lee Krasner, moved to their house in East Hampton on Long Island. Pollock, and Krasner appear very happy and in love. They are shown gardening and fixing up their property, and it appears the director made the choice to have this scene very romanticized. Following this very happy scene they are shown inside the house at night, Pollock is having a beer and he asks Krasner to have a baby. Krasner says no and Pollock erupts in violence, heavily contrasting the romantic and happy scenes just shown before. I particularly love every scene where Lee Krasner stands up for herself and puts Pollock in his place, but this scene stuck out the most. Krasner tells Pollock that a baby won’t fix their relationship, she made the choice not to have kids, and that they need to be realistic because they’re both low income painters. While this scene may be an odd scene to enjoy so much, the director as well the actor playing Krasner really did her character justice. For Krasner to be so strong and opinionated in a time where women faced so much inequality, and were expected to stay home and raise kids, I thoroughly enjoyed that the director included this scene.
The film Pollock overall was very enjoyable; however, I didn’t enjoy it for the reasons I thought I would have. I truthfully had not expected that Jackson Pollock such a jaded, awful person, and the way this film portrayed him made me enjoy his art less. On a more positive note this film introduced me to another amazingly talented artist, Lee Krasner. Upon some research into her art works after the film I found that she was equally as talented of an abstract expressionist painter as her cheating husband. The director did a very good job depicting Pollock and I seriously have respect for how Lee Krasner was depicted. I am so happy her character was shown as such a strong person next her husband who is essentially a household name. The film did a thorough job giving a very raw depiction of the life and struggles of Jackson Pollock, and I would recommend it a friend to watch. I enjoyed the film Pollock but would probably enjoy a movie about Lee Krasner more.
]]>Stieglitz convinces her to allow him to become her benefactor and to champion her artistry, all while their relationship evolves and they fall deeply in love. Their relationship begins as an affair because Stieglitz is married to another woman. By the end of the movie, Stieglitz’s suspicion of his wife’s own infidelity prompts him to have a heart attack while a rift between him and O’Keeffe over a commission she received from Radio City Music Hall sends her to the hospital due to a nervous breakdown. Stieglitz pushes O’Keeffe to the status of celebrity by displaying his nude photographs of her alongside her own work and profits off of her the whole way. She has many concerns about his strategies and is also tormented over his deranged notions of commitment. Stieglitz is incredibly needy, childish and hypocritical throughout the movie, displaying no appealing characteristics besides his talent for photography and star making. Once Stieglitz leaves his wife for O’Keeffe, he soon realizes her rising stardom is going to eclipse his light. As O’Keeffe becomes more famous, he becomes more controlling. As their relationship starts to unwind because of this, he finds twisted ways to emotionally manipulate and destroy her. He eventually cheats on her, which breaks her heart but also fuels her into a period of exploration that becomes her trademark years.
O’Keeffe searches for solace and recovery, moves west and finds new inspiration for her paintings in New Mexico. The rocky love affair between the two helps to inspire some of the most important art of the 20th century. Her new surroundings give her inspiration and she begins creating works that pair landscapes with the skulls of dead animals. This new style represented symbols of the Southwest in a more feminine way. O’Keeffe used light brush strokes and the occasional use of flowers added to the animal skulls to soften what were symbols of the harsh nature of the desert. She attempted to capture the emotion and power of objects through abstracting the natural world in her works. O’Keeffe painted in a modern style and eventually played a vital role in the development of American modernism art as well as its relationship to European avant-garde movements of the early 20th century.
O’Keeffe produced a large collection of work over seven decades as an artist. she is identified as the first female American modernist, whose paintings of flowers, landscapes, and still life scenes have become iconic in modern American art. The subject she was most known for was her flowers. Her flowers were oversized and close-cropped to draw attention to such small, delicate details, and the paintings reshaped ideas of what a still life work could be. She was one of the first artists to adapt the method of painting close-ups of objects that were highly detailed yet abstract. Some of O’Keeffe’s paintings from the American Southwest, although not intentionally drawing on Surrealism, showed signs of that influence from Europe, with paintings such as Summer Days.
O’Keeffe was well-informed in terms of what was happening in the art world around her. At the same time, she remained true to herself and her artistic vision throughout her entire life, therefore creating art that has surpassed time. Her style was combining abstraction and realism to develop works that showcased the primary forms of nature. Some of O’Keeffe’s works are highly detailed while in others she puts the focus more on shape and color. This is demonstrated in the works shown in the movie. O’Keeffe observed nature, experimented with scales, lines and colors to produce art that pushed its limits. Much of her artwork was outside the mainstream at the time as she was one of the few artists to adhere to her own principles and styles of experimentation, which set her apart and caused her work to become historical icons in the art world.
]]>An aspect of the movie that was so intriguing was the use of interviews that were filmed with the artist himself. This was a neat device to allow Basquiat to speak for himself and be a part of a project that celebrates his life. This interview was recorded at the height of his fame; allowing viewers to see Basquiat in his glory days when he had inner confidence and good lucks.
The approach of this film seemed to be very ironic. I think this because Basquiat continues to say in his interviews that he doesn’t think about his paintings and there is no motivation behind them, instead they just come “automatic” and his inner child comes out. Throughout the movie hundreds of Basquiat’s paintings are shown, some are only on the screen for about a second. Davis allows you to view them very quickly without being able to consider them or have any feeling behind them before viewing the next one. This reminds me of how Basquiat did his paintings because he was constantly changing or crossing out something on his paintings to get a final piece. Even though this seems as an effective aspect of the movie and shows Basquiat’s enormous artistic talent, it was one of the parts I didn’t enjoy about the film. By the end of the movie I had almost forgotten about every painting shown because there were so many and they were only on the screen for a short amount of time. I would have preferred to see just a couple of his works of art and had the artists and friends dissect those paintings and talk about the importance and the impact they had.
Another feature of the movie that I did not enjoy was that even though his hardships were mentioned they were not taken into full detail. They were often just mentioned without much explanation. For example, the embattled relationship with his father, his drug issue, and his fallout with Andy Warhol. With more clarification about these events, we might be able to understand and further investigate his death, meanings behind his paintings, and what influenced him to become a painter. I believe Davis didn’t want to disclose this information to its full extent because she didn’t want viewers to interpret Basquiat in a bad way or to remember him for his hardships. She further tried to present this documentary as a celebration through the music. The cheerful and optimistic music in the beginning and the end contributed to this. These choices helped to shape the tone of the movie. The music shifted the depressing ending to a merry and reassuring mood of all the great things Basquiat accomplished in life.
Davis presented things to viewers that we might not have known. For example, many people are familiar with his paintings, his relationship with Andy Warhol, his overdose but many viewers may not know that he played clarinet in a band called Gray. This helped the documentary be successful because it allows viewers to connect with a different side of Basquiat and learn these other special talents he had.
“Nobody loves a genius child.” These are the words of Langston Hughes’s poem used in the beginning of the documentary as a hyperbolic epigraph, meaning Davis used these words to shape the theme for the movie. I thought this was a very powerful and important poem that stimulated attention. Basquiat was a genius but he always felt betrayed and that his work wasn’t good enough. He then turned to drugs which led to his death. When Tamara Davis referred to this quote, I think she wanted us to understand that the meaning behind it was that Basquiat didn’t love himself and didn’t see himself as a genius or as his fans perceived him. This quote becomes relevant to many celebrities and famous people. They usually have incredible talents and are usually the center of much backlash. Most of the time this causes the person to become a danger to themselves and they turn down a bad path or their life ends in a tragedy. Hopefully one day this will change and there can be less incidents and tragedies of brilliant stars.
All in all, The Radiant Child is a valuable film. It allows us to see Basquiat’s art in a cultural context with zest, because of the music and great enthusiasm about Basquiat from the interviewees in this movie. Also, this movie allowed viewers to view his pictures as blazingly alive. This movie combined instructive information with a narrative story that was enjoyable to watch.
]]>The movie opens with Diane Arbus arriving at someone’s home where the people were nude. It looked like they were very comfortable in their own skin and tried to persuade Diane to do the same, but she declined it. Diane looked nervous but later we learn that she is more experimental than we thought. Later, in the movie we meet a couple more important characters. We meet Diane’s husband who is a photographer. He takes pictures that will sometimes get featured in magazines. Which is shown in a scene where the husband Allan lined up women who were ironing cloths for an advertisement. In the movie there was a scene where Diane was asked what her job was in relation to her husband. She ended up getting annoyed with the question because she could not think of anything to say. I think she felt like she was just living in her husband’s shadow the whole time. After that scene she looks out of a random window and sees this strange fellow moving into the apartment. This was important because it foreshadows an important character that will be part of her life in the end. The movie starts to pick up after that because Diane will end up finding a clue later in her bathroom that will lead her to this stranger.
As her relationship with her husband starts to fizzle out, she looks more and more to this stranger. After she finds a key in the bathroom she goes up to the top where the stranger lives to ask for a portrait picture of himself. Later on, she gets a whole lot more than the picture she originally intended to take. When she entered the stranger’s apartment the room was filled with art objects. There were paintings on the walls, fancy objects, and other little things that could be related to an art form. This is where we learn that the stranger himself is a form of art because he is not your average person. The stranger has thick hair all over his body from literal head to toe.
After this scene Diane starts to come around his apartment more and more but now with a camera. She takes pictures of so many objects and displays to really capture the whole apartment. In my opinion her doing this really helped me realize how much art was truly crammed into this small space. The reason I say this is because we all know that apartments in the city are known for being expensive and tiny. I feel like this movie really made sure that every square inch of that apartment had some sort of detail towards it. In the basement there was a unique piece of art work which was the stranger’s chair that he would use for shows. In the movie we learn that for a good amount of the stranger’s life he had to hide the fact that he was so hairy. He said that at 5am everyday before school he would shave his whole body so the kids at school would not make fun of him.
After watching this movie, I still come to the conclusion that there were only a few aspects of art history in this movie. We see a lot of art in the movie, but we don’t take a deeper look into the art as the movie goes on. I felt as if the movie was based more on a love scene than an art one. It also did not help that the movie was extremely slow to begin with. I think the overall goal of the movie was to show that art can be found in many different forms. All in all, I would not recommend this movie to another to watch if they are trying to learn aspects of Arbus’s career and work. If that person is just looking for an interesting movie to watch then I would recommend this movie.
]]>Being an outcast and setting a precedent is never an easy journey and the repercussions of doing so are not guaranteed to be positive. Filmmaker Tamra Davis set out to portray the life and journey of a New York City painter, Jean-Michel Basquiat. The movie depicted his life and the struggles he dealt with when he was pursuing a career in a predominantly white industry. Davis shined a spotlight on how the young painter dealt with being the black sheep in the industry, scrutiny, and how he overcame obstacles to rise to fame. In this review I will highlight key points in the documentary that were powerful in conveying the message Tamra Davis was trying to show, as well as my own opinions of the documentary.
The movie discusses Jean- Michel Basquiat’s rise to fame with home footage interviews with Davis recorded before his death, along with friends and family describing his life and artwork. In these old home interviews, Jean discusses his artwork’s meaning, favorite paintings, and memories that inspired his work, but the movie intervenes with more recent interviews with characters in Jean’s life that help support claims of Jean’s work and rise to success.
Jean- Michel Basquiat was an unorthodox artist who used bright colors, jagged edges, crossed-out words, and streaks of black in his work. This documentary film gives the audience an understanding of how talented and special Jean was, but what’s ironic is the film shows so many pieces of Jean’s work zoomed in and out (with a blues soundtrack playing in the back) but moving so the viewers are unable to get a favorable view but rather a brief glimpse. The movie does not give you time to study and consider it. I had to look up the paintings online to have the full view and time to really consider each piece and its unique details. The movie failed to give the viewers the time to appreciate this young artist’s work.
Unlike many documentary films, The Radiant Child does mix in the actual biographical and critical content with its acclaim. We are told about his early years that led to his heroin overdose death in 1988. We learn about his life on “the run,” meeting Andy Warhol, his relationships, and even how he overcame discrimination. We learn about Basquiat’s art technique with his graffiti, flashy, abstract pieces that defined his famous style. The movie has very dark spots parts but ultimately pays tribute to the renowned, black artist who rose to fame with his abstract art.
What I discovered throughout watching this film is nobody really discussed why Jean’s paintings were so popular and in demand. The film did not give examples of how audiences or collectors acted towards Jean’s work. Looking at some of his paintings, you don’t notice the actual work put in, you just see lines, colorful objects, and words that looked like something a child could draw or write. I personally do not understand the artistic work behind his drawings, and I am not sure if that is due to my lack of knowledge about art or the fact that everyone interprets art differently. As somebody with no previous knowledge of Jean-Michel Basquiat’s work, I was very surprised at the fame that arose from his abstract art, especially because he was a young, black artist in a white-dominated art world.
If you are looking for entertainment, this probably is not the best film for you, however, if you are looking to learn more about pop-culture art, you will be interested in this film. The film is a decent tribute to artist Jean- Michel Basquiat that incorporates personal footage and historical artwork. I enjoyed the film from an educational perspective, but as far as entertainment, this movie could possibly put you in a deep sleep. This movie came out fairly recently back in 2010 and the cinematography was not helping retain the viewers’ attention with the old looking scene pans. The constant interviews, pictures with captions, and blues music was not captivating, and the lack of a narrator made me feel like there was not a consistent storyline, I felt it was all over the place. With that being said, the movie does not define Jean-Michel Basquiat but rather Jean-Michel Basquiat defines himself through his artwork. Basquiat’s work was defiant, thoughtful, and revolutionary during his lifetime, he helped open the door for young black aspiring artists. The Radiant Child is a decent documentary to learn about Jean-Michel Basquiat’s life and work.
]]>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
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