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.

Margaret draws and paints kids, such as her daughter, as well as adults and animals on canvases, the figures have regular sized bodies, yet big, abnormal sized eyes, which is what makes her paintings so different and unique compared to others. Just like many artists, every drawing and painting that Margaret makes has a story behind what is going on when you look at it. In the film, when the camera shows Margaret painting, they show all the little detail that she puts into her paintings and drawings that make them look so visually realistic and very nice to look at in my opinion. As you see her paintings in the movie, you see how she puts so much detail into the background of her artwork. She blends certain colors of paint so she can get the right color she needs for the painting she is working on. You can visually see very detailed figures such as creases in their skin, along with most of her paintings having a very serious face, almost as if the child and or adult is angry or going through something personal or tragic. Walter takes credit for all his wife’s paintings and refuses to let her put her mark on her own work.

There are many artistic techniques shown in this film, such as the detail and shadowing in Margarets paintings. The detail in the skin  and the outfits of the children and adult figures are wearing in each painting, along with the animals that Margaret paints next to the kids in some of her paintings where the dogs even look sad because their faces are straight with no emotion or expression. When Margaret paints her children with big eyes, it is clear that each child looks different, each has a different appearance and the children are a mixture between boys and girls. Some have long hair, some have short hair, but two of the things that the children have in common are how serious they are, and their posture is straight and firm. Although, the movie was well produced and directed, credit should be given where it is due. For example, Margaret paints every painting that Walter decides to sell or give away. During these actions, the people he would talk to about the paintings would tell him that they were very nice and he would take full credit for paintings that were not even his. Therefore, he should have given Margaret credit for her paintings that he is selling and giving away.

A few things that I really enjoyed about this film were how the audience could visually see how passionate Margaret was about her paintings. The audience could tell that if she was credited, she could have been famous for her artwork, which technically she was because she painted the paintings, but everyone knew them as her husband Walter’s works. Margaret was passionate about her painting and liked the way she did what she loved because when Walter would suggest a new style to her, she would brush it off and continue to do the style she was comfortable and familiar with. Now, when it comes to aspects of the movie that I did not like, that would include, Walter not giving Margaret any credit for all the hard work that she put into the paintings that she would spend months working on. Along with not realizing how passionate she was about painting. He would sell or donate her paintings, like they were nothing at all just to make money from them. He sold one of her paintings that he claimed as his own and got a $5,000 check for one of the paintings that Margaret had painted. While watching this film, I did not agree at all with the fact of Margaret not getting any credit due to her for everything she had worked hard for. Everyone deserves credit for their work that they had created. Walter should have given Margaret credit for the paintings he would ask her to make for him to sell and give away, but he did not. He would tell everyone that he is the one who painted everything he sold and gave away.

In the end, Walter never accepted the facts. He went on for the rest of his life insisting he was the true artist of the big eyes paintings and the other paintings that Margaret had made. He said that he only took credit for the paintings because he needed money and Margaret’s paintings sold for a lot so he would sell them without her consent. He kept the money for himself but later on, gave the money to Margaret because it was supposed to be hers for the paintings she made for him, after she had filed for a divorce from him. Walter passed away in 2000, angry, homeless and broke because he did not want to be honest with the people he was lying to his whole life. He never made another painting after that. After Walter passed away, Margaret found happiness within herself  and remarries. After living in Hawaii for many years, she decided to move back to San Francisco where she previously lived and decided to open a new art gallery. To this day, she still has the passion to paint every single day despite what she went through with Walter.

I feel as though in some ways, Margaret is a role model to young artists. I say that because even though she went through a lot in her marriage, with her husband taking all the credit for the work she would spend countless hours and months working on, she never found the need to give up or stop standing up for what she had a passion for. She proved her point after so long that she was the one telling the truth and that she was the one behind all these paintings that Walter was taking the credit for, selling and donating. I feel as though most artists back then would not have stood up for painting the way Margaret did, and for that a lot of people should look up to her if they don’t already. The movie made me feel this way because I feel as though most artists back then would have let people criticize and take credit for their work then give them credit for what they had created with their talent. As shown in this film, Margaret chooses to stand up for herself and bring Walter to court because he refuses to give her credit for the beautiful paintings she has made and to divorce him because he was a drunk and physical with her. There is a scene in the film when Margaret is in her painting room and Walter walks in and sees that she is painting in a completely different style. He asks her why she decided to change it up and she tells him she wants to try something different. In this scene if you watch Margaret’s hands carefully while she is painting, you can see how she uses this brush strokes to make the outline of the faces.

Art during this time period was very modern. It had a very dull color palette diversity and detached brush stokes and one lined work. The painting was supposed to uplift this inspiring abstract perspective within yourself though simplistic and unpersonalized painting. I picked up on the connection that the art didn’t make sense just like how this male dominance power trip didn’t not as well. People tended to go with what was considered normal both with art and status quo. 

At the beginning of the movie; Margaret  Keane was trying to escape her first husband with only her daughter and her paintings. Being a woman who is divorced and with a child was not a good look so she needed a solution quickly if she wanted to survive. Shortly after she met Walter Keane. Walter is a businessman who can sell anything down to a simple black pen like a wolf on wall street. Jordan Belfort was a motivational speaker and former stockbroker who plead guilty to fraud and related crimes in connection with stock-market manipulation and running a boiler room as part of a penny-stock scam. He sold people lies in broken promises just to build himself an empire just how like Walter sold himself to Margaret as a reliable honest man who wanted nothing but just to showcase his wife`s underestimated works. Walter fooled the masses, the press, and even himself. 

Margaret’s artwork was unique. Her artwork had a woman’s touch; it was vulnerable and had a personal connection and attachment because it was based on a unified daughter and mother relationship.  This is why her artwork was so loved because it has a sense of realism and a legible aesthetic of emotion and reason. The big eyes were inspired by her childhood experience of temporary deafness when she had to rely on sight to understand and communicate. In the movie, you can see that Walter couldn’t explain the actual context of the artwork because he had no actual connection to people and love. His whole life was a facade, from his intentions with Margaret to his life as an “artist”. He was also a deranged and greedy person. People like that lack empathy for the lives of others and are selfish. 

The cultural value of traditional gender roles and status quo was very evident thought the movie. While frustrating to watch, it gave me a view of the foundation of feminism and women’s rights. I got a “ Rosie the Riveter” sensation from the portrayal of women entering the workforce and gaining independence. That feeling you got of “ Yes, Margaret, you go girl” is what the movie is trying to stimulate and make you aware of.  The movie focused on Margaret and did not incorporate much cinematic drama and exaggeration for audience appeal. There was very little nudity and the story focused on the big issue at hand which was a lack of women’s power and control in society. Positive attributes that came from this movie also included its focus on Christianity. Margaret goes to the Christian church with a feeling of disgrace from lying to her daughter and causing her to feel sinful. The movie portrays Margaret’s redemption as coming through her conversion to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, when two members of the Watchtower Society visit her home and share their beliefs with her. Some people call Jehovah’s Witnesses as a cult to the New Testament but, for her, it was a sisterhood and a group driven by feminist power, and leading to uprising of feminist strength through Christ. They mention how God values a man as the head of household but for Margaret, Christ gave her the willpower to be both mother and father. 

On the other hand, there were a lot of unanswered questions. The movie never explains fully why she fled her first marriage. But  Margret also had a lot of unanswered questions regarding Walter so it could have been a method by the director to add to the theme of hidden secrecy and lying in a marriage. Overall I think the movie did an amazing job showcasing  Margaret’s emotion and how she challenged the art world, male dominance, and found female empowerment and independence. The movie is inspiring and leaves you wanting more. You leave with a sense of satisfaction knowing that Magaret got what she deserved all alone in the end; courage, happiness, and recognition. It also gave a look into extreme abusive relationships which was a great perspective as well. I must also add that the director took advantage of the landscape of San Francisco and Hawaii, and the richness of color was appropriate to the film’s subject. It was amplified by the vivid period detailing of Rick Heinrichs’ production design and Colleen Atwood’s costumes. The movie itself, therefore, was also a piece of art; personal and with purpose. 

The movie begins with a calming montage of Georgia O’Keeffe painting with several of her own artworks fading in and out to calming music, with the overlay of her voice explaining the meaning behind her paintings. By including this opening scene, the movie provides the viewer with an understanding of Georgia O’Keeffe’s philosophical values as a painter and provides a foundational knowledge of the effect her lover, Alfred Stieglitz, will have on her artworks and confidence. In the movie, Georgia O’Keeffe requests that her works be taken down from an exhibition, as she is clearly not happy with any of her paintings. However, Alfred Stieglitz declines, defending her work, as he believes she is the definition of pure “raw intuitive talent.” In this scene especially, the movie does a powerful job of depicting Georgia O’Keeffe as a typical twentieth-century woman artist; having the talent, but lacking the confidence to go anywhere with it, as men dominated this time in history. This theme is very powerful, especially in today’s world as it makes it easy for viewers and young female artists to relate to O’Keeffe’s situation and lack of confidence and her works.

As Stieglitz and O’Keeffe begin to live their life, O’Keeffe’s painting career benefits from Stieglitz’s confidence boost, and Stieglitz’s photography career continues to benefit from the new-found feminine inspiration O’Keeffe gives him. This mutual relationship gives off a consistent effect in respect to the theme of the film. By both parties benefiting from each other, it brings into focus the idea of love and emotion being the ultimate driving force and backbone of these artists. This is beneficial to the film, as the theme stays consistent with the dramatic actions of the characters. When O’Keeffe refuses to come back to Stieglitz after he was caught cheating, Stieglitz has a sobbing episode and a mere heart attack on the steps of his house. Although this part also seems to be a little elongated and overdramatized, I believe it was also still a powerful decision of the moviemakers in order to further emphasize the overall message of the ups and downs of love being the prime motivation behind these two artists’ works. 

Although Stieglitz builds O’Keeffe’s confidence, as she becomes more famous Stieglitz becomes more controlling with the relationship and O’Keeffe’s progress as a painter, and the two quickly become turbulent as Stieglitz exhibits the nude pictures he took of O’Keeffe to his viewers in New York. Spotlights and heavy music make this confrontation scene slightly overdramatic, as the narrator explains how after her nude photographs are seen by New York, she becomes famous and people start to buy her work for her name, not her talent. With this scene comes many questions concerning if that is how O’Keeffe really wants her own artwork to be seen and appreciated. This scene makes the viewer aware of O’Keeffe’s contradictory attitude towards her fame coming from Stieglitz’s pictures, adding to the dramatic feeling of the movie and staying consistent with the film’s message of tough love and emotion as artistical motivation. This is an important aspect of the film, as it not only portrays the development of O’Keeffe’s character and career but explains how people began to appreciate the femininity seen within her works, as the film’s narrator states “the essence of every woman is within every stroke she makes, every color she chooses.” As her flower paintings fade in and out of this scene, the narrators continue to highlight the power of her artistic femininity seen on the canvas, bringing to focus her clear, smooth brush strokes and soft but complementary color choices. This is one of the few points in the movie where her actual work is seen, however, the timing of it was powerful and appropriate in order to explain to the viewer these feminine aspects that caught the eye of Stieglitz and the rest of New York.

As an interpretation of the real happenings between the artists O’Keeffe and Stieglitz, the film portrayed their relationship from a great point of view in the sense that it shows both the emotions of O’Keeffe and Stieglitz as their relation turns turbulent. In conclusion, the entire storyline of the film itself was slightly distracting from the physical made art of O’Keeffe, however the overdramatizing of her relationship through the plot, and film making decisions of including spotlights and heavy music, proved to be totally necessary as it provides insight to the troubled love and emotion behind her works.

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.

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.

The film includes Joseph and Armand Roulin who are based on real members of the Roulin family. Vincent painted group portrait paintings of the Roulin family members which included postman, Joseph Roulin, his wife Augustine and their three children: Armand, Camille and Marcelle. During Vincent’s childhood, the film briefly addressed that he “couldn’t fit in.” Vincent had a stillborn brother and he felt like, in his mother’s eyes, he could never measure up to his deceased brother. However, Vincent and his younger brother, Theo van Gogh, were close and Theo became very depressed and withdrawn after Vincent’s death. In real life, it was described that Theo was very fascinated with Vincent and admired him. However, their communication was difficult because of distance,which probably resulted in the exchange of letters. However, the letters were away for the brothers to be able to keep up with each other’s lives. One year after Vincent van Gogh’s suicide, Joseph Roulin asks his son Armand to deliver Van Gogh’s last letter to his brother, Theo. However, it is later revealed that Theo died six months after Vincent. 

In my opinion, even though Vincent’s life was complicated, his death, which was fairly the focus of the movie, was even more difficult and mysterious. It seemed like everyone had a story to tell about his death, and I still feel like it is a mystery because there was no suicide note stating why he chose to kill himself. Also, the film includes the idea that Vincent didn’t kill himself. Rene Secretan was a local bully who used to flash his gun and harass Vincent. After hearing a few people talk around,Armand began to suspect Rene shot Vincent. Equally important, his items were removed from the field where he shot himself. Throughout the film, many people were confused as to why Vincent killed himself because they said he seemed “fine.” I don’t know how true these details are but the movie did make me question a lot about his death. For example, who moved his items, why were they moved, and why did he kill himself? Also, the movie briefly pays attention to Vincent’s real life mental illness. The film includes Dr. Gatchet, who was a subject in one of Vincent’s real portraits. Dr. Gatchet took care of Vincent during his final moments (this was also displayed in the film). Towards the end of the film, Dr. Gachet said Vincent suffered from melancholia, meaning he would be joyful one minute and in the next few hours he would be in deep depression. To me that sounds like bipolar disorder, but this just goes to show that you never really know what disturbing challenges some people have to face even though they may appear to be okay. Furthermore, Dr. Gachet told Armand that he told Vincent that the burden of him is killing his brother, Theo, who was in bad health. Dr. Gachet knew he shouldn’t have said that to Vincent and if this is true, I think, aside from other issues in his life, Vincent killed himself because he no longer wanted to be a burden and stressor to his brother and in result, be a contributor to his death.

Loving Vincent may cause viewers to feel sorry for Vincent because he didn’t have a happy, “normal” life. He only seemed content when he was painting for hours. The film may have an effect on what viewers think about Van Gogh’s work because instead of looking at his work as something “beautiful,” the film makes you think about Vincent’s mental state while he was doing a painting or did his mental health contribute to his creativity to produce such paintings.Also, according to the film, it is sad that the last known news he heard was that he was a burden to the only person who truly believed in him and admired him.

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)