Big Eyes is set in 1958 in San Francisco. Women during this time were often thought to as “damsel in distress” and in need of saving from a male companion in order to be eligible to be respected and a part of higher society’s standards. The idea was that if you don’t have a husband or male protector you are seen as less than a woman but when you wed you are also belittled by male dominance and male power which is a contradictory society standard. This movie attempts to explain how this mindset has caused women to suppress their independence and value their vulnerability.
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.
