Big Eyes : Walter wasn't given enough credit

This movie is too one-sided and takes the word of Margaret as gospel. Walter was a brilliant businessman who built an empire. Lets not pretend Margaret was some hostage. She found out about Walter passing her work as his own while they were still small-time (and married only two years according to Margaret herself). She could have revealed herself as the artist but didn't, which, according to her, served her just fine since she was a shy and private person.

Margaret benefited greatly from Walter's business dealings to this very day since it was Walter who brought her work to the world. I'm not saying he wasn't a scoundrel, but he wasn't a mustached-twirling villain either. For many years Margaret was more than happy to be complacent cashing the checks.

#notallmen, huh? Ok.

Can you explain your reply, mge1108?

The bad news is you have houseguests. There is no good news.

You mentioned two very good points. But the thing is, the film implied both of them at certain points.


1)

---

Walter was a brilliant businessman who built an empire Walter's business dealings to this very day since it was Walter who brought her work to the world. I'm not saying he wasn't a scoundrel, but he wasn't a mustached-twirling villain either.

---

This was mentioned at the end of the film in the courtroom scene. He stated that she seemed to have described two different people to the jury. She maintained that he was both those people she described, and the words "Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" were used as an inference to his character. This implies a 3-dimensional character. You may not like how the film got it across, but it still covered what you've said here.


2)

---

Lets not pretend Margaret was some hostage. She found out about Walter passing her work as his own while they were still small-time (and married only two years according to Margaret herself). She could have revealed herself as the artist but didn't, which, according to her, served her just fine since she was a shy and private person. Margaret benefited greatly from [his] business dealings to this very day since it was [him] who brought her work to the world.

---

Again, another good point. But yet again, this is something the movie hinted at. She had the chance early on to claim her work when a random spectator inquired who the author of the paintings was in the establishment. She shyly hesitated, under no pressure at all from her husband, and so he took the initiative to (wrongly) claim the work as his own. The film also makes it a point to imply a time or two (especially at the beginning) how different this era was for women, suggesting how uncommon it was for a female to take matters into her own hands or to lead herself under certain circumstances. So, while this woman deserves a percentage of the blame for allowing herself to be a victim, it is all too familiar a scenario. If the victim deserved blame every time an intimidatingly conniving character took charge of them in a domineering situation, we'd be blaming women all day everyday for most their ill experiences with men.






I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way

1. The OP's remark on Walter was rather strange. He "wasn't given enough credit"? For what? I had not heard of any of the real characters before seeing this film, but based on the latter, Walter was not even a painter. Even his street paintings were actually stolen from "S Cenic". He simply stole the credit for paintings done by other artists.

On the other hand, as you said, no one would deny Walter's marketing skills in promoting the paintings, and they would not have become famous without his help. But if he was so good in this, he could have promoted the paintings for his wife. I don't really think the bias against a woman was really that strong if people loved those Big Eyes paintings.

2. In real life, I would suspect that Margaret had been a willing participant in Walter's plan. I can easily see why she felt some resentment that she did not receive the credit, but she appeared to enjoy the economic success that the plan gave them - e.g. her friends' envy at their big house with a swimming pool. I guess it was after her relations with her husband turned bad that she decided to spill everything.

She was not happy. She was a drunk and seemed to still be drinking heavily by the time she moved off to Hawaii, unless it is meant to be water or lemonade in those tall glasses. Given earlier drinking scenes and no mention of ceasing to drink that is unlikely within the story's confines. Also it was a one-sided story. Walter's daughter said she saw him paint and he did be big eyes pictures first and Margaret copied it. Don't believe every movie based on a true story. The social network is not 100% fact and neither was this or the imitation game or theory of everything.

Indeed, this topic and board seems to be full of feminists who can't wait to jump on the
"all men are evil, women are victims" bandwagon. You could even see Margaret using Walter. Once she made her cash, she also wanted the credit!

The larger issue is that Walter's daughter wrote a letter denouncing the movie and saying her father painted in many styles and did the Big Eyes first, but a different background than how she did it. It is not clear whether he took credit for her work or she copied him and then claimed he'd stolen everything. But the movie should be considered defamation against him if his daughter's claims about him are true.

She is working on a documentary of her own. You can find more info here.

http://bigeyesmovie.com

http://uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2014/12/the-daughter-of-big-eyes-subject-walter-keane-isnt-too-happy-about-the-tim-burton-movie/

Walter NEVER painted a Big eye, if he did we would have seen one by now.

Tell that to his daughter. Read what she said. He is dead and can't defend himself. She can say whatever she wants. Why do you believe when you only have her side?

A lot of the paintings were sold. We don't know who did them. According to Walter's daughter, the movie's twist that he never painted is a lie. He painted in many styles and studied at the Beaux-Arts. His family is working on a documentary movie since Hollywood won't respond to their attempts to set the record straight. Ironically, press release for the movie mistakenly gave the daughter's website that denounces it. You can see that in the second link above.

We know he could paint, but he never painted a big eye.
Even after the court case he never painted a big eye.

The "credit" you think Walter lacked was for work that could have been done by every adequate agent - manager in the world. He basically was exactly that, business wise, but no agent/manager has ever claimed the work of his clients as his own. Margaret shares some blame but she is still the victim in this. Her blame or maybe "blame" is not very different to domestic abuse victims who do not report their abuse out of fear of their husbands, out of shame or societal marring.
It's possible that no manager could have pulled off what Walter did, maybe because no-one would have taken an interest in her work, but that does not negate Walter's rotten actions.

---

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

---

Good businessman, still a fraud.