MovieChat Forums > Big Eyes (2014) Discussion > Keane's daughter calls the film complete...

Keane's daughter calls the film completely false


Saturday, 20 December 2014
Press Release: Official Statement by Susan Hale Keane, Daughter of Walter Stanley Keane

Born in 1947, I am Susan Keane, daughter of Barbara and Walter Keane.

Following the traumatic death of my brother Stanley, and a highly successful joint venture in real estate, throughout the late 40s and early 50s, my parents and I lived in post WW2 Europe, while maintaining a home in Berkeley, California, designed by Julia Morgan, built in 1906.

During that time, my mother, in pursuit of a PhD, studied cooking at Le Cordon Bleu, fashion design with couturiers including Edwar Sene, and Universität Heidelberg, while my father studied painting at École des Beaux-Arts and L’Académie de la Grand Chaumière in Paris.

Initially speaking an amalgamation of 5 languages, I learned to draw and paint alongside my father from an early age.

During 1949, in the ballroom of our Berkeley mansion “Elmwood House”, I watched my parents create, “Susie Keane’s Puppeteens”, “big eyed” wooden puppets, hand painted by Walter, with clothing designed and sewn by Barbara. Adorned in an ornately illustrated box, accompanied by a book and language record set, these sold in San Francisco, New York and London, at high end department and toy stores including Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, I Magnin and FAO Schwartz, as seen in this 1951 edition of UK’s House & Garden magazine.

In 1950 my mother Barbara became department head of dress design at UC Berkeley, while Walter painted full time. I observed my father’s friendship with Berkeley painter Robert Watson to be a profound influence on both my own and Walter’s evolving style, as he shifted his early focus from street scenes and nudes, to ominous ethereal imagery of exaggerated perspective.

After my parents filed for divorce in 1953, my father and I met Peggy (Margaret Doris Hawkins Ulbrich), during an exhibition of Walter’s paintings.

At that time, Mrs Ulbrich, a former New York baby furniture factory worker, made her living painting names on neckties, in cooperation with her husband Frank, supplemented by quick realistic portrait sketches of passers by at street fairs. None of her work to date had “big eyes”.

Soon, Mrs Ulbrich moved in with my father, and he took her on as his “Eliza Doolittle” and artistic apprentice.

Later, Mrs Ulbrich filed for a divorce from her husband Frank, and swiftly married my father in 1955. Her daughter Jane moved in, and she and Margaret learned to paint under my father’s tutelage. I witnessed the evolution of their artistic process.

Walter encouraged Margaret to develop a style beyond realism, educating and immersing her in the works of old masters for inspiration. She was a slim brunette, wearing a blonde wig. Her initial art consisted of idealized self portraits of slender ladies exclusively featuring small almond shaped eyes, like her own.

My father would often impart to us, his vast knowledge of color, perspective, texture, artistic techniques, art history, etc, repeatedly impressing upon us, the vital impact of “the eyes”. His guidance made a strong impression on me as my own work evolved.

My father was an avid photographer, using a cutting edge Hasselblad. A very large opaque projector was purchased for Margaret, set up in a dark room adjoined to the sunny painting studio. With this tool, a highly detailed image could be projected on canvas from a photograph. A skilled illustrator, Margaret was able to trace a portrait in 15 minutes. This projection method has frequently been utilised in art forgery, as it facilitates replication of fine brush strokes.

Though her initial paintings were primitive, Margaret demonstrated a remarkable aptitude for mimicry, and quickly learned to paint with exceptional precision.

While her execution was flawless, Margaret never showed any aptitude for originality, and her main body of work consisted of Modigliani pastiches blended with other borrowed influences, supplemented by a series of commissioned photorealistic portraits.

My father, beginning with his established bar scene series, occasionally engaged her new found skills to assist him on paintings entirely of his own concept, design and creative authorship. He openly publicised her contributions to his works, proudly promoting her name. Their artist/assistant relationship was never a secret during the years they worked together, their early collaborative works signed “Margaret and Walter KEANE” and MW KEANE, with independent works signed W KEANE and KEANE, M Keane and MDH Keane.

Margaret used very soft sable brushes, along with a sable fan brush to blend her colours. This results in a very thin layer of paint (no texture) which takes only few days to dry. From early on, it was disclosed to the press that Margaret added supplementary brush strokes to the figures of some of Walter’s paintings.

Over time, she adopted his “big eye” motif, gradually incorporating it into her own Modigliani-style work.

As a professional fine oil painter, intimately familiar with the historic body of work for both artists, and a first hand witness to the creation and evolution of these works, I am uniquely qualified to offer an artistic analysis of the autonomous and collaborative elements of the works of Margaret McGuire and Walter Keane. I also had the opportunity to examine Walter’s work in great detail while performing an archival restoration of “Alone” in the late 80s.

Much of Walter’s work predominantly features rough textured brush strokes and imperfections, often using a palette knife, a conscious and deliberate use of contrasting cool and warm colour scheme, exaggerated perspective that stretches on to infinity, sparse asymmetrical balanced composition with clean silhouettes emphasizing negative space, the background frames the subject and draws the viewer’s eye using leading lines, use of strong shadow and highlight.

Margaret’s work features smooth blended precision brush strokes, a rainbow of primary colors, flat two dimensional backgrounds, crowded symmetrical composition, the subjects are homogenous with the background, the dense background interrupts competes and merges with the overlapping subjects, monotone lighting, understated or void of shadows.

Walter’s work is also structurally and stylistically distinct from Margaret’s later homages attempting to approximate his art.

More importantly however, it is vital to mention that Walter was not a violent man, nor a bully. If anything, he was the most joyful and gentle person I’ve known. Margaret’s depiction of death threats, discord and abuse are entirely fictitious. Though, I have no doubt my father’s philandering was a high price for her to pay for fame and affluence.
Towards the end of Walter and Margaret’s marriage, my father met Joan on a United Airlines flight to New York.

Upon learning of his courtship, a woman scorned, Margaret promptly moved to Hawaii in 1964 with married father of 10, publicist/reporter Dan McGuire. The next year, 1965, Walter and Margaret divorced. Following Dan’s divorce, Margaret remarried in 1966.

In 1969 Walter married Joan. I had been exceptionally close to my father up to that point. I heard little from him thereafter. Their daughter Chantal was born in 1970, followed by the birth of their son Sascha in 1973. My heartbreak over this abrupt transition led to our estrangement, which lasted the majority of his remaining years. I can only imagine Margaret’s false claims stem from a similar bitter heartbreak, financial distress, or both.

Regardless of their personal differences, compelling each to later discredit the other, Walter, was indeed the one to initially conceive and create “big eye” art, long before he met Margaret. First and foremost, he was an ideas man. From his crude beginnings, Margaret’s blossoming technical skills contributed to an evolved quality that celebrated his vision, and together they manifested a result which commercially exceeded a level of success greater than what either artist was able to achieve on their own, before or since.

Though uncelebrated, Walter had a diverse body of work that expanded well beyond the confines of his “waif” theme.

reply

How come Walter never painted a Big Eye after that court case?

reply

I wouldn't go with everything you saw in that movie. I am inclined to believe a lot of the daughters statement. That's the problem today, people see an account of what happened in a movie, and accept it no matter how much of it was pure fiction and Hollywood nonsense.

reply

The movie just recorded what was officially documented and how it was settled in court.

But how come after the court case she carried on paining Big Eye art and Walter didn't? He didn't because he couldn't.

reply

Also, that court scene in which Margaret painted a Big Eye picture within an hour and Walter said he was unable to paint because of a shoulder pain really happened.

I think the film might have exaggerated things a little, suggesting that Walter was not even a painter - his street paintings were stolen from "S Cenic". I feel inclined to believe Keane's daughter that he was really a painter before he knew Margaret. It might even have been true that the inspiration for Big Eyes art originated from Walter, or they both got the idea from elsewhere. (For example, it is well-known that Japanese comics and cartoons - as well as the animated films of today - have often depicted people as having huge eyes). It is, however, almost certainly true that the popular Big Eyes art they sold had been the work of the wife.

It is also to be noted that the film was basically Margaret's story and she even appeared as a background actor in one scene. Since Walter died over a decade ago, we hear only her side of the story, and considerable bias is to be expected. It was possible that Margaret had been a willing participant of Walter's plan but spilled the truth after their marriage turned bad.

reply

There are many possible reasons he did not paint. Maybe as he said he had a bad shoulder. Maybe he couple paint things on command like her with no inspiration. You can trust what the movie shows and tells you to believe or you can doubt it and ask were there witnesses that can coroonorste him as a painter? You can question every painter if you just see their finished work. How do you know they painted it unless you saw them do it? The movie Exot thru the Gift Shop made me think of how we can ever be certain a graffiti artist is one person? Graffiti is illegal and anyone can copy Banksy's style of stencil graffiti and how do we know who the real Banksy is?

reply

@maturity

Why are you so certain Keane (Walter) was telling the truth,and not Margaret? And who's to say that he didn't fool his daughter into thinking he did those paintings just like he had everyone else fooled into thinking he did them? Saw the movie, and Keane had a chance to prove right there there that he was the true artist, but then he blew it. If he could paint these pictures, why couldn't he show it? He clearly just copped out because he knew he couldn't---the fact that she completed a painting within an hour in court and the fact that he never even got started on one speaks volumes right there.

Having seen the film, I get the impression that she was a talented artist who didn't have any faith in her own genuine talent, and was having a hard time selling it because she wasn't an in-your-face self-promoter like her husband/too shy to be one. That being said, I liked the film and its lovely throwback old-school Technicolor look---it was beautiful. And Keane's painting were pretty,too---I love pictures of big-eyed folks---too cute.

reply

I think you'll find he was painting other stuff. It was kitsch art either way and not going anywhere. You are such an art expert aren't you. Know it all after watching this movie do you?

reply

DangerManTX --you're just another troll who uses message boards to let out steam insulting people. Who posted saying he was an expert (except you, in this post attempting to insult someone). Are you able to play nice in the sandbox?

reply

You're the troll you idiot. It's just a movie, and a pretty mediocre one at that.

reply

What would you do if you were Walter Keane after the court case, and let's say your arm hurt and you couldn't do it then? You'd get on television in front of millions of people and show that you could paint to prove you are the painter.
He had many years to show that he could paint, he died in 2000, but view the You Tube videos "Margaret Keane on Mike Douglas" where she shows her paintings--one still wet and done before show.
The screenwriters of Big Eyes based the court room scene on actual court documents, actual transcripts of the trial. But had to leave off Judge saying he would hit Walter over head with his mallet, duct tape his mouth, and other things because they felt people wouldn't believe it.

reply

"I am inclined to believe a lot of the daughters statement"
not me. if they wanted to base a film on a real person and their life, then why would they completely fabricate the entire story? doesn't make sense. the guy in the film was portrayed as a very skilled charmer and pathological liar. probably his biological daughter is just like him. if he could paint in that style, he would have been happy to prove it by doing it before witnesses but he didn't and evidently couldn't. the film stated he never painted another painting in the style he claimed he painted after he lost the court case. again, if he'd truly painted the highly popular paintings, he certainly wouldn't have given it up. the logical conclusion is that he was the liar his wife said he was.

reply

if they wanted to base a film on a real person and their life, then why would they completely fabricate the entire story?


This isn't out of the ordinary, though. It happens all the time. The truth of the matter is that real life, even under extraordinary circumstances, is mundane. Tweaks are made for dramatic effect. The film didn't do a good job of explaining why he was doing what he was doing. To me, he was simply trying to make money, and why break or go against something that's bringing in the dough? The film kind of sets up the idea that women at that time had no way of establishing themselves independently in society. So, it seems that had she even established herself as the true artist, she wouldn't have received the success that her husband had attained. It's a complicated situation. I'm sure the frustration would have been felt by anyone, but she made money, she climbed the ladder, and all she had to do was continue the ruse.

This film is really dramatic. Whether he was a liar or not is kind of irrelevant, considering that her paintings were making money. Based on the film, the husband just ran with it, and one lie became another until it grew out of the control.

"I wish I wasn't afraid all the time, but I am."
-V for Vendetta

reply

Maybe he was hurt by her lies and felt betrayed. Maybe he couldn't just paint on command. Doesn't prove that he didn't do the big eyes paintings first as his daughter (allegedly) said. I say that because I don't know his daughter and can't ask her if she wrote that. Anyone can make a website & claim to be her and write a story. Skeptics should look at all sides and then come to a tentative conclusion, not be dogmatic.

reply

All possible reasons. People who hold-fast to one account giving by a movie are plain stupid anyway. It is never the full picture.

reply

Just another DangerManTx trolling insult. Always an insult from this guy.

reply

Ordinarily, yes, movies are dramatized accounts of what happened...or didn't happen.

However, if you know the history of the writers of the screenplay, they do their best to hold to an honest account of events, and I'm sure did a lot of research. So, in this case, I'd be interested to see court transcripts.

When your career and reputation are on the line, paint the damn painting. It's a modern twist on Solomon cutting the baby in half and dividing it between the two mothers. The mother invested begs for the other woman to take the baby, and the mother making the false claim didn't care. Margaret was assured in her talent and went for it, he crapped out when the chips were down.

"We had part of a Slinky, but I straightened it."

reply

I've always found that story silly. Like the other mother said "sure...go ahead and cut the kid in half"

reply

Well, you seemed to have missed the point of the story then.

"We had part of a Slinky, but I straightened it."

reply

Clearly I did. It seems like both women wanted to raise the child. Why would one not care if it was dead?

reply

If one is really the baby's mother, she would want no harm - even if it meant the child would be raised by another women. The one who is not the real mother may not have that in-born love; therefore, she wouldn't care if the child were to die.

reply

Yes, because all non-mothers think it is just fine and dandy to cut children in half. It is a seriously stupid story, and the "wisdom" shown is lesser than that of a 4-year-old, who understands that nobody except a few whackos would be fine with ripping a kid into parts.

reply

It's possible, but unlikely... His daughter WOULD say that, because nobody wants a father they loved to be thought of as a fake... However, Occam's Razor. If the courtroom test did happen, then the simplest reason he never produced any work is that he didn't have the ability to. Given the circumstance, I'd rather believe the movie version of events than that of a relative with an obvious reason for bias.






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

man, i just hate troll.

reply

What a surprise, especially coming from Walter's daughter 

reply

So no daughter whose father's accused of wrongdoing can be trusted but the woman scorned by infidelity must be trusted. How convenient for her. Enjoy your fallacies. I'll wait to hear more sides of the story before being so damned certain, like most people seem to be, that a film based on her story and inconclusive evidence must be fact.

reply

You are wise!

reply

looks like you replied to the wrong guy. no idea what you're talking about, I claimed none of those things.

reply

Do I have to quote what you said or can you read it? You acted like of course his daughter would defend him and used an eye roll emoticon. At the least you seem to be saying that all daughters will come to the defense of their fathers when they are slandered by a mostly fiction movie. I could have misread you, but it would be an easy mistake to make given what you said and how you said it.

reply

She still produced the work when it mattered, regardless of his infidelities... He did not.

I'm not 'certain that it must be fact'... but given that I don't believe the daughter EITHER because of the simple fact that she is related and would be much more inclined to defend her father, there is no reason to doubt the movie, for now... If he could've done it, he SHOULD'VE done it.






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

I think if you are in court during the biggest legal fight of your life you'd figure out a way to paint one picture. Hurt shoulder or no. Of course his daughter will fight for his good name. Too bad his name isn't worth it

reply

It's not completely false. The court room scene was supposedly very truthful, but it doesn't prove that she came up with that style or that he was lying. Maybe he could not paint on command. Maybe he was so upset over her betrayed or her lying and was unable to paint. Maybe he had a bad shoulder. Maybe he had a stroke & could not paint. Maybe he did but never sold or showed them because of shame after his reputation was ruined erroneously?

Bottom line is that he's frad and can't even defend himself and most people just take her side and assume she's being honest when she lied for 10+ years and then got born-again when the Jehovah's Witnesses came to her door. Thanks for sharing this and it's pathetic how some people say oh, of course his daughter would defend him. Men are always the bad guys in movies. Gone Girl was a change in that men and women were sickening creeps. But artsy movies like this and night crawler always have the men be total monsters.

reply

I think in the court scene, the evidence that the wife did the actual Big Eyes paintings they sold was overwhelming. If Walter actually did the paintings and still behaved that way in court, then he was a fool and in any case could have used a lawyer.

None of the reasons you mentioned for his failure to paint in court is really convincing. If he really had a bad shoulder, he could have asked for a later date for the two to paint. Even if the judge refused, the jury's reaction would not have been so adverse.

As for Walter perhaps being unable to "paint on demand", I guess what you actually meant was that the quality of the work would be serioulsly affected. I admit that I myself don't like doing anything with people looking over my shoulders, but it doesn't mean I won't be able to do it at all. The judge admitted that he knew nothing about art, and I think they probably had a lay jury too. As long as Walter was able to paint something that even remotely looked like Big Eyes, I guess the jury would have some difficulty in deciding who told the truth. In the film, Walter was made to look as if he had never held a brush before. Combined with the fact that the wife was able to make a credible painting within an hour, there was little doubt how the jury's decision would go

All this does not mean that the movie was not biased. It was possible that the inspiration for Big Eyes had come from Walter, or (as I said in my previous post), their idea could have come from somewhere else. Also, it was possible that Margaret had agreed to Walter's plan at first, rather than (as she claimed) being forced to do by Walter who threatened her with serious harm if she did not comply. Now Walter was long dead and the film was basically Margaret's version of what happened. We, the viewers, are like listening to someone's cell phone conversation on a bus without being able to know what the other side has to say.

reply

I do think people are missing the point.
Walter MIGHT have came up with the idea or concept of 'Big Eyes' but he still DIDN'T paint the ones they were selling, He didn't paint them because he couldn't!!

It wasn't really about who came up with it, it was about who painted them, the real artist.

reply

I agree. This is not like a newly invented product with a trademark or copyright, in which case one might dispute where the original idea comes from. For a painting, all that matters is who ultimately holds the brush.

reply

Regardless of what the movie portrayed, the artwork that she has produced since the divorce...and the fact that he never produced any at all once she had left the picture (pardon the pun)....speaks for itself. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure this one out.

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

reply

Didn't he? You know this for a fact do you, or are you merely going with what was said on the movie...

reply

Show me a picture or any evidence to suggest Walter painted a Big Eye after the court case.

reply

[deleted]

Have any hard, concrete, verifiable evidence to backup the claim he was ever an artist at all?

Awfully suspect he never produced anymore paintings yet she did and still does. HMMM. Maybe he lost the will to paint due to the irreversible damage to due that dreaded woman who slandered him?

Or maybe (speaking as an artist myself), he never was one and couldn't con anymore people to produce art for him or steal. I think you should stop sympathizing with charismatic thieves and listen to testimony from people they successfully manipulated (i.e. Walter's children).

Stuff like this reminds me of "Movie Poop Shoot.com" from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

reply

According to this movie...

reply

Also according to actual research.

Even the rebuttal posted by The-KEANE-Family is all anecdotal. Posing in front of a painting for a picture isn't the same as having it done in front of a jury, on film, or any other account that requires a second-hand, non-connected body present.

And please, he "came up with the idea for Big Eyes" is the best defense for him? Walt Disney came up with the idea for Mickey Mouse but Ub Iwerks is credited with drawing him. Credit where credit is due.

If he was a real artist, he'd be producing more anyway even in the wake of this disaster. Whether or not he would've been successful at it on his own terms is a different matter altogether. But the fact he refused to paint because of a "widdle shoulder injury" and then subsequently no work documented since then is enough to dismiss the man as the artist he truly was: a con artist.

Stuff like this reminds me of "Movie Poop Shoot.com" from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.

reply

The trial lasted three weeks in real life. Surely Walter would have had time fo find a way of painting a "big eyes" if he was the actual painter.

reply

I would believe but the smallest parts (if any) of Keane's daughter's tale.

Since she didn't live with with her father and his second wife during the period their marriage fell apart how the heck could she testify there were no threats of violence? When marriages go bad people often are conflicted and hurting. Men and women who never previously hit a partner might do so under extreme pressure. Most wouldn't do it around witnesses!

http://vincentandmorticiasspeakeasy14846.yuku.com/directory

reply

Oh, so you're a men's rights activist? That explains why you appear to have such a chip on your shoulder...

Signed,

A fellow man, who is ashamed to share your gender.






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

Hello. We are making our best effort to transcribe the information we have as quickly as possible, so it can be shared with all of you.
The extended version of Susan's press release can be read at:
http://bigeyesmovie.com
If you click on "older posts", at the bottom of the page, you can read "The Aftermath", which is a composite of experiences and research we are compiling.
A large volume of physical evidence was lost when Walter's defaulted storage unit was purchased and sold piecemeal to collectors. Walter's witnessed original artwork has since been signed by Margaret, adding to public confusion.
We invite your participation in this project. Our goal is to deliver a fair and objective representation of events.

reply

the puppets are not "big eyes." Big Eyes have very large pupils and the puppets have small real sized pupils.

reply

http://puppeteens.com/

reply

That's why I replied the way I did. I saw the photos before I posted. Go back to other puppets such as Howdy Doody of 1947 and they have small pupils like Suzie Keane puppets. Only Margaret Keane seems to have done kids with very large pupils and quite different from other images.

reply

Quite common for puppets to have that style eye, this isn't new or exclusive to 'Keane- family' or whoever it's associated with.

ALSO, Eyes on a puppet has NOTHING to do with which artist painted Big Eye art work. If that's what you're using for evidence.... gee you must think the public are really stupid. Big eyes on a puppet doesn't change the fact that Margret PAINTED the big eyed children, because that's the only thing that matters, not were the idea came from but who made those brush strokes on canvas.

plus Van Gogh painted sunflowers, he didn't necessary plant them first.

reply

Sorry, those puppets don't even remotely look like the Big Eyes characters - at least those shown in the film.

Characters in comics, cartoons, animated films - not to mention dolls, etc. - often have huge eyes. The famous Felix the Cat from the Prewar years had far bigger eyes than even "Big Eyes". See:

http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2187894272/tt0278192?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_prd_ 14

reply

[deleted]

Yeah, I'm with you--they look NOTHING like the morose children in Margaret Keane's paintings, in style or expression.

Never settle with words what you can accomplish with a flamethrower.

reply

It says the blog was removed, what happened?

reply

Are you referring to http://puppeteens.com ?

reply

Yes

reply

Thank you for bringing that to our attention. Someone hacked our account and deleted the URL. The site has now been restored. The same thing happened with our Facebook, Wikipedia, and other various accounts. =/

reply

forget the craft, as it was clearly caught under the guise of actual art...the salesmanship of Keane is also celebrated in the movie. A detail, for whatever reason his daughter seemed to marginalize. He is the founder of mass art.

reply

The pathological liar is a strange creature. They need to stick together. And there is certainly no reason to think the trait wouldn't be passed down genetically.

The idea of being outright busted in a falsehood is a head exploding concept to the pathological liar. It's important to understand, they aren't just lying towards a calculated purpose - they actually believe themselves.

Walter walks the line between calculated and pathological liar - finally falling in the deep end.




reply

I did some reading on Margaret and Walter Keane.Well I have no doubt that Margaret was the one who was the true artist of the big eyed girls.But Walter did study in Paris and he was a painter also.The movie portrayed him as a talentless hack,but a good salesman. But I still enjoyed the film,8/10.

reply

you are clueless.

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

reply

i can believe this, the stupid movie didn't make any sense, and women are evil.

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

reply

@yusef-ghanima

STFU, you sexist idiot. The movie wasn't that hard to understand---you just didn't like it because it wasn't some mindless action flick. There was nothing stupid about it.

reply

In the movie, Margaret is trying to convince her own daughter, that Walter did all the paintings and she finally succeeds. Who knows? maybe in real life, he did that to his daughter and now, due to other (and maybe bigger) inaccuracies in the movie, she made a statement just to defend her father's honor. Maybe, she feels that some things are desecrating his memory, but we must not forget that sometimes, in movies, it's 30% truth and 70% fiction. She thought that is was fair for people to hear her side of the story and she did exactly that. We don't have to take sides..
Oh, and btw, if someone tells me to take a picture of a particular flower for example, and this picture makes me famous, that doesn't give that someone the credit...

reply

[deleted]

whee can not know
any mo than who shot JFK
or if Hendrix rilly rilly did die due 2 chemi

or peeps floatin' thru the Van ellen belts with camera film over & over again

whee can not






but we can b entertained
by crazy

& dreemza






o & as 2 yer sig line
pour moi
no
K?
no

"an idolt looks @ the finner"
jus' 2 far off
pour moi
& yet
there r as many interpretations of that is grains of sand in the Gangeese
so yers is jus'
nudder
K?






Ho Gi-Gi why - who dat tryin'a smell bad

reply

Obviously, one need not look very deeply to find that those who would most likely take issue with a film such as this share many common traits with Walter Kenne and thus feel personally attacked by this film. For such people, like Walter Keane, believe that the mere fact of having a penis entitles them to whatever they desire or can take from anyone else, legally, morally or not, who may enter their sphere of self-righteousness and entitlement.

reply

[deleted]

Bluesdoctor explains this movie perfectly. Macbean is a moron among morons.

reply

@bluesdoctor


Tired of idiots like you always whining that every damn movie that presents a women's point of view is automatically making men look bad---that has got to be some of the dumbest,most ignorant sexist s*** I've ever heard. Especially since the majority of movies in Hollywood (and everywhere else) are still MADE by men,hello!. And movies are as intellectual as theirs writers and creators are. You need to ask then why do men portray each other in films as bad,then. The truth is, what happened to Margaret Keane mainly happened because she was born in an era where women were told to just shut up and let the man handle everything,even if he wasn't really capable of doing that at all, so that's part of the reason (the other being that she probably didn't have a lot of self-esteem at the time.) I'll have to watch the rest of the film (which I like so far) to see how the rest of the story is played out (even though I already know the real-life actual ending.)

reply