I know I'm not supposed to see the end of a movie first, but... 1) My wife already had it on when I came home, and 2) I already knew how the real story turned out, more or less. The courtroom scene was thoroughly ridiculous and unamusing, the normally awesome Christoph Waltz was dreadful in it, and -- though I am a huge Amy Adams fan -- I was put right off wanting to see the whole movie. Am I not giving it a fair shake?
Eh. You're right about Waltz. Yikes! I guess if there's NOTHING else on, give it a shot. It's pretty slow and dull. So it's good if you need a nap. I definantly wouldn't buy the dvd.
shareIf you're a huge Amy Adams fan I think you should give it a go because she was wonderful in this. The court room scene with Walter is over the top but it isn't typical for the rest of the film.
When your mind breaks the spirit of your soul.
You saw one scene at the end, Einstein. Don't become a critic.
shareThe courtroom scene was filmed according to court transcripts as it actually happened. The writers feared no one would believe it happened in real life.
The writers state "He was his own lawyer. He did so much that we actually had to pull back a bit. A judge threatened to put duct tape over his mouth"
Real life was much crazier than the film
"A 1986 article from the Honolulu Star-Bulletin describes Judge Samuel King threatening to cut off Walter Keane “at the knees.” The Judge tells Walter, “We’re going to have to take a recess and shackle you to a chair.” He calls Walter “stupid” and says he has “concrete between his ears.” The Honolulu Advertiser joined in on the circus, reporting that Walter asked the Judge, “What if I talk for two or three days.” He treated the courtroom as his final desperate spotlight on the world stage, and if he wanted to babble for hours about how a Japanese man once saved him from drowning, who could stop him?"
That's very interesting, shermandemetrius. It does make me excuse somewhat the sheer unbelievability of that scene. But I still think it was a stupid scene, not so much for the content (which, as you say, was not far from reality) but for the execution.
They toned down really crazy unbelievable real life scenes to make them more credible while still maintaining the insane personality of Walter Keane. What else could they have done? How could execution have been improved? (I am asking not being sarcastic or anything)
We must keep in mind that "During the case, a court psychologist diagnoses Walter as having delusional disorder." Waltz knew he was playing a mentally disturbed man and played him that way. If the judge knew Walter was mentally disturbed, should he have spoke and judged the way he did?
I guess I would need to see the scene in the context of the whole film to properly judge it. Perhaps Walter's craziness unfolded gradually during the course of the movie so that, when it finally arrived, the courtroom scene didn't seem so lampoonish...?
You are a hundred percent correct I think. At one point, Margaret Keane blamed herself for Walter's sickness. She said maybe if she hadn't went along with it, he would not have become increasingly sick.
It is hinted then shown throughout the movie that something isn't quite right with Walter Keane's mind--and he isn't getting better.
You definitely need to watch the entire film! Please do, I very much enjoyed it.
Walter was a very charismatic, charming con man. His huge, overwhelming personality played a large part of the entire ordeal.
In the glory days, he used that personality to sell the paintings, and ultimately become a household name. In the end, his over the top personality backfired in court, and he came across as desperate and crazy.
Please watch the whole movie, it is so much more than that one scene.
And it was very good, for the most part. Walter Keane was painted as a larger-than-life character, as only Tim Burton can do. But I still stand by my original opinion of the courtroom scene. Regardless of whether or not it reflected what actually happened (though I can't believe it was as cartoonish as it was presented in the movie, or that any judge would have tolerated more than 30 seconds of such ridiculousness without holding Walter in contempt) it was still a stupid scene.
though I can't believe it was as cartoonish as it was presented in the movie,
it was still a stupid scene.
was as cartoonish as it was presented in the movie,
It was worse,
it was still a stupid scene.
It was toned down in the movie for fear people would react just like this. If they toned it down anymore it wouldn't be true to the real event.
He did. Evidently, there was more craziness that went down with the Judge threatening to duct tape him to his chair or something along those lines. It's absurd but apparently the truth is stranger.
shareOkay, here is something from actual court records. Read the last part, numbered 1 please.
893 F.2d 1338
1990 Copr.L.Dec. P 26,521
Unpublished Disposition
Margaret KEANE, also known as Margaret Keane McGuire,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Walter KEANE, Defendant-Appellant,
and
Gannett Co., Inc., d/b/a USA Today, Defendant.
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
1 Nor could the court have anticipated the extreme degree of Walter's erratic, emotional, and repetitive conduct in the courtroom, which went well beyond what might ordinarily be expected of pro se parties.