MovieChat Forums > Big Eyes (2014) Discussion > Decent movie but the whole plot seemed l...

Decent movie but the whole plot seemed like a giant non-issue

posted 9 years ago by dolemite4201
17 replies | jump to latest

They both needed each other. He needed her artistic talents, she needed his salesmanship. Together they were a great team who could make a ton of money. Who cares if it was technically "fraud"? No one was getting hurt. Everyone loved the paintings. Who cares if the daughter did or didn't know?

Of course in the end he flipped out and ruined everything. All he had to do was act like a decent human being and they could have kept making tons of $$$, she could have done her own personal paintings alongside the big-eyes ones, and everyone would have been happy.

[–] Tigerlilly9 9 years ago

If he wasn't such a narcissistic pathological fraud, he would have supported her talent and managed her business. Instead he preyed on her weaknesses, bullied her and brainwashed her into thinking that the artwork would never sell unless it was created by a man. He wanted all the credit for doing nothing. Look at what he'd been doing before he met her.
So, yes, he could have acted like a decent human being. But he didn't. He used her, was opportunistic, a liar, a fraud, violent, abusive, etc.

[–] dolemite4201 9 years ago

He wasn't "doing nothing". He was out there hustling, talking up the paintings, getting them seen, meeting with celebrities, strategizing business plans, making posters, etc All that is very important.

He had the more outgoing personality that people liked. It is very possible that the belief that HE created the artwork helped sell it to people. It was the 50s after all and society was still very sexist. It's hard to say whether the artwork would have been so commercially successful if he said it was his wife doing the painting.

[–] Tigerlilly9 9 years ago

It was the 1950s/1960s, not the 1700s. During that time women were making strides in many areas of pop culture and business. Georgia O'Keefe, Gloria Steinem, Rosa Parks, Betty Frieden, Harper Lee, etc. You catch my drift. She was timid and shy and he used that.

It's like you're buying into his excuses why he "stole" her talent. And, no, it's not HARD to say...I'm sure had he promoted the artwork as his wife's art - it would have been just as successful. After all - they were in Beatnik San Francisco where it was so liberal and free.

[–] dolemite4201 9 years ago

Yes but I think that there was a lot of appeal in the thought of a grown man painting these tender haunting images of the children, along with his (fake) stories about being inspired about what he saw in Europe.

Also, since he was the one making the sales pitches, it helped to say that he himself did the paintings rather than someone else, because then he could make up the stories about what inspired him and further engage the prospective buyers.

Margaret had the talent but she didn't have the story or the magnetism to draw people in like he did. She just didn't come across as a very interesting person. When people buy art, they also are buying the story that comes with it.

[–] Helenlaurence 9 years ago

I don't think you can excuse what he did- there just is no excuse!

[–] MeganDrake 7 years ago

Dolemite has a point. Tigerlily, your thought is a guess, not a sure thing.

The truth is we'll never know if her art would have been a commercial success without her husband. But what we DO know is that she was successful because of her husband promoting her work.

_______________________________________
It's ENTERTAINMENT. If you want truth, watch a documentary.

[–] denise1234 9 years ago

Apple hires a salesman to sell a watch.

The salesman gets pay and/or commission for being the salesman. Might even rack up a sales award or two.

The salesman does not get pay or credit for creating the watch.

"Shake your hair girl with your ponytail"

[–] dolemite4201 9 years ago

Apple products sell themselves. They are made in factories and people know all about them. The salesman is just an intermediary.

You can't compare some mass-produced item to a piece of artwork.

[–] denise1234 9 years ago

You totally missed my point <sigh>

"Shake your hair girl with your ponytail"

[–] Tigerlilly9 9 years ago

I got your point, Denise!

Some people like to argue for argument's sake!

[–] jnatch 9 years ago

wow, really? Theres no response to this

[–] FlyingSaucersAreReal 9 years ago

She wasn't happy though. Did you not notice that?

[–] lantzn 9 years ago

There are very few people in this world who would be happy being the victim of fraud from someone like this man.

Money doesn't always buy happiness, sometimes it just pays the bills so you have more time to concentrate on your unhappiness.

[–] kobe_q 9 years ago

He basically lied about his whole life. How is that a non-issue? Even if it wasn't fraud it's still deception.

[–] Yorick_Brown 9 years ago

I agree. Walter Keane killed his golden goose but Margaret Keane also should have kept her mouth shut when she was happily living in Hawaii.

When the stars are the only things we share
Will you be there?

-Benjamin Francis Leftwich

[–] Belle-Et-La-B 7 years ago

Margaret Keane also should have kept her mouth shut when she was happily living in Hawaii.

Why?

"I wrote this all on my own"
- Melania Trump

[–] Helenlaurence 9 years ago

The point is they were her paintings and he claimed they were his! That's wrong!! He could have just helped her sell them.
Of course she wants to be acknowledged for her own work!