After packing up and leaving an abusive relationship, Margaret (Amy Adams) hopes to make a living off of her rather strange paintings of children with largely proportionate eyes in San Francisco. She soon marries Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) - a sophisticated, charming businessman and occasional painter - who is eager to help her get her art off the ground. It's hard to sell art as a woman (apparently) so the two of them team up and gain some notoriety while selling the paintings under his name.
I loved that this was a throwback to old school Tim Burton. I felt like I was watching "Edward Scissorhands" - not only because the colorful houses and camera angles were reminiscent of the Scissorhands feel, but because Burton played more off of character rather than style. His later work, though I enjoy the quirkiness and weirdness, is much more driven by his artistic eye rather than empathetic characters. That is where "Big Eyes" is different and succeeds: it makes us feel stuff. Obviously Burton wanted us to empathize with the situation and seriously I haven't been so pissed at a movie screen since... Actually, I don't know if I've ever been this pissed at a movie. It really is quite the accomplishment to get the audience to feel that much empathy and anger towards a situation.
However, there's a lot that didn't work. This can mostly be divided into two main parts.
WALTER:
The second he walks onto the screen you aren't fooled. You know he's a dick, and you know he's trouble. He is a... a snake charmer! He coyly eyes Margaret's paintings and compliments her art but you see behind that twitchy smile and overly gregarious laugh. He's charming in a psychopathic way. There's hardly a question of why she chose to stay but rather why did she choose to go with him in the first place? In every other situation where there's an unhealthy relationship involved - be it in real life or in film - there is always something addicting, something to keep you there. From the get go with this relationship, you see no viable reason why she would desire him in her life. He just flat out isn't likable.
Though Christoph Walz tends to play dislikable characters, I have been impressed with his previous roles - particularly in "Inglourious Basterds." In "Big Eyes" I hated his character, but this wasn't even the "love to hate" kind of hate. His portrayal was distracting. He was so terribly over the top that it drew away all attention from Amy Adams' character. Perhaps this was intentional, but I found it annoying rather than functional.
Another side complaint: there is no concept of time at ALL throughout the movie. She picks up and leaves Tennessee, lands in San Francisco a day later? A week? A month? Meets Walter a day later? A week? A month? Gets married three days later? Two weeks? Two months? You know time is passing through Amy Adam's hair change and when little girl actress becomes different teenager actress, but it's hard to get any bearings on the story which was a serious drawback.
MARGARET:
I'm trying reeeeeeeeeally hard to keep my 21st century mind in her seat, but the feminist in me is really freaking out. Man, it was so nauseating. But there is something completely missing from Margaret's character. Amy Adams is an incredibly talented actress. Her eyes can well up without crying, she embodies a character with completeness. But I didn't connect with her emotionally like I really, really wanted to. I felt awful about the situation, I hurt inside that such misogynistic behavior actually existed. But how can I support a character who is so submissive to everything? I'm trying to keep things in their place, and I know it's supposed to capture a different era where women didn't leave their husbands and women didn't assert themselves. But MAN. At the beginning of the movie, she makes a spiel about always being a daughter and a wife and a mother but never her. And I feel like... I still never saw her.
That being said, the point, I'm sure, is that the only outlet for her to be HER is in her art. As she states herself, the eyes are the window to the soul. But there is still no moment, no scene, no dialogue that shows her own emotional connection to her art. In fact, there are hardly any scenes where she is by herself. The only scene where any sort of connection can be felt is in her 15-second-moment with her self portrait. All I really wanted was some kind of speech where she, I don't know, BROKE DOWN or something. I wanted her to scream from the rooftops "These are MY paintings. They mean everything to me because they are my soul. I am a broken woman and the only way I communicate anymore is through these big eyes that you self-fulfilling bastard have taken credit for." I wanted to feel her passion! I wanted to see her like she paints herself. I loved how the paintings told a story by each child getting sadder, but you hardly saw HER change (besides her hair).
The closing lines for the film are "She loved her daughter and her art and in the end she got both." Another thing that I wanted to feel but simply couldn't has to do with the relationship between that little brainwashed daughter and Margaret. There's no need for me to complain at the obvious improbability that she wouldn't remember her mom painting, but that too was bothersome. Mostly, though, Margaret hardly shows any love for her daughter. She feels guilty for lying, but no motherly care or concern. And man, that child is scarily obedient.
There is something to be said for feeling THIS strongly after watching a movie. But in the end even Jason Schwartzman cameos couldn't help me be satisfied and I don't think I can watch this again any time soon. 5/10
0 Comments