Movie Review: "Big Eyes"

Big Eyes (2014)

PG-13

2.5 Stars out of 5

Director                               Tim Burton
Writer                                  Scott Alexander, Larry Kraraszewski

Amy Adams                        Margaret Keane
Christoph Waltz                 Walter Keane
Danny Houston                 Dick Nolan

 

The question of what is art is a question that lingers in the minds of many, and it seems there are as many answers to the question. Tim Burton offers one opinion on the topic with his late 2014 movie, “Big Eyes”. “Big Eyes” tells the story of Margaret Keane in 1950’s/1960’s San Francisco. Margaret is devoted to her art of young children that have stylized “big eyes” in her paintings. That no one in the art world thought of her art as “art”, or that almost no one in 1950’s America could think of a woman (with few notable exceptions) as an artist provides the framework upon which Burton erects his own attempt of cinematic art. Like Margaret though, Burton comes up sadly short.

The movie begins with Margaret (Amy Adams) fleeing her suburban home with her daughter for a new life in North Beach, San Francisco. She hopes to launch her career as a painter in this famous art colony by trying to sell her various paintings of waifs with their puppies, their kittens, their large emotive eyes. She meets with universal failure until she meets Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) as he too attempts to sell his cityscape paintings depicting Paris’ West Bank. That Walter’s work is hardly less successful artistically is made clear later in the film as he tries to sell his work to local art galleries. That Walter’s nature is far different from Margaret’s is made equally clear as he prances and weaves tales to his potential customers in the park. Margaret silently witnesses Walter’s antics until the day when Walter turns his “charm” on Margaret. They meet, they date, they kiss, they get married.

As the new couple begins their life together, Walter comes up with a scheme to display their respective art on the walls of a nearby nightclub. Taking advantage of one woman’s interest in Margaret’s paintings, Walter’s claims the art as his own in order (he claims later to Margaret) to close the sale – “obviously” no one would believe any serious art could be done by a woman? Walter’s “big eye art” starts to gain traction with the local non-art critic influenced art buying public. In time through Walter’s scheming, Margaret’s paintings sold as Walter’s work become immensely popular. The attention her paintings are getting, the money they bring in and the lack of credit she receives begin a metamorphic effect on Margaret. After years of living in the shadows, she eventually comes forward to claim credit and to stand on her own.

Throughout the movie, both before her commercial success and afterwards, the Art world rejects Margaret’s paintings as art. One critic commenting that Margaret’s work reminded her of a submission to an advertisement at the back of a magazine exhorting readers to sign up for an art class by sending an example of their work. As untutored as I am in the nature of paintings with or without artistic merit, I could not but agree. Margaret’s work displays some understanding of the mechanics of working in oils or acrylics, but her composition is so simplistic and lacking in feeling except for what she hopes to display through her “children” mournful gazes, that I cannot think that she would be considered anything more than a skilled high school art student; but surely nothing more. However, as Andy Warhol (himself in the category of questionable artist in my opinion) comments at the beginning of the movie that “I think what Keane has done is terrific! If it were bad, so many people wouldn’t like it.” I cannot really argue this point, but it is an idea worth considering: is art best defined by a select group of people educated on the topic, or by the masses; is art elitist or egalitarian? I don’t have the answer, but I do love the question.

However, in the case of the artistic merits of Burton’s movie “Big Eyes”, there is I believe a much more clear answer. The movie is elevated by Adams’ careful and studied portrayal of woman taught by the events of her life to submit, to stay out of the way of the men around. And yet, as with any person, Margaret has her limits: she met them with her first husband and then again with Walter. Adams does an excellent job of acting with her face and body language to show both sides of these competing drives within her. Waltz on the other hand plays Walter as a one note scheming con man. He starts out at a medium level of falseness when he first meets Margaret and steadily ramps up his performance to near camp by the movie’s climax. This lack of tone control in the movie is added to a bizarre sequence in a check-out line at the supermarket where Margaret hallucinates that all about her have her paintings’ signature “big eyes”. Why is this scene even in the movie? Are we to believe that Margaret is suffering a nervous breakdown; it is far from clear. One further disruption to the flow of the movie comes in the form of a voice over provided by a local “newspaperman” Dick Nolan (Danny Houston). Nolan is in the movie as a character but also as a narrator. His performance as a co-conspirator with Walter is intelligent and useful to propel the story, but his disruptive comments as narrator add little and conflict with the emotions displayed in the movie.

“Big Eyes” raises an interesting topic in the form of the nature of art and of the role of woman in the late fifties America. It has excellent acting by Adams, a lovely song at the end by Lana Del Rey, and a very odd role played by the previously excellent Waltz (see “Inglourious Basterds” for a much better role and acting example by Waltz). But the lack of tone control, the lack of a story arc that delves more than superficially into the two themes under discussion force me to admit my disappointment in a director who has over the years has made me one of his biggest fans.

For Burton fans that haven’t yet seen them (I doubt there are many who haven’t), check out “Beetlejuice”, “Nightmare Before Christmas”, or “Edward Scissorhands”, these movies are amongst the iconic examples that give a great view into the mind of Tim Burton.

Man of Steel

Man of Steel

2013

Science Fiction

3.5 stars out of 5

Man of Steel is an interesting re-boot of the Superman franchise. Co-written by Christopher Nolan (Memento and the recent Batman/Dark Knight trilogy), one can both appreciate Nolan’s expertise at writing and also his darker vision of the various comic book heroes making their way onto the big screen. I like his dark vision and find his angst-ridden heroes much more interesting to watch in the movie format than the more comic book-like versions envisioned by others.

Nolan writes his characters as if they were real people that just happen to also be super heroes. Without taking anything away from the 1978 Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve version of Superman (which I also liked), Nolan, co-writer David Goyer and director Zach Snyder have created a tale that makes far more sense (as if that were necessary) of Superman’s origins, his lost world of Krypton, and both sets of his parents and their foe/ally General Zod.

Act one opens with the young Superman-to-be, Clark Kent being parented by Jonathan and  Martha Kent (David Costner and Diane Lane). Told in flashback mode during significant events in his future, we learn of the upbringing by a remarkably wise and prescient  Jonathan. In the movie’s most moving and significant scene, we watch Jonathan stop young Clark with an upraised hand – saving the secret of Clark’s super powers , but at the cost of Jonathan’s life. And tragically this occurs just after a family quarrel between Clark and Jonathan. Clark takes this heritage of love and sacrifice into adulthood: still wondering who his natural parents were/are, why did they send him away, and having learned of the space craft he arived in as a baby, wondering whether he is even human or not - pretty heavy baggage for your average teen.

Clark (Henry Cavill) struggles for awhile as a young adult. He continues as an adult the various acts of heroism he started as a child, saving those in need of saving; and doing this despite the risk of revealing to the world his existence. This remains a secret he carries with some difficulty. He eventually finds another Kryptonian spaceship and via its on-board computer and a special artifact that orignally arrived with him as a baby, he learns of his natural parents (Russel Crowe plays his father, Jor-el), their devotion to and love for him, and significantly their world view of hope; hope despite the desperate peril of their times. They place both this boon of love and knowledge on Clark/Superman, but also a very heavy burden of responsibility towards the people of Earth, and to the heritage of the kinder, gentler souls of lost Krypton.

The above must seem like a good case of over-anaylsis of a comic book story, but it was genuinely the way the first two thirds of the movie affected and informed me. Of course, there’s always that final third of such a movie. That final third is why I give this movie three and half stars instead of the five I contemplated watching the early parts of the movie. A General Zod on a mission shows up, and in a profoundingly unsettling way, we watch Zod and Superman literally destroy New York City/Metropolis in a very disconerting, building collapsing manner. It goes on forever. I get it – it’s a comic book story and the movie-makers had a gigantic FX budget.  Still such a disappointing conclusion to what was in the beginning a very intelligently written and acted (Crowe in particular) story.

As just noted, Russel Crowe brings some significant acting to his protrayal as Jor-El, Michael Shannon does quite good job at making Zod a real person with a real motivation for what he does. Amy Adams plays Lois Lane in a fairly throw-away fashion for someone of her acting caliber. This is in the final act a very violent movie. Adults that like comic book science fiction will enjoy the end, adults that like believable people with real emotions and motivations will enjoy the first two thirds.

American Hustle

American Hustle

2013

Drama/Comedy

4.5 stars out of 5

David O. Russell’s “America Hustle” tells an oddly varied story of the Abscam corruption case from the late 1970’s/early 1980’s wherein six US Representatives and one US Senator were convicted of corruption. The story focuses on a fictionalized version of the con-man at the center of the FBI sting (Melvin Weinberg), a fictionalized FBI agent, and two (hopefully) fictionalized women in the con-man’s life.

The con-man, Irving Rosenfeld is played by Christian Bale as an overweight, comb-over loser/anti-hero. Bale walks a tightrope as he shows us Irving succeeding at his various cons but in complete thrall to his Jersey Shore-esque wife Rosalyn played by Jennifer Lawrence. Since it seems that everything that Lawrence does these days, she does at a performance level so far above almost all of her peers, it is no surprise to watch her as she portrays a beautiful but empty-header schemer with complete believability. Irving is smart enough to run or sense a scam on every occasion, while Rosalyn has so fooled herself that she is the smartest person in the room, she inevitably misunderstands almost every scene she is in – sometimes to comic effect, sometimes to disastrous effect.

In stark contrast, the other woman in Irving’s life is Sydney Prosser played exceptionally well (revealingly so) by Amy Adams. This ex-stripper from Albuquerque meets Irving at a pool party and its love/crime at first sight. Sydney via her oddly chosen alternate persona of Lady Edith joins Irving in his scams and ups the ante considerably in their defiance of the law. Eventually, they are trapped by FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) who forces them into helping him with the Abscam sting mentioned above.

The story arc is highly entertaining and waxes and wanes between comedy and drama; it even includes a chilling portrayal of an uncredited cameo by Robert DeNiro as a Florida mobster. But in truth, this is a story of excess during a time of excess in America perpetrated by people lacking in any excesses (wealth, taste, vision) of their own. The quartet of Irving, Rosalyn, Sydney and Richie consist of people that really aren’t fooling anyone, even themselves; they are just faking it. They each are yearning for something more from life (though Rosalyn is too dense to even know what it might be), and each is willing to break any norm, any law to get it.

As I watched the movie I was reminded on several occasions of George Roy Hill’s “The Sting” (1973) starring Paul Newman and Robert Redford. In that movie as in “American Hustle” you have lovable anti-heroes trying to scam some truly awful people (whom in Hollywood, I guess it is morally okay to scam), and you know as you watch, there will be a double-scam wherein our heroes get away with it. Oh so Hollywood. But also like The Sting, American Hustle is an outstanding movie well worth watching for the adult level humor; but most especially for Bale, Adams’, and Lawrence’s acting, and for the inevitable coda at the end of the story arc. You want these heroes to get what they want, and well…they do.

This is definitely a movie only for adults. There is an enormous of profanity and some (let’s say) suggestive clothing.