Until the release, ‘Big Eyes’ looks like a promising movie to end off the empowering year of the woman. Flexing in the face of men, Margaret Keane’s story translates to roadblocks women surpass on the daily at the workplace and at home. Depending on how Burton captures Margaret’s story, Amy Adams has the opportunity to do women justice and end off the year of feminism with a bang–a big-eyed bang.
This is a guest post by Samah Ali.
It’s been a big year for feminism. Tight throats have softened as women and men voice their opinions on equality as the fire of third wave feminism ignites in the next generation. Iconic moments like “Feminist” echoing across nations during Beyoncé’s Vanguard Performance and Emma Watson’s HeForShe Campaign uniting the sexes for a greater tomorrow clearly shows that not only was this the year of the woman, but this was the year of feminism.
As the Oscar circuit releases movies about struggling, white men on power trips, there is solace in Tim Burton’s Big Eyes to reflect on the powerful year for women and feminism. With a talented female lead and enough buzz to get nominations, Big Eyes has the means to add to the number of women who showed off this year.
Amy Adams takes on the role as Margaret Keane, a painter whose portraits of big-eyed children are falsely sold as her husband’s, Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz). Growing sick and tired of her lie and unaccredited work, Margaret takes Walter to court in hopes to gain rightful ownership and acknowledgement for her paintings. This is a timeless story applicable today as women continuously break the glass window in their lines of work.
Bullied by the fact that “people don’t buy lady art,” Margaret’s true story translates to women overcoming stereotypes and validating their creative expression today. As Shonda Rhimes casually dominates Thursday primetime, some are still threatened that an “Angry Black Woman” is capable of writing and running the year’s most successful television dramas. And as Lena Dunham’s Not That Kind of Girl book tour came to a slow halt due to right-winged, sexual assault accusations, evidently women are still receiving bigoted doubts in a male-dominated field. Fighting the power in true Public Enemy style, Shonda still ran Thursday primetime, Lena’s book tour still continued, and Margaret still fought for her paintings. Resilience and women–it’s like coffee and cream.
Since Big Eyes highlights the power relation between Margaret and Walter, the movie shows another angle to abusive relationships after countless awareness projects, essays, and declarations over the past few months. The opportunity for another angle on abuse captures how tired one grows after being caught in a web of lies surrounding rape, violence, or mental persuasion. Convinced that no one would believe her talents, Margaret allowed her husband to take credit for her work until she had the courage to stand against him in the public eye. As more victims of abuse come out as an act of solidarity, Big Eyes can be a platform to encourage similar acts and show the true victor in victims.
Nevertheless, there are some questions to be answered as the movie plays out.
Considering the story is about a female defying sexist opinions toward her art, why was Tim Burton given the directorial role as opposed to an acclaimed female director? Maybe Lisa Cholodenko (The Kids are All Right, 2010)? Maybe anyone? Even though Burton is a fabulous, wonky director, he is still a man with male experiences in a man’s world. Not quite the angle needed since the movie is about a woman with female experiences in a man’s world. Hmph.
This carries over to the point of view: expectations assume that Margaret’s story will be told how she saw it, a violation of her creative expression and plagiarism of her work. But if told from the perspective of her husband, Margaret may appear as a backstabbing housewife who overstepped her bounds. Hopefully Burton will get it right because another male-driven movie is unwanted here.
However the most disappointing result would be if Big Eyes does not pass the Bechdel Test. Let’s pray the script allows Margaret’s conversations to go deeper than the actions of her husband and more into her identity as a woman breaking boundaries. After all, if this female-driven movie can’t even pass the Bechdel Test then what other Oscar bid is there?
Until the release, Big Eyes looks like a promising movie to end off the empowering year of the woman. Flexing in the face of men, Margaret Keane’s story translates to roadblocks women surpass on the daily at the workplace and at home. Depending on how Burton captures Margaret’s story, Amy Adams has the opportunity to do women justice and end off the year of feminism with a bang–a big-eyed bang.
_______________________________________
Samah is a dedicated film buff seeking films that enhance the movie watching experience by provoking thought, emotions, and relation between the audience and the screen. With a passion for storytelling and ample free time, she looks for the next feature to preach about to the masses. @samahaliii
Angelina Jolie: “I thought often in making this film about my children, my sons, who are of the age appropriate to see it – the older sons – and it’s a movie for everybody but I think it’s one you think about this great generation and the values they had and how they were as men and I think it’s one that we want to raise our children and remind this generation of their sense of family and community and honor and pay respect to them.”
Angelina Jolie swept into Manhattan last week for some serious Oscar politicking for Unbroken, her second time at the helm as a feature film director. She attended a dizzying round of luncheons, receptions, press conferences, and Q&As to promote the film and for some needed sizzle to propel it in the awards race. Treated like royalty – a week before those other Royals arrived – and even with more anticipation, the Maleficient star dazzled even the most jaded entertainment reporters.
Based on the best-selling book about Louis Zamperini by Laura Hillenbrand, the movie chronicles his life as Olympian runner, World War II bombardier, ocean castaway on a raft surrounded by sharks, and enslaved prisoner brutalized by sadistic guards. After the war, Zamperini struggled with alcohol addiction and PTSD but finally found redemption through faith and forgiveness. Jolie’s main concern is that the film honor Zamperini’s life and struggle and that it inspire audiences.
Oscar prognosticators hint Unbroken could bring Jolie a Best Director Oscar nomination and Universal has pulled out all stops to make that possible. With Ava DuVernay a shoo-in for her brilliant film Selma, an epic about another great man, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., this could be the first year two women are nominated in this category. (Even more historic would be Ms. DuVernay’s nomination because shamefully no African-American woman director has ever received this honor.)
Unbroken received an awards boast earlier in the week when the American Film Institute picked it as one of the outstanding 11 films of the year. (Selma is also on the list.) But two days later the Screen Actors Guild and the Hollywood Foreign Press left Unbroken off their list. This is especially surprising since the Hollywood Foreign Press loves glittery movie stars at their Golden Globe celebration.
In 2011 Jolie, who wrote and directed In the Land of Blood and Honey, a controversial film about a love affair between Bosnian woman and a Serbian solder, received a Golden Globe nomination for best foreign film. I spoke to her by telephone to get her reaction for the New York Times. She told me she knew the subject matter was a hard sell but it was a story she had to tell. “I didn’t want to be a director,” she told me, “I’ll just only do it if there’s something that I feel so compelling it must be told.” She also told me she never reads press about her or Brad Pitt. “It’s better not to know,” she said.
Both director and cast members, Jack O’Connell (Zamperini), Takamasa Ishihara (sadistic prison guard, Watanable), Garrett Hedlund and Finn Wittrock participated in a press conference last Friday at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel. Jolie choked up several times when she spoke about the subject of her film, with whom she became very close. Six hours later she teared up again at a Bafta screening when she discussed how she visited Zamperini in the hospital to show him the film and seek his approval. He died several weeks later in July of this year at age 97.
Jolie materialized at the press conference surrounded by her supporting and admiring cast, but she was the star attraction. Slender and fine boned, with her high cheekbones and saucer eyes, she is as spectacular in person as her pictures lead you to expect.
She was in New York a week before the leaked Sony e-mails in which producer Scott Rudin insulted her and the film. She has chosen so far not to comment.
The cast of Unbroken
Here are selected quotes from the press conference last week featuring Angelina Jolie.
Why it was so important to you to make the film:
I thought often in making this film about my children, my sons, who are of the age appropriate to see it – the older sons – and it’s a movie for everybody but I think it’s one you think about this great generation and the values they had and how they were as men and I think it’s one that we want to raise our children and remind this generation of their sense of family and community and honor and pay respect to them. And I want my children to know about men like Louis so when they feel bad about themselves and they think all is lost, they know they’ve got something inside of them because that’s what this story speaks to. It’s what’s inside all of us. You don’t have to be a perfect person or a saint or a hero. Louis was very flawed, very human, but made great choices and in the end a great man.
I came into this because I felt it was an important story. I was drawn to the message of the story. If you’d asked me a few years ago what kind of a film do you want to make? I never would have assumed to make a film that included shark attacks and plane crashes. I would never have thought of myself handling that kind of cinematic filmmaking. I wouldn’t think I could do that or should do that (laughs).
What was it specifically about this book that made you so passionate about bringing it to the screen? Was there one specific thing abut this story that said to you, this is it, this is my next movie?
I think what it was, like everybody, we wake up, we read the news, we see the events that go on around the world and we live in our community and we’re disheartened by so much. We feel overwhelmed and we don’t what’s possible and we don’t know where… We want something to hold onto and something to give us strength. And I was halfway through this book and I found myself inspired and on fire and feeling better and being reminded of the strength of the human spirit and the strength of having a brother like Pete and what that is and to remind us to be that for each other and how important that is to have that in your life… I realized if this was having this effect on me and I knew it had this effect on so many people, isn’t this what we needed to put forward into the world at this time? And I believe it is and I’m very happy also it’s coming out during the holidays. I think it’s an important time. It’s the right time.
Transforming the book into the film:
The Coen brothers (the screenplay writers) said something to me that helped me completely. They said when you put the book down you have a certain feeling and a certain understanding. That’s what they need to feel when they walk out of the theater. That’s your job. To literally put this book on film you won’t make a good movie and you’ll do no service to anyone. So know the themes and to us these themes, so then we would go back to the film and so for example, faith, faith is so important to him, instead of it being a specific chapter and how to put it all in, and all the experiences of his life, faith was represented from the beginning, from the little boy and represented all through the film in other characters but also in the sunrise and the darkness and the light and the struggle between them and him coming into the light. But it wasn’t literally, technically as it was in the book, but the things are the same, so that’s what we tried to do. But I think a lot of our favorite stories aren’t in the film.
It was tough. I’d be carrying the book, before we were doing the film, and a lot of people would say that’s my favorite book. You know what my favorite scene is? And I started to say don’t tell me.
Your next movie is with Brad Pitt, By the Sea. Is that sort of an antidote to this epic?
By the Sea was emotionally difficult acting in it but it was logistically a walk in the park in comparison to Unbroken. It was a nice break.
On Zamperini watching Unbroken in his hospital room:
Louis was 97 (when he died). He began skateboarding in his 80s. He was still living alone taking care of himself. He was very full of joy and love of life and very sharp. And he was doing speaking engagements for about two weeks prior to the day I got the call and he went into the hospital. So I put the film on my laptop – it was missing some of the special effects and music – (but it was) pretty much wrapped, and I went over to the hospital and I sat beside his bed and I held it over him and he watched the film and I watched him watch the film. I thought I would get some review, he would say good shot… and in reality I found myself in this extraordinary moment where I was watching this man at the end of his life reliving the moments of his life, remembering his mother, remembering his brother and all the friends he’d lost. He was the last alive, and preparing himself, as a man of faith… watching him cross the finish line while he was in this hospital bed and smiling…When it (the film) was over, he just looked at me and smiled. And then he told me a really inappropriate joke.
Paula Schwartz is a veteran journalist who worked at the New York Times for three decades. For five years she was the Baguette for the New York Times movie awards blog Carpetbaggers. Before that she worked on the New York Times night life column, Boldface, where she covered the celebrity beat. She endured a poke in the ribs by Elijah Wood’s publicist, was ejected from a party by Michael Douglas’s flak after he didn’t appreciate what she wrote, and endured numerous other indignities to get a story. More happily she interviewed major actors and directors–all of whom were good company and extremely kind–including Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman, Clint Eastwood, Christopher Plummer, Dustin Hoffman and the hammy pooch “Uggie” from The Artist. Her idea of heaven is watching at least three movies in a row with an appreciative audience that’s not texting. Her work has appeared in Moviemaker, more.com, showbiz411 and reelifewithjane.com.
It is absolutely clear that throughout ‘Private Violence,’ Hill allowed Gruelle to take her into a world that she felt compelled to share with the public. That trust, that “wide-eyed curiosity” (as Gruelle said of Hill’s directing technique), created a documentary that not only pays homage to the strength and tragedy of women whose lives are torn apart by male partner violence, but also serves as a wake-up call that the system–law enforcement, news media, medical professionals, local and federal court systems–are not serving victims the way they should. ‘Private Violence’ is a public testament to the horror of domestic assault.
“The most dangerous place for a woman statistically speaking is not in the street. It’s in her own home. She’s most likely to be attacked by a man with whom she lives. It’s the trauma of it we’re just beginning to realize.”
This “private,” not public, violence, is the subject of the documentary Private Violence, which premiers Oct. 21 on HBO. (Steinem is an executive producer of the film.) Cynthia Hill directs the documentary, which focuses in on Kit Gruelle, an advocate and survivor, and Deanna Walters, a survivor who is navigating the court system. Other women’s stories are woven throughout, but the individual stories of these women offer a stunning, jarring inside look on what goes on behind closed doors and how “Why didn’t she just leave?” is not a question we should ever ask.
Statistics surrounding domestic violence in the US are stunning, even to those who are immersed in following women’s issues in the news–perhaps because the news media too often keeps these stories of assault, stalking, and murder in the private sphere. During the University of Missouri – Columbia’s Journalism School and True/False Film Festival collaboration, Based on a True Story: The Intersection of Documentary Film and Journalism last February, Hill and Gruelle participated in a panel discussion entitled “Telling Stories About Trauma.” Gruelle pointed out that in one of the cases she was advocating for, the local news refused to air graphic photos of a victim, but later that night, “the channel ran TV dramas about violence against women for profit–we can deal with the fantasy.”
The reality is this:
• One in four women (22.3 percent) has been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner
• One in six women (15.2 percent) has been stalked during her lifetime
• Thirty percent of female homicide victims are murdered by their intimate partners
Private Violence does not, as some social-issue documentaries do, continuously slam us in the face with these statistics. Instead, the film takes us inside, takes us behind closed doors, to come face-to-face with victims, families, and advocates. The news media may not show us photos of brutalized women, but Private Violence does. We hear–and see–Walters, as she tries to escape and get some kind of justice (and how difficult it is). In an incredible opening, Candy tries to escape from William (who didn’t even care if they used the scene). The intimate, heartbreaking look into these women’s lives turns a mirror onto a society that has historically been far too complacent about violence against women.
During the aforementioned panel discussion, Hill said that she was approached by Gruelle, who wanted to work on a project about the history of domestic violence advocacy work. “Her intention wasn’t to be the subject of the film,” Hill said. “I wanted to turn my camera in her direction… she already had access and intimacy. A historical film became a cinema verité film.” Hill’s decision to turn the camera on Gruelle was brilliant. Gruelle is a passionate advocate who works hard and speaks loudly about domestic violence in our culture. Hill invited her to speak up during the panel discussion, and Gruelle pointed out that “It’s never just about the abusers. It’s about patriarchal systems that are quick to blame her.”
Advocate Kit Gruelle.
The crux of Gruelle’s message to audiences, to not ask “Why doesn’t she just leave?” is amplified by focusing on these individuals’ stories. It was difficult to hear that when the film was shown at the True/False Film Festival, Candy had gone back to William. Seeing faces somehow makes that knee-jerk reaction of “Just leave!” creep up, even if we know better. “Leaving an abuser isn’t an event,” Gruelle said. “It’s a process.” The process isn’t incredibly fulfilling to watch in Private Violence, nor should it be. The system fails women far too often, and Private Violence shows that in painful detail.
“Why doesn’t she just leave?”
Before the film screened at True/False (to an overflowing, sold-out crowd), Hill told the audience that the ultimate goal is “to make women and children safe in their own homes.” Because we know that as it stands, they are not.
It is absolutely clear that throughout Private Violence, Hill allowed Gruelle to take her into a world that she felt compelled to share with the public. That trust, that “wide-eyed curiosity” (as Gruelle said of Hill’s directing technique), created a documentary that not only pays homage to the strength and tragedy of women whose lives are torn apart by male partner violence, but also serves as a wake-up call that the system–law enforcement, news media, medical professionals, local and federal court systems–are not serving victims the way they should. Private Violence is a public testament to the horror of domestic assault.
During the Q&A after the screening, Walters appeared on stage with Hill and Gruelle. She said that her participation in the film–and how she laid herself bare–is “my way of helping people.” Gruelle pleaded with the crowd to “go back to your communities and pop the hood,” ensuring that victims got the justice they deserved (but first we must keep their stories out of the shadows).
Kit Gruelle, left, and Deanna Walters.
Hill’s direction is remarkable in its effortlessness; she knows to follow, to absorb, to tell the story. When she was asked during the panel discussion about her decision to include upsetting audio in the film, she said, “Well, this is what happens. People need to know what happens.”
Private Violence shows what does–and doesn’t–happen behind closed doors and within a system we’re taught to trust. May audiences be moved to lift the veil in their own communities, to listen to women’s stories, and to effect change in a patriarchal system that is far too brutal to its female citizens.
Private Violenceairs on HBO at 9 p.m. Eastern on Oct. 20. In 2015, Private Violence will be available for educational distribution through Women Make Movies.
Peter Jackson shows the girls interacting and playing in these worlds. “The Fourth World” is a beautiful garden. Borvonia is a dark and delightfully wicked world of castle intrigue and courtly love. Seeing the girls in the worlds they’ve created demonstrates the extent of the fantasies and the pleasures their imaginative and playful friendship brings. Pauline and Juliet have an intense friendship; they don’t want anyone to stand in their way of spending time together or stop the joy that it brings for them.
This guest post by Caroline Madden appears as part of our theme week on Female Friendship.
1950s New Zealand was rocked by a sensational crime committed by two teenage girls who were best friends. Represented in Peter Jackson’s Oscar-nominated Heavenly Creatures, the power of female friendship drives of the story. Although the film is not representative of a typical female friendship, it nonetheless portrays the power and wonders of friendship between girls.
Screenwriter Fran Walsh said in an interview, “I’ve had very intense adolescent friendships. They were very positive, affectionate and funny, and I understood to a large degree what was so exciting, so magical about the friendship. And though it ended in a killing, the friendship itself is something people would identify with, particularly women.”
Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey play the friends Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme. When Juliet is the new girl in school, Pauline begins to admire her because she’s so much that she is not–she’s from a well-born family, has freedom, and is rebellious. Her upbringing is complete opposite of Pauline’s humble home, one that is always overcrowded with boarders so her embarrassing working class family can have more money. The two quickly become fast friends. Their interactions in Heavenly Creatures pass the Bechdel test with flying colors. It is one of the few films that both passes this test and lets the audience in on the innermost thoughts of female lead characters.
While there is a scene where Pauline discusses her first sexual experience with a man, the girls want little to do with men, or even care what they think. Their bond and friendship is the sole driving force of their psyche and actions. The only man they really care about is Mario Lanza. They share an affection and obsession for the Italian crooner, fawning over him and erecting a shrine in his honor.
Juliet and Pauline talk about so much more than men. They talk of their past, frustrations with their family, feelings of abandonment, and their hopes and dreams of traveling the world. The girls share everything under the sun–their passions and desires, what excites or frightens them. There’s no room for just talk of men; their conversations encompass so much about life, for female friendship holds so much more than that.
The most important aspect of Juliet and Pauline’s friendship is their imagination and love for creativity. Together, they create an imaginary world, “The Fourth World,” that they can escape to and be happy. The girls also invent imaginary characters with an intricate history of royal lineage, stories of the kingdom of Borvonia. They make plans to create novels of their detailed stories, a soap-opera tale of romantic intrigue. They construct their royal characters out of clay, play-acting their characters.
Peter Jackson shows the girls interacting and playing in these worlds. “The Fourth World” is a beautiful garden. Borvonia is a dark and delightfully wicked world of castle intrigue and courtly love. Seeing the girls in the worlds they’ve created demonstrates the extent of the fantasies and the pleasures their imaginative and playful friendship brings. Pauline and Juliet have an intense friendship; they don’t want anyone to stand in their way of spending time together or stop the joy that it brings for them.
There is an often-debated issue of whether or not the girls were lesbians, something famously conjured up during the case. With female friendship, girls are allowed to be close, unlike male friendship where men don’t physically show affection (which would be seen as demeaning themselves by displaying femininity). Girls can give each other a kiss or hold hands and usually nothing is thought of it.
Female friendship is often allowed to have more of a physically close expression.
In the film, Pauline and Juliet are shown giving chaste kisses, holding hands, and cuddling. The parents are fine with it at first, but as time goes on they begin worrying that their friendship is becoming– filmed in a mocking close-up of them saying –“unwholesome.”
The film mocking the parental concern can be representative of Jackson’s own views on the girls’ relationship. He has said, “I don’t think their relationship was sexually based. I think there was a lot of exalted play acting and experimentation involved and, to be perfect honest, I don’t think it’s a relevant issue.” Peter Jackson has also been quoted stating that the question of the girls’ sexual orientation is more of a “red herring.”
Certain of his views, Jackson does not choose to draw conclusions about the girls’ friendship; he does not attempt to categorize them or try and discover what they affections for one another really were. The film deliberately attempts to leave the exact nature of their bond, homoerotic or not, open to interpretation. While there is a scene where there are in bed together, naked and kissing, it reads as more affectionate than sexual, overall ambiguous.
Peter Jackson uses the fantastical elements of their imaginative world put the film in a space that is not a realist drama, but more of an objective truth. He also uses his flourishing cinematic embellishment as a way to get inside the heads of young teenage girls, swept away by the magic of youth and allure of close friendship. These girls were all but 16, a time when friendships and events can feel like life or death, or the world ending. He was interviewed saying, “What attracted me to this story was that it was complicated, about two people who are not evil, not psychopaths but totally out of their depth. Their emotions got out of control. They were devoted to each other and felt no one else in the entire world understood them. They felt their world would fall apart if they were separated.”
Heavenly Creatures refuses to connect the girls’ murderous impulses to a deviant sexuality. There is no moment in the film where the friendship turns from innocent to dangerous. In the real-life trial, psychologists and lawyers were trying to prove that the girls were lesbians in order to convict them as “insane,” since homosexuality was considered a mental illness at the time. The headline-grabbing accusations may have truth to them, who is to say? But Jackson makes the right choice (and most likely more truthful choice) for portraying them in the light of a close friendship rather than a crazy-lesbians trope.
Heavenly Creatures may not show a “normal” female friendship, but Jackson does portray, before the madness of the murder descends, young women who have so much more to do than talk about boys. Pauline and Juliet are complex girls with fantasies, dreams, and wild imaginations. Heavenly Creatures shows the joy that the bond of a deep and powerful friendship between young women can bring.
Caroline Madden is a recent graduate with a BFA in Acting from Shenandoah Conservatory. She writes about film at Geek Juice, Screenqueens, and her blog. You can usually find her watching movies or listening to Bruce Springsteen.
