Can you remember the
moment when you realised that the Keane story would make a good
movie?
(Scott) We were working
on a science fiction movie that was about pop culture from Planet
Earth finding its way across the galaxy to a planet of higher
intelligence, and our pop culture destroys the planet. We were
looking for funny examples of weird kitsch and forgotten pieces from
the pop culture landscape. My wife had this book called The
Encyclopedia of Bad Taste (1991), and I brought it into the office
just to flip through and giggle at. There were two pages on the
Keanes, and it kind of blew my mind what an amazing story it was and
how I knew nothing about it. I showed it to Larry and he was familiar
with the story. We are always stumbling across oddball stories and
pieces of history but we rarely pursue them. It's not often we say
''Oh, that could be a movie.'' A lot of the times we'll find
something crazy and joke about it for twenty minutes and then say
''Well, never mind'', and them throw it into the trash. This one kind
of stuck with us.
(Larry) Usually these
things, even if they're great, or a perfect piece of pop culture, you
sort of ask ''Well, what's the movie?'' The thing about the Keane
story was that even after doing very little research you could see it
as a film with a three-act structure. The trial was so ridiculous and
so definitive that you could instantly see it as the third act. You
always have to ask ''What is going to be the arc of the movie?'', and
Margaret's life provided that for us.
![]() |
Walter and Margaret Keane |
Why did you want to
make this independently and not at a studio?
(Scott) We started this
project in 2003. We had just sunk a lot of time into two biopics at
studios that had not gotten made. One was on the life of The Marx
Brothers, which was a story very near and dear to us. A couple of
years went into that project. We'd also written a completely crazy
script which was based on Driving Mr. Albert, which is the true story
about the Assistant Pathologist in New Jersey who stole Albert
Einstein's brain after his autopsy. The Marx Brothers script was as
down the middle as a biopic script as we'd ever written, but the
Einstein script was extremely eccentric. Both of them were written
for major studios and sort of lost their way and did not get made.
They were both clearly kind of doomed. These situations are really
frustrating because the biopics require so much more time than a
regular screenplay. Most Hollywood screenwriters can bang out a first
draft in maybe twelve weeks. We might spend a year on a biopic
writing the first draft. We might spend six months just researching,
interviewing people and reading as much as we can find. We really
enjoy that but the time invested is crazy. I think we were just
feeling really demoralised that those two projects had not gotten
made. We were planning on directing The Marx Brothers, but there was
just no cheap version of the project. There were five brothers, and
in vaudeville you are in a different theatre every week, and then
you're on a train. Trains are expensive. And then you're in New York
or recreating Hollywood in the 1930s. It was so big. When we decided
the Keane story could work as a movie, we thought maybe we should try
to do it completely differently. We thought ''We can get a great
actress and a great actor, not a lot of actors, we can keep it
contained. We can probably make this one ourselves.'' The plan seemed
kind of foolproof at the time.
(Larry) The biggest
challenge was capturing Margaret Keane. There was the interesting
challenge of tackling a woman's story, which we had never done
before. She is also an unusual protagonist in that Walter Keane is
the one who runs the plot, and he's also the antagonist. It was the
first time we had done a movie where the leading guy was also the
antagonist. Walter is the more traditional character, the one who has
got a dream and a vision, has passion and has to sell the hell out of
his ideas. People think he's wrong and he is going to prove them
wrong. He's out there accomplishing things and holding court, and
being the centre of attention, but Margaret is the artist. The
toughest part of the script, but also what made it interesting and a
very special movie, is that the centre of the film is a quiet person.
A lot of the movie is just watching Margaret think, digest and take
things in. She's not overselling it. It goes against everything that
you are supposed to learn in screenwriting books, but for us it was
like tying our hands behind our backs and creating a really
interesting character and an interesting antagonist for her to
battle, so that when Margaret stands up to Walter it really means
something. We also wanted to be very true to the time period in that
this is what a lot of women went through. From the 1950s to the
1970s, women started in one place, where it was 'stand behind your
man and do what your husband tells you' and by the end, even if they
didn't consider themselves feminists or as political in any way, they
saw that they should have their own voice. We took that as something
that was already there that we could place on top of the Margaret
Keane story.
The film balances
many different tones really well. Were the different tones something
that really concerned you when you were writing the script?
(Scott) We enjoy mixing
comedy and tragedy and weirdness and truth and detail. It's always
the hope that it adds up to a coherent piece!
(Larry) That's the fun
part for us, when we realise that a piece has all these elements. We
have been lucky that we've had directors like Tim Burton and Milos
Forman who 'get' where we are coming from. They're not afraid to mix
up different elements or throw a joke into the middle of a serious
scene.
(Larry) We liked the
way it paralleled the female empowerment movement in the country. We
also loved the conversation about 'high art' vs 'low art'. Also 'What
is art?', which is a question that ED WOOD (1994) also addressed. We
also loved the idea of the outsiders charging against the gatekeepers
of society. It had a lot of themes and issues that we are always
drawn to. We felt it was a challenging, interesting story. I think
the thing we loved the most about it was that it was a story that you
think you kind of know already. You see the 'big eyes' paintings and
you say, 'Oh yeah, those things.' They're quite famous paintings but
nobody knows the story behind them. It's the same with Larry Flynt.
Everyone knows Hustler magazine and has an opinion on it. But you
didn't know the story of the guy behind the scenes. Everyone knew
that Andy Kaufman was the weird guy from 'Taxi', but you didn't know
how he began, and how he reinvented himself as a performance artist,
and made comedy that wasn't funny. There's all these interesting
things that go on behind the scenes. We're writing a television
series right now based on the O.J. Simpson trial, and what's
interesting is that everyone comes to that with their pre-set notion
of what happened and what sort of characters everyone were. What's
been great about having ten hours to explore is that you find that
everything that you thought you knew about these people gets flipped
because there's another side.
Did the BIG EYES
script get a lot of attention immediately?
(Scott) It got
interest, but if it had been an easy road, we would have had this
conversation with you ten years ago! We never sold the script but our
enthusiasm was kept going by the actors and actresses willing to play
the parts, as well as amazing cinematographers, production designers,
costumers and editors who were willing to work on the movie. We had
all these option deals. We kept thinking 'Oh, we're about to shoot
the movie in New Orleans, we're about to shoot the movie in Buenos
Aires.' We always had all these different versions, and then
something terrible would happen. Fortunately, the script would always
come back free and clear to Larry and I because we always negotiated
a deal that the rights would revert back to us if it didn't start
shooting by a certain date. There's this deal you make with the devil
in Hollywood where if you sell or option your material then that
person who gives you money has a right to it, which is only fair
since they gave you money. At the end of the day, we never got paid.
It was always us paying for stuff.
(Larry) The problem
with that is that it never ended, and we kind of killed our career in
the past ten years because we so believed in this movie that we
continuously tried to see how we could get it made and get into
pre-production. The project would fall apart and instead of writing a
script or taking another job, a week later we would look at other
actresses or take another lunch. We were in this hamster wheel of
pre-production that would never get out of a certain gear. After a
certain point in time, we looked at each other and realised that this
movie had to get made. For one thing, Margaret wasn't getting any
younger. Up until that time Tim Burton had been a producer on the
film and we approached him about swapping places with us and
directing the film while we produce. Tim was at a place in his career
where he really wanted to make a smaller film, and it seemed that he
could really get the film made. Once he said yes, it came together
really quickly. We're very happy we made that decision because we're
very proud with the movie that got made, and now we can go on and
create some other things.
Was it just bad luck
that none of the other versions got made?
(Larry) We put it
together one time and the financial crash happened, and the money guy
fell out. Another time a lead actress got pregnant and dropped out,
and we lost the lead actor slot because he couldn't wait for another
lead actress. Once a project falls apart a couple of times, it starts
to smell a little bit. People start wondering ''Well, why isn't this
movie getting made?'' Even though we had people willing to sign up,
investors started thinking ''We will put some money in, but maybe we
shouldn't invest as much.'' It became harder to put together as time
went on.
With various leads
attached over the years, did the script change much?
(Scott) Not really. The
script got cheaper. We kept getting different line producers and each
one would say ''Wow, you guys sure have a lot of speaking parts.''
We'd say ''No, it's just Margaret and Walter.'' And they'd say ''But
what about all those maitre d's and critics and customers and art
dealers?'' We were ignoring the other 55 parts. They'd ask ''Do you
need so many locations?'' We'd respond with ''It's only set in
Margaret's painting room and in the second house.'' They'd go ''Yeah,
but you're in a bunch of nightclubs and on city streets. You've got a
scene in a park, and another scene in a park, and a scene down by the
Golden Gate Bridge.'' And so with each one of those steps we would
knock a couple more locations and speaking parts out just to make the
movie shootable. And so kind of by attrition it became more focussed
on becoming more of a two character piece as we always intended it to
be. We never really rethought anything creatively.
![]() |
Margaret Keane with Amy Adams |
Do you think the
script improved with the extra time that you had?
(Larry) It got more
boiled down which is kind of cool. We get all of our ideas out of the
way in the first draft. Our first drafts tend to be 180 pages and
then we cut it down. When we go through it we really write down every
possible thing that we want to so that the cream rises to the top
when we cut out the stuff that we don't need. What's interesting is
that when Tim got on board, we thought Tim might get more money to
make the movie so we actually went back and threw a lot of that stuff
back into the script to show him. It was a version of the script that
had all the intros and outros back in the movie. Tim looked at it and
was like ''No, no. I like the cut down version, the two-hander
version.'' He was into the idea of making a lower-budget movie and
something that was out of his comfort zone.
Is it true that
Christoph Waltz was hugely interested in the project and was a big
part in kickstarting the production?
(Larry) What happened
was that Christoph was in L.A. for the Oscars because he had been
nominated for DJANGO UNCHAINED (2012), and his agents were trying to
drum up work for him while he was in town. One of his junior agents
thought he'd make a good Walter Keane and there was some interest
from Christoph, which sparked us. We mentioned it to Tim and he got
excited about it. We could see the wheels turning in his mind. Tim
volunteered to go and meet with Christoph to try and convince him to
do the movie. So we kind of pulled Tim aside and said ''If you want
to direct the movie now, we'll step aside. But please don't say this
to anybody else. We're not looking for another director to take over,
but you're someone we trust because of the whole experience with ED
WOOD. We have total confidence in you that you'll knock this out of
the park.'' Tim said yes, he met with Christoph, and it all came
together really quick.
(Larry) We're all a lot
older! We remained close to Tim throughout the years and there were
several projects that almost got made. We did a lot of work on MARS
ATTACKS!. We did work on Tim's Ripley's Believe it or Not movie which
got cast and almost to the starting line before unfortunately the
plug got pulled. We also wrote an animated Addams Family project for
him. So it wasn't like twenty years had gone and we were suddenly
shaking hands again. We had been working on quite a few projects with
him. It just seemed that it was the time to do one of our kind of
movies together, which is nice. ED WOOD and BIG EYES really stand
apart in Tim's filmography. They're based on real people, so they're
a lot more grounded. ED WOOD is different in that the real-life
characters are so odd, with Gothic characters that are more in the
Tim Burton wheelhouse, but it's still somewhat based in reality, and
Margaret's story is easily the most hearfelt and real-life story that
Tim has ever come close to.
When did Amy Adams
come on board?
(Scott) It literally
all happpened within a week. Tim met with Christoph, pitched him,
Christoph got excited. The next week they were both in LA for the
Oscars, and Christoph read the script and told Tim he would do it.
Tim and us got together and talked about who we wanted for Margaret,
ands we all wanted Amy. Amy heard about this and she wrote Tim a fan
letter that night. She had read the script already and wanted to play
the part because she identified with the character. Tim said yes,
Harvey Weinstein heard about it and was happy, and three weeks later
we had financing, a director and the two stars. It was an overnight
success after ten years!
(Scott) Walter is this
character who is very happy standing on a soapbox with a cluster of
microphones in front of him, talking about himsef for an hour. Walter
did so many unbelievable things, and he was so crazy and
self-indulgent in his interviews. He is constantly referring to
himself in the third person. There was a ridiculous bigness to the
real Walter, which we found sort of endearing.
(Larry) It blows
people's minds to learn that the trial was pretty close to the facts.
The real Walter Keane DID cross-examine himself. A lot of his lines
and outbursts are taken from court transcripts and newspaper reports.
For better or worse, Walter was bigger than life.
The reviews seem to
indicate that it's a film that is a different experience for each
person who sees it. Would you agree with that?
(Scott) We had a lot of
test screenings. Then the film was locked and we had a lot of media
screenings. We've never had a film quite like it. It played
differently every time. I kept getting frustrated in test screenings
thinking ''Why are they not laughing at this joke? I think this movie
is hilarious!'' And then at our first official media screening at the
LA County Museum of Art, it just played through the roof. The crowd
was just screaming with laughter for an hour and forty minutes. We
thought ''Finally! Someone gets it!'' The first bunch of reviews came
out of that screening saying ''This movie is a riot! What a romp!''
or ''This is a good-time, fascinating slice of midcentury America.''
Two days later we had another screening and no-one made a sound. We
thought ''What is happening here?'' Usually when you make movies they
end up being a bit of a machine. For example, I know that if I ever
showed up to a revival house showing MAN ON THE MOON (1999), even
after all these years, once Tony walks onstage and says that opening
line to George, the audience is going to laugh. It's a well-oiled
machine. But this movie is a very subjective experience.
(Larry) It touches
people differently. It also seems to play better to older audiences
and to female audiences. We got some very good reviews and of course
Amy won a Golden Globe for Best Actress. Some of the audiences
thought they were coming into a typical Tim Burton movie, and some
couldn't understand why Margaret would stay with Walter in the story.
(Scott) I think men
asked that question a lot more than the women did.

(Scott) Margaret's
story is completely bizarre. But we saw her as emblematic of a
certain kind of woman at a certain point of time in American history.
The fact that she stuck with Walter did not strike us as science
fiction.
(Larry) It's like with
my own mom. My mother was married to my father for twenty years. He
didn't beat her but it was emotional abuse and it wasn't a pleasant
place to be. She stuck with him because she was a good Catholic girl
and Catholics didn't divorce. It was again a certain time period, and
she lived an unhappy life for decades, until around the same time as
Margaret did, she decided she couldn't take it anymore and loaded us
in the back of the car in the middle of the night. We were trying to
paint an honest portrait of women in that time period, and some
people just didn't get it.
What is the story
behind your prominent writing credit on the posters?
(Scott) It's a very
simple thing. The Writer's Guild rules that the writer's name has to
be the same size as anyone on the movie, except the actors.
(Larry) I don't think
people would notice it so much if my surname wasn't so damn long! It
eats up a lot of the poster.

How happy are you
with the final film?
(Scott) We're very
proud of it.
(Larry) It's another
one of our movies. It's a very interesting, unusual piece. The two
lead performances are great, and I think Tim did an amazing job. It
looks beautiful too.
I spoke to Scott and Larry on 14th February 2015 and would like to thank them for their time.
(C) Paul Rowlands
No comments:
Post a Comment