Return to trevor archives

Thomas Kinkade's Home for Christmas

Peter O'Toole, Jared Padalecki

Here is a trivia question.  What artist’s prints can be found in 10 percent of American households? Answer: Thomas Kinkade.  While 99.9 percent of Americans cannot name 5 living artists (if comic book artists are excluded), Kinkade, self-proclaimed painter of the lights, is a celebrity.  He sold $2 million worth of his art in just one hour on the QVC shopping network in the 1990s. He has licensing deals with corporations like Hallmark and La-Z-Boy.  There is even a whole community of homes built just outside of Vallejo, California based on themes in his paintings. In just an eight year period, 1997 to 2005, it has been estimated that he took in $53 million.  That is pretty good for a profession where the word “starving” usually precedes the word “artist.”  Now if you really want to have a little fun, find a real artist, an individual who has spent their whole life studying painting techniques, someone who has studied under masters and has a whole room full of unsold art pieces, and say the name “Thomas Kinkade” to them.  What most likely will proceed out of their mouth will be a cross between an epileptic seizure and Tourette’s Syndrome.

            So why is Kinkade a financial success while hundreds, if not thousands, of more talented artists dwell in obscurity? First, Kinkade set up his own corporation and understood, almost shark-like, better than any other artist, niche marketing.  He saw churches filled with people and more importantly their pockets filled with cash.  He understood that his paintings could become a way for these people to proclaim their faith, a religious opportunity to hang on someone’s wall.  Secondly, he gave the people exactly what they wanted. While critics have proclaimed that his works are "so awful it must be seen to be believed," they are really visual bubble gum, a Pat Boone tune in vibrant pastel colors. While Jesus might have been born in a dirty, smelly manger, Kinkade presents scenes of a white, Christian, protestant America that never was, often containing gardens, streams, stone cottages, and main streets. The way things could be if America could only get rid of homosexuals, liberals and mud people.  Instead of challenging the patron to grow, no matter how awful what is happening in the house that owns one of his works, the drunkenness, the financial debt, the hard words, the abuse, the freakiness, one of his prints offers a window onto the perfect.   Much like a Brady Bunch episode for children, no matter how screwed up your own life, you can dream of being inside one of those glowing houses, the smell of baked bread and cookies in the air, the perfect Beaver Cleaver family gathered around the fire, snug under a blanket with your sweet baby as the horses pull your sleigh, or playing in the snow with family and friends that love you.  A piece of heaven for a few hundred bucks.  It is also why none of the features of the people found on the canvas are clear.  The patron cannot have reality stepping into their daydream.  Baby food for the middle class soul.

            Everyone is entitled to their own bad taste.  That should be where everything ends, but the world, in the form of Hollywood, has come a rap, rap, rapping on middle-class Christian America’s door.  Tinseltown is always looking for potential franchises with ready made audiences in hand.  It has raided every potential book and graphic novel franchise, turned its attention to old television shows and video games, and raided toys and amusement park rides for ideas.  Yet, Lionsgate’s studio might be the one step ahead of everyone else in the land of palm trees, sunglasses, and big-breasted bleach blondes. 

            After The Passion of the Christ, studio executives were shocked to discover there was a huge audience of potential theater goers that had not been leaving their Lincolns and Jacksons in their coffers and Hollywood wanted them to come back.  FoxFaith, Fox Studios attempt to tap into this market, has been a failure.  Other Biblical tales like The Nativity Story have barely raised an eyebrow. The only film that seems to have recaptured even a part of this audience was The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe franchise and the awful Christmas With the Kranks.  Well, Lionsgate is trying one more bite, really three more bites, at that apple.  They are doing what no studio has done before, mining paintings for source material for movies.  With ten percent of America having plucked down at least a couple of hundred dollars for the art of Thomas Kinkade, why would these same people not plunk down $15 or $20 to see one of his paintings on the big screen and then, for just the cost of a Precious Moments figurine, to own it on DVD.  They signed Kinkade and his paintings to a three picture deal.  The artist promises each of the movies will be based on some event in his life. (Certainly not some of the famous instances of Kinkade, like getting drunk in public or his regular cursing at other artists and employees, or even his openly groping the breast of a woman who was not his wife at a South Bend, Indiana art sale.  Although I would certainly pay a dollar or two to see those moments on the big screen.)  One must remember that “based on” is like picking up a beautiful woman at closing time at a bar. Reality is not necessarily what your eyes are seeing. In order to tie all three films together, Lionsgate signed Gilmore Girl’s hunk Jared Padalecki to play the painter in all three films.

            First up is Thomas Kinkade's Home for Christmas. It is based on the true story of what happened to America’s favorite painter when he was a struggling unknown artist on the day before Christmas, when his mother was about to lose their home.  Legendary Peter O’Toole plays artist Glen Wessler, who takes on a mentoring relationship with young Thomas. Kinkade calls the events depicted in this film a true Christmas miracle.  I am going to stay away from the details of the plot because I would get diabetes recounting the story, because everything is so sweet and sugary.  The movie is a Krispy Cream doughnut, caked in sprinkles, powered sugar, gummy bears, and pixie stick dust, then wrapped in cotton candy and a generous helping of maple syrup poured on top, just like a Kinkade painting.

            Still, why do I predict that this movie will be a success?  I think it is the same reason 10 percent of Americans buy prints and paintings by people like Thomas Kinkade.  even though I like to see real art on the silver screen and on people’s walls instead of visual pixie sticks.  For many, the movies are a chance to check out for 90 minutes or more, to leave whatever is going on in their lives and just dream and enjoy, kind of like a Kinkade painting.  The average audience member is not interested in the same thing that critics are. A critic is concerned about the acting, the directing, the nuances of the story, the texture, the message, and about a dozen other things.  It is a piece of art for them.  For the theatergoer, they do not want to think.  They want explosions, excitement, romance, and action. It is all about the sugar rush.  It can be an outhouse of a movie, but all that matters is the smile it gives a person as he or she is leaving the cinema.  So, is this movie for you? If you have a Thomas Kinkade print or painting in your house, it is.  If not, do not waste your time.  It was not for me.  This is the kind of kind of film that causes the vein in my forehead to throb, but I am not its audience.  It will be interesting to see if that audience, many who have turned their back on our society, gives the world a few more of their dollars.

Verdict:  It is a Thomas Kinkade painting brought to the big screen