Pollock

Rating:
Summary: Drip, Drip, Drip
Review: I don't know if I liked this movie or not, or even if that's important. I know I wouldn't have liked Jackson Pollock and that's irretrievably unimportant. Ed Harris' all-out committment to this project is immediately apparent, but his vision seems filtered through uncolored glasses. Its a literal record of the man's life, but I can get that from a biographic entry in the dictionary. The elements of the story are these: Pollock was a painter struggling for artistic identity. Pollock was also in introverted, inarticulate alcoholic bully. He didn't even have the guts to be a bully on his own. He seemed to relish his drinking binges as an excuse to abuse his women. Then one day he spills some paint and "discovers" his style. The art world, stifling in repetitive excess and yearning for a new hero to give it renewed legitimacy, declares Pollock a genius and away we go. Now, as The Anointed One with the world kissing his tuchus, Pollock becomes a self-centered bully cubed. You want to reach into the screen and backhand this guy, partially due to the repetitively odious nature of the man and partially out of boredom. Yes, its a competent chronicle of Pollock's life but its not very good storytelling. There's more to directing than yelling "Action" and "Cut." I remained totally uninvolved as the character's motivations were unexplored and the ennui emphasized the film's overlength. The best part was the car crash because I knew it was FINALLY over.

Rating:
Summary: Ed Harris Nails Jackson Pollock
Review: I've been a fan of abstract expressionist painter Jackson Pollock's for decades. I've read a great deal about him and studied his work carefully, seeing the originals whenever feasible. Ed Harris achieves the seemingly impossible, he becomes Pollock for this film. The only time Pollock was in control of his life was when he was painting. Otherwise, he was a disaster with massive psychiatric and alcoholism problems. Harris conveys this perfectly and even had me convinced that he too must be painter in his private life. All his movements and expressions when Pollock paints are dead on perfect imitations of what painters really do. I've read less about Pollock's wife, Lee Krasner, but I'm familiar with her work and how she kept Pollock going as long as he did. Thus, I don't know how close Harden is to the real Krasner but she does an outstanding job of convincing me that she is Krasner. Actually, Pollock's life should come as no suprise. If you've really looked at those paintings, the person who painted them couldn't have possibly lived what anyone else considers a regular life. I suppose that some may complain that the film itself is a little too linear, too standard biopic fare. Admittedly, it does not open up any new territory in biopic film. However, the real challenge in biography is to nail the subject and boy, has that been achieved here. I can't even imagine anyone else coming close to nailing Pollock the way Harris has here.

Rating:
Summary: Harris, Harden, and scenes of Pollock at work are magical.
Review: Two good reasons for renting this film are 1. the performances of Ed Harris (Pollock) and Marcia Gay Harden (Pollock's wife Lee Krasner) and 2. the footage of Pollock at work. Harris lived with this project for many years and studied the life of Pollock to try to understand a complex, often unpleasant, and difficult man. Harris pulls no punches. He portrays Pollock warts and all. Marcia Gay Harden has a no less daunting task. A one dimensional portrait of Lee Krasner would show her supporting her idol and husband, Pollock. But Harden show us something about Krasner herself and her own need to be recognized as an artist and treated with respect by Pollock. Hers is an award winning performance. Some of the scenes of Pollock at work are epiphanies for Pollock and the viewer. The most magical of these scenes comes when Pollock discovers action painting. He is working on a canvas and his brush accidentally drips paint. In a moment of intense insight Pollock continues to dip his brush in his paint and lace the canvas with it. We know something extraordinary has happened and rejoice in the chance to share in this moment. This film is not perfect, but moments like these make it well worth seeing even for those people not interested in modern art.

Rating:
Summary: An Incredible movie
Review: I really enjoyed this movie. Ed Harris was great and so were the other cast members. I espescially enjoyed seeing one of the most talented actors of all time in the movie, Val Kilmer. I would recommend this movie to whoever wants a good laugh and a great story to watch.

Rating:
Summary: An extraordinary exhibition by Ed Harris
Review: This film has my vote as one of the best films of 2000. It is a film that succeeds on every level. Ed Harris delivers a tour de force exhibition of acting and directorial prowess in this intense and intelligent biopic on the life of Jackson Pollock.

For Harris this was not so much a filmmaking project as it was a personal obsession. Harris, who is himself a painter, had thought about making a biographical film about Pollock for over a decade. When Steven Naifeh published the book, "Jackson Pollock: An American Saga", Harris saw his chance. He turned to Barbara Turner and Susan Emschwiller to write a screenplay based on the book, and he began to immerse himself in an all consuming mania that in many ways was analogous to the frenzied passion of the painter he hoped to portray.

From a directorial standpoint, the film is extraordinary in every regard, which is quite remarkable for a first time director. Harris creates an intricate and complex weave with a character study that is simultaneously moving, exhilarating and tragic. The period renderings are meticulously correct, from the costumes and furniture to the cars and the vintage packages on the shelves of the country store. The music selection is a fantastic swirl of big band and other jazz standards from the 1940's from Benny Goodman to Billie Holiday. The photography (with kudos to cinematographer Lisa Rinzler) is excellent with some extraordinary lighting effects, especially the backlit scene where Jackson and Lee first make love. As if all of this weren't enough, Harris induces unbelievably compelling performances out of all the cast members.

Harris has always been an artist among celebrities, a hard working and accomplished actor living on the fringes in supporting roles or minor leads. Given the freedom afforded by producing, directing and acting in this film, his talent and skill shine forth unencumbered. His performance is nothing short of phenomenal. He seems more like he is channeling than acting. The DVD includes some footage of the actual Pollock at work and after seeing this, Harris' portrayal takes on an almost eerie realism. In the painting scenes, Harris like Pollock attacks the canvas like a man possessed, with rapid strokes that make it seem as if his muscles can't react as fast as the genius that is flowing forth. In the dramatic scenes, Harris delivers a white hot performance of a tormented and moody genius struggling with alcohol addiction and an enormous inferiority complex. He received his third Oscar nomination for this performance, his first for best actor. I don't know if Harris will ever be able to surpass his performance here, given the level of dedication and inspiration he possessed regarding the subject matter, but I certainly hope this opens opportunities in both lead acting roles and directorial projects worthy of his abilities.

Marcia Gay Hardin gives a performance that goes stride for stride with Harris. She won the Oscar for best supporting actress and fully deserved it. She captures the essence of Lee Krasner's unbending devotion to Pollock, subjugating her own painting pursuits to support and promote his career (Krasner went on to become a prominent artist in her own right after Pollock's death). Her 1940's Brooklyn accent is superb, as is her command of the zeitgeist of the intelligentsia of the period. Amy Madigan is also terrific as Peggy Guggenheim, the flamboyant gallery owner and niece of Solomon R. Guggenheim, the benefactor of the famous Guggenheim museum (though this relationship is not mentioned in the film).

This film is superlative in almost every way. It opened in limited distribution, shown on less than 10% of the nation's screens, and still managed to gross $8 Million. I rated it a 10/10. I highly recommend it to the intelligent viewer and to lovers of fine art.

Rating:
Summary: Pollock
Review: I enjoyed this movie very much. It gave me a closer insight on how some artist relate to their work. Some of the works of Pollock are very intense and now I can see why. This picture revealed his personality; as well as his intensity that he brought to a lot of his paintings. Anyone interested in an insight to an artist's world should see this film. It helps you better understand the artist and how he affects the people that surround him.

Rating:
Summary: Surprisingly, the Best picture of 2000
Review: Absolutely stunning performances by Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden. An inteligent script that investigates the lines between life and art, art and interpretation, and madness and genius. Finally, a brilliant directing job by Ed Harris. Not an absolutely GREAT film, but very close and in a week year for the Academy this should have easily won a Best Actor and Best Director award for Harris and probably a Best Picture award for the movie. At least Harden was recognized. Even if you dont like hart this movie is worth watching for 1)its example as one of the best biopics of all time 2)exploration of the makings of great art (be it literature, jazz, or whatever). Dont miss this movie

Rating:
Summary: Good effort but to what end?
Review: Is the relationship between Jackson Pollock and Lee Krasner alone a worthy subject for a film? Having read the book the film gleans its story from, I can happily say that the movie isn't nearly the hit piece that the book was. The people responsible for that book really do go out on a limb at times for some reason.

Pollock's contribution to Modernism is etched in granite. If you've never seen his work in the flesh and only know it from photographs in books and parody by others who think they can demonstrate how ridiculously simple it is to just splash paint around then step back and sarcastically call it a masterpiece, you have no idea what an experience his drip paintings are. The atmosphere and depth created by his interweaving color is mesmerizing and the scale of his work engulfs you as you move in close enough to examine the surface which you can't help doing. It is an experience you won't forget, but you also don't get a degree in fine art without being branded by the mythical tales of Pollock's excess in nearly everything except well mannered behavior. Is this what warrants scores of books, documentary films, a bust in the pantheon of art history, and now this film? I think the empty nihilism one feels after watching poor Lee Krasner's futile efforts go down the drain and into a tree sums it up. She is the hero of this film and for what? It is nice to see an icon of 20th century American art like Pollock made the subject of the popular imagination through film but at what cost to his reputation as a one of the most significant painters?

In fairness to Pollock the artist and his contribution to making American painting the world leader in mid-century, and frankly a more interesting story with genuine heroes would be a dramatic look at all the major painters of the Abstract Expressionist movement in New York at that time. You couldn't find more interesting character studies than Pollock, Rothko, DeKooning, Klein, Reinhardt, Still, Gorky, Newman and Greenberg. The relationship between Krasner and Pollock would make an interesting subplot but the explosive dynamics of those people are even more interesting than the Impressionists.

Rating:
Summary: An original take on the tortured artist genre
Review: PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS I HAD RE: JACKSON POLLOCK AND HIS RELEVANCE

I admit to having reservations about "the work". Abstract Expressionism itself is a shaky deal in my mind to begin with. When you throw in the later "splatter" techniques, I get even more uneasy. Give me massive displays of technique, form, content, colour, light, shadow, etc. However, I do appreciate Pollock's success in opening up the possibilities of art, and it does all work in theory. I just don't get a rush looking at his art.

Also, the whole tortured artist narrative, in which a man teeters across the line between genius and insanity, eventually toppling over to the side of self-destruction, is a story I've seen too many times by now to still be interested in.

CHANGES IN MY PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS ABOUT JACKSON POLLOCK CAUSED BY WATCHING 'POLLOCK' THE MOVIE

Pollock and his contemporaries, as presented in Ed Harris' very capable movie, were well aware of what they were doing. They knew that their aspirations to open up the possibilities of art were keeping them away from art's commercial side. But they had a mission. Harris' Pollock may not have been the most aware of the bunch (there's one fine scene where, in giving an intellectual interview, Harris appears to be reading his answers off of cue cards written for him by his wife), but he lead the way ably. His art was more passionate and personal than just a theoretical exercise, and I give Harris much credit in showing me this point. Also, the scenes in which Pollock is creating his later breakthrough works are wonderfully to watch. Harris dances around the canvas, and the sense of pure creations is more than palpable.

As for the tortured artist narrative, well, there was one thing here that separates this story from others in the same vein. Pollock meets Lee Krazner (or rather, she forcibly pushes herself into his life), and they eventually marry. Krazner, an artist in her own right who Pollock himself describes as talented and interesting, decides to repress her ambitions in favour of caring for her tortured genius husband. And boy does he need it. There are some wonderful scenes of their relationship where he appears completely incapable of caring for himself (at one point she trims his nails as he looks on in awe). It's this relationship that forms the core of the film. The audience must ask themselves: Would I have chosen the same path as Lee?

COMMENTS ABOUT 'POLLOCK' THE MOVIE AS CINEMATIC ART

Ed Harris looks like Pollock, without much call for make-up (except in the later scenes showing Pollock's demise, where a fine job was done making him appear fat and bearded). His quiet intensity was well done, especially when contrasted with the periodic moments of wild anger. And there were just enough moments of Pollock in bliss (one scene of him lying in a field on a beautiful sunny day flirting with a nearby bird, was utopia personified) to balance the dark side nicely. Harris' acting job overshadows the job he did as a director. I will say that he handled the double-duty equally well from both ends.

Marcia Gay Harden did a wonderful job in her portrayal of Krazner. She affects a rather unique Brooklyn accent that I was addicted to listening to. And she shows heaps of spunk and energy, especially in her early scenes where she has to fill up the spaces left by Pollock's shyness, while trying to seduce him. Later scenes, where the dueling couple is forced to yell at each other ad infinitum, are handled well when they could have degenerated into tedium. Harden is Harris' equal, and she had to be or the movie would not have worked as well as it did.

The rest of the cast is peppered with famous faces that don't get to do much. Val Kilmer, John Heard, supermodel Stephanie Seymour (huh?) and Jennifer Connelly show up to fill out the background. Amy Madigan (a.k.a. Mrs. Ed Harris) chews up tonnes of scenery as benefactor Peggy Guggenheim. Bud Cort looks miles away from "Harold and Maude" as an art connoisseur who brings Pollock to the attention of the world, and he appears to be having a smashing good time. The best supporting player is Jeffrey Tambor, as an influential art critic who relishes pushing Pollock's buttons.

CONCLUSION

Although a tad overlong, "Pollock" does manage a new take on the tortured artist genre. It was entertaining and interesting, brought to a higher level of art by the fine performances of its two leads.

Rating:
Summary: Jack the Dripper.
Review: Overwrought biopic of Jackson Pollock that probably wouldn't have grated on me as much if it hadn't left me with the suspicion that director/actor Ed Harris considers himself in the same league (i.e., "brilliant and troubled artist") as his subject. On the one hand, Pollock's achievement is certainly more debatable than similarly influential painters; on the other hand, it's rather presumptious of Harris to equate himself with Pollock, debatable stature notwithstanding. (But, natch, this might be something else that the two of them "share": bigfat egos.) Apparently, the unpleasant task of reminding Amazon customers that Mr. Harris has starred in such high-art movies as *Needful Things*, to use one egregious example, has fallen to little old me. Given the sheen of self-importance in *Pollock*, it seems that Harris needs reminding, as well. Perspective and humility are direly needed. That's worth repeating: perspective and humility are direly needed. And that extends to the movie's notions of how Pollock "discovered" his trademark drip technique. Over and above the discovery seeming like a lucky accident, the sequence -- in true Hollywood fashion -- manages to strip all creative mystery from the thing. "You've cracked it wide open!" Pollock's wife Lee Krasner (Marcia Gay Harden) exults, as if he solved a Rubik's Cube rather than created a revolutionary new style. Having said all this, the movie has its moments: the interiors of your typical artist's apartment in the Village back in the 40's, complete with bathtub in the kitchen . . . the time spent observing Pollock actually paint . . . the unglamorous portrayal of dipsomaniac bingeing . . . and finally the husk of the Has-Been.