Pollock

Rating:
Summary: Ed Harris should direct more movies
Review: In cool, clear, stream-lined way, Ed Harris gets across a fascinating point: the artist Jackson Pollock's reputation was created by a very small group of people, Pollock did not respect these people, and eventually this undermined his confidence in his own paintings. This point is put across subtly but eventually overwhelmingly by Ed Harris the director and actor, (along with the effective screen play and editing), amidst the ongoing scenes of Pollock's personal instability. You don't have to like Pollock's work to enjoy this film, it is, I thought, a film about being an artist in general, especially being an artist in the U.S. of America, where so much of the culture is devoted to buying and selling and so little to art. Who should the artist believe, the critics or himself? And if the latter, how long can he/she keep it up when the praise comes from people who live off art rather than either those create it or the long-lost general public? Especially if you're as ... up as Pollock and producing paintings at the far end of the fringe.

The role of Pollock's wife, in recognizing Pollock's uniqueness, and her own position as one able to highlight and promote that uniqueness, is also very well done.

The viewer might actually like Pollock's work a little more after seeing this film, but he/she will certainly be more contemptuous of modern criticism's attempts to create new art forms in order to have a livelihood.

Rating:
Summary: Sincere and informed
Review: A great tribute to a great artist. Ed Harris (Academy Award Nominee) excelled as an actor and director in this film. Marcia Gay Harden (Lee Krasner) received an Academy Award for her outstanding acting. It comes across as a sincere and informed biographical tribute as far as anyone can really know who Pollock was. Pollock was full of doubt concerning his art and was a complex person. Having known him (well) would not necessarily have meant that you knew him completely. This film shows the complexity of Pollock well and is well worth seeing.

Rating:
Summary: Harris Shines
Review: Pollock is a great film that leaves you captivated at times. However, at other times it moves extremely slowly. Jackson Pollock is a very interesting character in history and definitely needed his story told. The movie itself was not only educational, but entertaining also, which can be a feat in itself at times.

Ed Harris definitely is in the role of his career here, and he absolutely delivers. He really should have won the Oscar, but being nominated is livable with. Marcia Gay Harden was excellent also as Lee Krasner and deserved all the recognition she has gotten for it. Tambor and the supporting actors also contributed well. It was really a terrific cast.

Pollock was smooth and well directed and gut wrenching at times. The movie ended abruptly and had no follow up. It needed to be tied up, but it in no way killed the movie. I personally know nothing about art, and the movie was able to explain to me what exactly was going on without taking away from the story. The art works were stunning and beautiful. Jackson Pollock was a man that you didn't necessarily want to know, but his ability and skill at painting was incredible, and Pollock tells the story the way it should have been. 4 Stars

Rating:
Summary: fine evocation of artistic journey
Review: as a painter i thoroughly enjoyed this film, not least for the acting chops of ed harris, who wonderfully captures pollock's range of vulnerability and anger, inspiration and hopelessness, clarity and insanity -- and incidentally shows amazing physical assurance reenacting pollock's painting and drawing techniques.

the unexpected beauty is in the evocation of painting itself, which is often as mysterious to the artist as to everyone else and as compelling as a sexual passion. the scene where pollock "discovers" the drip method will be instantly recognizable to real painters, who often speak of "following the painting" or "taking the painting where it wants to go." the script also delves the tragedy of trying to control this mysterious process (which is in its evolution like a love affair), and the inexplicable ways the process affects and attracts art critics, finances, marital happiness, and the touch of fame. the new york art scene is evoked lightly, only to show pollock's lack of control over it: the scene where he reads aloud an italian art review while his visiting family sits by neglected and offended shows both his own puzzlement at fame and his utter lack of the skills necessary to manage fame intelligently.

the tragic climax, where pollock's repetitively staged paintings for a filmmaker reduce him to drink, artistic decline and suicide, are a metaphor for the heartache that happens when the paintings are no longer about the art, and everything about how the art looks to other people. a remarkably insightful film with splendid acting and photography throughout.

Rating:
Summary: Superficial
Review: Even positive reviews of this film hint at dissatisfactions without necessarily articulating them. For me, there were several problems.
*
The first was the failure of the film to go beyond the commonly publicised persona of Jackson Pollock; the excessive alcohol use, mental instability, and of course the feting by the art establishment and the popular media are all well documented here, but then such is the case elsewhere too; the depiction of the artist's painting technique is also available in the original documentaries made about him - for the film to achieve real greatness, I think it needed to provide insights beyond a surface accuracy of events. Ed Harris obviously has been fascinated by Jackson Pollock, has researched him thoroughly, and feels some special connection, but it's not so clear whether he has understood him, whether he has fathomed him deeply enough to illuminate the man from within.
*
The second main problem has some bearing on the first. The visual art world itself is not presented with much depth. Clement Greenberg and Peggy Guggenheim are amusing caricatures, but beyond the amusing cliches there is little or no exploration of their deeper motivations - watching this film I don't see how a viewer could begin to understand the place of the visual arts within the broader culture. Why did modern art matter as much as it did in this period of history? Not an easy question, and not one likely to yield an easy answer, certainly not an answer readily translated to the medium of film, admittedly. Still, it would make me feel more involved with the film if I felt that someone, somewhere had been wrestling with both the question and potential answers. Instead there is the horrible suspicion that the artist is broadly equated with a sports star, or perhaps a movie star, and that the motivation primarily implied in his life is a thirst for fame, fortune, and beating the next guy, winning the race - that such a motivation existed is not in doubt (source material, such as letters to his brother verifies this), but it is shallow to single it out as the prime motivation. What motivated Pollock to choose the visual arts above all else? Where did his inspiration originate? Again, difficult questions, but less well publicised facts might have shone light here - for instance, watching the film you would be hard pressed to know that Pollock's brother was also initially an aspiring artist, and that he had supported Jackson both financially and emotionally in an amazing way; furthermore, it's hard to appreciate the crucial agonistic relationship Pollock had to Picasso's work.
*
The scene in which Pollock 'discovers' his drip technique, or action painting, showcases the limitations of the film as a whole. The 'climactic' nature of the scene is foreshadowed by a slow build-up, and chased along by manipulative, and frankly rather irritating, music. The volume levels increase, the 'action' in terms of Pollock 'dancing' around his canvas, the rapidity of cuts and the multiplicity of camera angles, all conspire to leave you in no doubt that you have witnessed a pivotal moment in the film. All this would be fine if you were watching a baseball player hitting a winning home run in the deciding game of the series, but it seems to be far too easy a take on the less spectator orientated process of creating art of lasting value. The standard Hollywood techniques for manipulating audience reaction feel laughable in this setting.
*
The blame for all this must be shouldered by Ed Harris, but it might be construed as spiteful to enlarge upon this fact. Suffice to mention that a entirely different, and for me far more sensitive and successful, approach to exploring the artistic process can be found in Jacques Rivette's film, 'La Belle Noiseuse'. I would gently suggest seeing the latter film before lauding 'Pollock' beyond its worth.

Rating:
Summary: "Ed Harris is a genius" - Ed Harris
Review: Ed Harris not only stars and directs this film, he is co-producer. He also found himself involved with the score, and the voice in the song heard over the closing credits belongs to none other than Ed Harris. Ed Harris displays a sure hand as editor, and does wonders with the lighting and set design. His cinematography is excellent. The costumes are further testament to the diverse talents of Ed Harris. A better boom operator could not be found, and the same could be said in regard a gaffer. If one purchases the DVD, then Ed Harris provides an insightful commentary. In many ways, then, this is Ed Harris's film.
*
It is somewhat of a shame, however, that Ed Harris shows little or no insight into the alleged subject matter of the film, the painter Jackson Pollock. If the film had been entitled, "Ed Harris" it could well be regarded as a work of genius, albeit a rather boring one; whilst bearing the misleading title, "Pollock", it is likely to establish, or perhaps the more apposite word would be confirm, Ed Harris's credentials as a man of limited intellect and of misguided ambition. For the Jackson Pollock portrayed in this film is that of documented legend; no doubt accurately sourced from his letters, interviews, and the reports of those who outlived him, the persona depicted in the film is no more than a rendition of the publicised exterior of the man. And this is very disappointing: in what clearly is a project of the heart for (need I mention his name again) Ed Harris, there appears to be few surprises and few insights, profound or shallow, into the hidden aspects of Pollock. Instead, there is a tremendous sense of self-importance, and this translates to a laboured directorial style, and an over-long film. There is no deep understanding of painting manifest in the sensibility of the film, and therefore the development of Pollock's style is not fathomed, a pivotal scene implying that chance played a determining role (although this very implication is contradicted by a verbatim quote from a radio interview also depicted in the film); the viewer is thus not privileged to some deeper understanding of Pollock's artistic process, nor of artistic processes in general, and the film comes to rely on ordinary storytelling for its impact, and here too it is deficient. The motivations of the characters are simplistic and unsatisfying; too many scenes are predictable, and time drags beyond the first forty minutes.
*
A better exploration of the artistic process is to be found in Jacques Rivette's, "La Belle Noiseuse", although those of you who liked "Pollock" may be put off by the fact that the French film does not feature Ed Harris.

Rating:
Summary: Face it. This film is an abomination.
Review: Only hollywood types could have made sucha travesty out of such an interesting and significant painter and period of art. Everything rings false in this disney-like bio-pic. From the strains of Benny Goodman's band at the Pollock dinner table to the perfectly chosen & placed tableaux on the walls of Pollock's "current" works to the bathtub WITH A SHOWER CURTAIN? in the cold water flat. (Hey, for those of you who weren't there, those tubs were higher off the floor & they had big porcelain panels over them when you weren't taking your weekly bath because there was a shortage of eating & workspace - THE TUB WAS IN THE KITCHEN for gawd's sake). Yeah yeah minor point, but it's just typical of everything they get wrong in this flick. I won't even get into the performances, because every time an actor tries to play a giant of art, whether it's Hemingway or Eliot or DeKooning, it just shows what (most) actors really are at heart. Little cut-out figures in a shadow play. But they also make the bucks that wind up buying the paintings of people like Pollock, so they get to rewrite art history too, at least for the viewing audiences.

Rating:
Summary: One Of The Best Films Of The Decade!
Review: One of the great injustices this year was that Ed Harris did not win the Oscar for best actor for his superb portrayal of the tormented and compulsively frenetic artistic genius Jackson Pollock in the movie "Pollock". When one views all of the supporting documentation in the wonderful DVD package accompanying the film, one recognizes the incredible ways in which Harris literally nails the character dead-on not only in terms of personality, but in terms of style and mannerisms, in his interpretation of this driven alcoholic modern painter compelled to push himself to the limit in pursuing what he thought to be true and authentic in painting.

This is a film that is so well done it literally defies comparison with anything recent, and the fact that it was treated relatively shabbily at the Academy Awards (only Marcia Gay Hardin was recognized for her well-deserved Oscar for best supporting actress as Jackson Pollock's long suffering but ever faithful wife Lee Krasner, an accomplished artist in her own right who also was widely recognized for her painting abilities, although not until later in life, after Pollock's death. Also terrific here is Amy Madigan, Harris' real-life wife who turns in a great supporting role as Peggy Guggenheim, one of the very famous and very rich Guggenheims, and a person primarily responsible for bringing Pollock to the attention of the painting public by using her gallery as a showcase for Pollock's astonishing modern works.

This film is terrific in every detail, from the Brooklyn accents mastered by Marcia Gay Hardin in her portrayal to the costumes and wardrobe to the cars used to the fabulous 1940s big swing and jazz musical backgrounds employed. The sets are terrific, as is the ensemble acting by the assembled cast. The story spills off the screen and the viewer finds himself enraptured by the magic squirting from the manic brushstrokes Pollock swirls on the canvas with such energy and purpose. We are transported magically into Pollock's world in a movie so good one cannot imagine why it is such a secret. This is easily one of the best films of the new millennium! Enjoy!

Rating:
Summary: I Still Wanted More Information
Review: Ed Harris is one of my favorite actors, and I feel one of the best actors making and starring in films at present. He directed and starred in, "Pollock", and while he was nominated for an Oscar for his performance, he did not win. Marcia Gay Harden gave a wonderful performance as his wife, as well as a, or perhaps the driving force behind propelling his work to the art world.

I am not very knowledgeable about the genres of art portrayed in the film, neither am I a great fan. I am however interested in understanding what it was these artists were communicating, what Picasso was doing with Cubism, or what Pollock was doing when he laid his canvases on the floor and literally used gallons upon gallons of paint to produce his works. Understanding does not automatically make a person an admirer, but in my case I can learn to appreciate what they were after. If you attend a Picasso exhibit with a person who can speak in plain English, and speak competently on the man's work, it does give you a much different respect for his work.

And this is where I did not get what I wanted from the film. Pollock was clearly a man who was miserable to those around him, and was not very happy with himself. How much of his personal difficulties was the result of alcohol abuse, or how much his mental health caused him to be so abusive will never be known. The movie is very worthwhile whether you have an interest in Pollock's type of art or whether you want to watch an excellent actor and actress at work. Ed Harris accomplished the dual achievement of acting and directing a formidable work about a very complex individual.

Rating:
Summary: Better than Basquiat !
Review: Myself being a visual Artist,I felt this film really captures the true longing for acceptance an inspiration thru one's own vision of Creating Art. I liked Basquiat by director Schnabel,but felt Ed Harris does a better job of telling an Artist's life story. This film is more appreciated on a second an third viewing also,this movie is one of my favorites about the life of an Artist along side Camille Claudel(NUYTTEN) AND lust for life(MINELLI). Ed Harris really resurrects the spirit of a true maverick Artist in Pollack. "Bravo Ed Harris",you were brilliant in Enemy at the gates !