Pollock

Rating:
Summary: Spellbinding performances
Review: Jackson Pollock created astonishing beautiful paintings that made him world-renowned as America's foremost painter during his lifetime (a rare honor for a living artist). He was also something of a disaster of a human being: alcoholic, violent, verbally abusive, and explosive. Ed Harris's film does a superior job getting both sides of the artist down, particularly after one of his most horrendous displays of alcoholic temper during a Thanksgiving dinner party, when afterwards Harris pans slowly through Pollock's most magnificent paintings on display at that time in the Betty Parsons Gallery. Harris wanted to play Pollock for years, and he is ideally cast: he looks just like the artist (and his superfit sexiness helps explain why so many people were so attracted to Pollock), and he has the acting chops to pull off Pollock's temper tantrums convincingly. The film doesn't much to explain why Pollock was so crazed, and the scenes with his brother Sandy and his mother (Sada Thompson, utterly wasted) don't come off--you see only that Harris is trying to tell you that something about them was important to Pollock but not what that might be. And the script doesn;t shape the events of Pollock's life to any extent--it ends with his notorious death, when he drove himself, his mistress, and a young woman off the road in a drunken stupor. (Only his mistress survived.) The beautiful Marcia Gay Harden is cast wildly against type as (physically dowdy, but spiritually luminous) Lee Krasner, and deservedly won an oscar for her moving portrayal of a woman who was a superb artist in her own right but sacrificed everything to futher her husband's career

Rating:
Summary: This is just not funny.
Review: The story of Jackson Pollock is not a happy one, unless you happen to have bought a few of his pictures cheap, in the 1950's. Then the story of Jackson Pollock would be a lifetime of christmases every single day.

In life, Pollock lumbered from one god awful mess to the other. In between messes, he created some more. He drank too much, felt too much, and made everyone near him as unhappy as he was. Then, he died. This is not a happy film and it is not an easy one to watch. It is depressing, and rather like watching the aftermath of a road accident. If you are depressed when you start watching it, you will get worse. If you are happy, and pay attention, you will most probably stop being happy at some point while watching it. You have been warned.

That said, POLLOCK is a brilliant film. Ed Harris directs with true talent, and puts in easily the best perfomance of his career. When one is speaking of Ed Harris, that is high praise indeed. Harris acts the part of Jackson Pollock with so much intensity that I was sometimes half convinced that he could jump through the screen and start physically attacking me. This is an odd experience. Imagine Frank Booth in David Lynch's BLUE VELVET. Jack the voulme control up from 11 to somewhere in the low 90's. Add brilliant dialogue. Now imagine that the character is someone you want desperately to LIKE. Now imagine that the character is in just about every single scene.

POLLOCK is not an easy film to watch. It is however, an extremely rewarding one. Ed Harris should have won both best actor and best director for this. He should also have won some sort of medal for having made it in the first place.

Top marks. This one is heavy duty.

Rating:
Summary: What about Janet Sobel, who invented drip painting!
Review:

I loved this movie. Ed Harris is totally convincing as Pollock. Harden as the long-suffering, inspired wife is perfect.

But Peggy Gugenheim discovered another painter and included her paintings in a 1946 show. The artist was Janet Sobel, who had first picked up a paintbrush at age 43 and who began producing drip paintings a few years later. Her drip paintings in the Gugenheim show in 1946 were seen by Clement Greenberg and Jackson Pollock. In fact, Pollock admitted that the paintings of Sobel had made a strong impression on him.

There is no question that Pollock far surpassed the few tentative and unskilled drip paintings of Sobel, but the scene in which he accidentally drips paint on the floor next to his canvas, leading to his decision to drip the paint onto the canvas, now raises the following question: Had Pollock not seen Sobel's work, would he have been able to recognize the accidentally dripped paint as an alternate means of applying paint--or would he have wiped it up and continued to paint with a brush?

Rating:
Summary: This is about Pollock the man, not Pollock the artist
Review: The title and subject of this movie unfortunately relegated it to the realm of "artsy films" and, therfore, it didn't show in any town near me. I had to wait until it was released on VHS--and it was well worth the wait.

POLLOCK is, first and foremost, a biography of famed American painter Jackson Pollock, but it is also an intense study of a man, his unyieldingly supportive wife, and their joint effort to realize his dream. Her character was one who saw the potential and seized it as much for herself as for the man she loved. Lee Krasner was a shrewd opportunist who happened to love Jackson Pollock enough to stay with him in spite of years of abuse. Her reason? "I believe in Jackson Pollock". When he died she managed his estate for the next three decades and finally had an opportunity to paint the pictures that made her a recognized name in art--as an artist, not Jackson Pollock's wife.

One needn't be aware of Pollock's impact on the art world to enjoy the "real life" aspect of this touching film. Marcia Gay Harden gave the best performance of the year with her portrayal of Lee Krasner, Pollock's lifeline and wife. I simply don't understand why she was only considered a "supporting actress" because she was on screen every bit as much as Ed Harris and probably had more lines. In any case, her Oscar was much deserved. Harris also delivered a stunning performance of the aloof Jackson Pollock, his alcoholism, womanizing, and inner turmoil that surfaced long before he became a fixture in the art world.

I don't know much about Pollock's art--I never paid much attention before I saw this film. That stands as proof that this is a film for the masses, not for those interested in Pollock as an artist. This is a film about Pollock the man.

Rating:
Summary: On my Top Ten List of 2000
Review: Ed Harris is both the director and the star of Pollock, a biography of famed American artist Jackson Pollock. His work revolutionized modern art and brought this country to the forefront of culture. His paintings are as complex and difficult to understand as the man himself. His work mesmerizes and inspires some people, but to others it looks like the scribbling of a mad child or perhaps spaghetti on canvas. Viewers who possess an artistic temperament and/or a love for the art world should find the movie to be one of the best recent releases. Those with little interest in art - or, more particularly, in artists - should steer clear, especially since Mr. Pollock was not a very nice guy. In most movies about famous historical icons, the character is cleaned up for public consumption. Mr. Harris' portrayal of Pollock is raw and unnerving. This is what I loved about the film, but it is this same thing that others will hate.

The movie covers about a dozen years of the artist's life, beginning in 1941. Pollock is a struggling artist in New York's Greenwich Village. He is also an alcoholic and a manic-depressive. One day a young artist named Lee Krasner [Marcia Gay Harden] drops by his dingy apartment. It seems they are to be in a show together, and she wants to see his work. Though shy and suffering from a massive hangover, he let's her. She is very impressed and asks him to come around anytime to see her paintings. He doesn't show up for three week, which is typical of his behavior. Still, they strike up a friendship and soon become lovers.

The movie makes it clear that Krasner walked into this relationship with eyes wide open. She became Pollock's everything, and though he never truly appreciated what she did for him, she stuck by him for many years. There was a lot to put up with. Besides his battle with the bottle, Pollock had a tendency to insult and belittle people, even those who tried to help his career. He was also a notorious womanizer. After a few years, they got married, but when Pollock suggested they have a child, she refused. She knew he was all the child she could ever handle. [This is the movie's most poignant scene.]

I don't mean to suggest that there were no good times for Pollock and Krasner. There were a lot of them. In part because she was his staunchest supporter and ally, Pollock became both famous and well to do. They bought a house in Long Island's East Hamptons before the place became chic. He did find some happiness there, but I suspect the only times he was truly happy was when he was painting. But the art work came in fits and spurts, as art often does. It was when he wasn't feeling creative that he was the most miserable and the most apt to bring sorrow to those around him. The demons that possessed him led to a very tragic outcome.

Sam Harris is absolutely mesmerizing as Pollock. I don't think I've ever seen the idea that genius and madness go hand in hand so expertly embodied. I like the fact that Mr. Harris chose to give no explanations for Pollock's insanity. He seems to believe that a tortured soul can just happen, and I tend to agree. Some people are born with an inability to fit in. Pollock, for example, was a genius in a visual sense, but he was often inarticulate, unless he was talking about himself. This must have been frustrating to both him and to those around him, for arty types often tend to talk, talk, talk and expect others to do the same. He was also amoral, which puts most people off. An amoral person is one who does socially unacceptable things without ever understanding how or why they are unacceptable.

Marcia Gay Harden gets equal raves from this reviewer for her portrayal of Krasner. She gives fire to the character and does a remarkable job in showing us a woman who could be both hard and vulnerable at the same time. She shows us that Krasner was nobody's doormat but was still someone who could set her own aspirations aside in order to help a genuinely talented misfit. Later in life, Krasner became a high respected artist in her own right.

I think Pollock will appeal most to people who are more fascinated by people than by technology. For me, it proved to be an exhilarating experience. For others, it will be just a silly story about a man who drank a lot and threw paint on canvas for a living.

Rating:
Summary: A perfect 4-F.
Review: Art is just paint on a surface in this movie. The plot is more like the relationship between madness and genius. One of the things the genius is mad about is that his wife thinks that having a child would be too much to handle, given all the circumstances. For a movie which is set in World War II, this movie picked a character who was most psychologically suited for not taking part in warfare, but the war which was taking place may say as much about our society as the ups and downs in the career of this painter. Paint dribbling on the floor, and then being applied in that fashion to the canvas, is the high point of this movie. Pollock's art is explained as an attempt not to create a picture. This is a great movie for those people who might realize how much it can tell us about modern times.

Rating:
Summary: Intense Account of Famed Painter
Review: Ed Harris took over ten years to bring the life story of Jackson Pollock to the screen. You clearly get the feeling that this was a labor of love for Mr. Harris. He portrays Pollock and pours everything he's got into the role. He captures the demons that Pollock faced in a real way without ever going over the top. In addition to playing the lead role, Mr. Harris also directs the film. He shows a deft hand behind the camera and for interesting look at to what he trying to achieve, check out the Charlie Rose interview from the special features section. Mr. Harris eloquently explains his work on the movie. Marcia Gay Harden is excellent as his wife, the artist Lee Krasner. She stands toe to toe with Mr. Harris and she provides the backbone to the film. Her outstanding work earned her the 2000 Best Supporting Actress Award. Amy Harris, Val Kilmer, John Heard and Jennifer Conolley all provide cameo work to this solid effort.

Rating:
Summary: Compelling performances mostly without clear motivation
Review: Ed Harris looks like Jackson Pollock and convincingly portrays the selfish, depressive, alcoholic painter struggling to become famous and who was stunned b y life and then was stunned by fame and fortune. Marcia Gay Harden earned her Oscar playing Lee Krasner, the woman who sort of held him together for a few years and did much to ensure his success.

The behavior of both is on display, but the motivations remain obscure and the film is uninvolving. He's a tortured genius and she recognizes his genius and subordinates her life (and her own painting) to taking care of him. But why are we supposed to care? How can success spoil someone who is already such a wreck of a human being when no one knows his name? (I could, however, care about the passenger on the death drive who desperately did not want to ride with the drunken oaf.) Krasner chose her fate and perhaps exulted in her years as keeper of the flame after Pollock's death (after the end of what is shown in the film).

The great Sada Thompson is wasted as Pollock's mother, and Jennifer Connelly ignites no sparks as his mistress. Harris's real-life wife, Amy Madigan, gets to have some fun as Peggy Guggenheim. Like Bob Dole, she speaks of herself in the third person ("Peggy Guggenheim does not climb five flights of stairs!").

Harris is credible painting and unlike many biopics of artists, doing the painting is central. It helps that the drip technique for which Pollock is most famous is quite photogenic -- and was filmed, so that it could be mimicked by Harris.

Rating:
Summary: "You NEED, you NEED, you NEED" to see this film
Review: There is a scene where Ed Harris as Jackson Pollock is staring at a giant empty canvas in his Soho loft with his girlfriend Harden, for days on end...he has been noticed by the overbearing, manipulative but incredibly compassionate genius art impresario Peggy Guggenheim, queen in a man's art world of princes wanting to be king...he simply stares at it: a six foot tall, ten to twelve foot long canvas of pure white nothingness in his house that's been almost completely remodeled to fit it, for what goes into weeks...Harden tells him that Peggy is thinking of changing her mind about giving him the opportunity of having this finished work hung in her studio--the forerunner of the first of her internationally known museums...he stares, broodingly, deeply, contempletively, fearfully, sadly, and with a look reminiscent of a chlid trying to figure out why his Daddy is leaving down the road in his car without saying goodbye; with eyes that tell the story of intuitive disillusionment darkening a natural, childlike optimistic naivete; he looks this way at a blank, almost spiritually abusive wall of canvas, as if he feels his muse, his art, his very talent has left him the way a father leaves a child, without explanation, and isn't coming back...

...and then it hits him. Inspiration.

And he paints.

The artist Chuck Close was once quoted as saying "art is the physical evidence of a performance"...

Ed Harris as Pollock picks up a huge brush and begins to dance across the canvas with huge, bright and dark, moody, curious and celebratory strokes and colors, and before the day is out--perhaps in the space of two hours--another Pollock masterpiece, deposing Picasso as the number one 20th century art Ubermensch is born--and it almsot giggles with self awareness, like a newborn genius child. And this is before he even develops the style that made him famous.

The whole scene is no more than eight minutes long.

This movie is poetry. This movie is dance. This movie is heartbreaking. This movie is raw. This movie is so very real, acted with such authenticity and impeccable craftsmanship. This movie is inspiring. This movie is remarkably entertaining. Ed Harris, in the role he was born for (regardless of how overworked that phrase is), BECOMES the tortured, artistic, 20th century avatar of van Gogh that is Jackson Pollock, completely.

This movie is art.

Rating:
Summary: What a miserable and sad story...
Review: The movie was fairly well done but I thought it moved very slow in many places and found myself fast-forwarding on a regular basis.

And the subject matter was disturbing, too. Why aggrandize such abhorrent self-love, self-centeredness and self-destructive tendencies? Pollock was one sick puppy. His constant tirades and temper tantrums and acts of violence were horrible to watch on the screen - I can't imagine what misery that man inflicted upon his family and friends.

The question I ask myself is, did his artwork really do that much to bring beauty and loveliness to the world? His creative gifts were more than ruined by the pain and misery he inflicted on those around him.

It struck me that he took his God-given talents and buried them in immaturity and self-absorption and self-pity and self-love. I have no patience and no interest in men (or women) who claim to be creative geniuses, yet make their home life a place of total misery and hellish torment.

I didn't care for the subject or the movie or this pitiful man, but I think the presentation of the story was fairly well done.

I wouldn't recommend it. This movie was very disturbing and depressing. I'd rather invest my time in watching something that inspires and elevates thought.