Pollock

Rating:
Summary: A Tortured Soul, But Why?
Review: Ed Harris portrays Jackson Pollock in this biography of the artist. Pollock was a tortured soul, no doubt. What this film does not answer, or even attempt to answer, is why? I know I might be asking too much, but I prefer a film that forwards a position. Why was he tortured? Marcia Gay Harden portrays Pollocks wife, and it is not a flattering portrayal. She comes across as difficult as Pollock. Perhaps I expect too much "Hollywood" from this film, but with whom am I supposed to sympathize?

By the way, Val Kilmer, as always, if awful. Why does he still get roles?

As for the DVD extras, the interview with Charlie Rose is interesting, even if Rose's idiosyncracies distract.

The "Making Of" neither adds nor subtracts from the film.

If you like the movie, buy the DVD, but don't expect awe-inspiring DVD extras. They are not here.

Rating:
Summary: An intense journey into the world of a first-class artist
Review: I was not a great fan of Jackson Pollock's work up until I saw this marvelous movie. Ed Harris does a brilliant job of bringing Pollock's life and personality to the screen. Also worthy of praise is Marcia Gay Harden, for her strong performance that is completely on par with Harris. This film is intense, funny, heart-breaking, and eye-opening all in the same breath and the way that Harris can show the immense urgency of the creative process is astounding. Most artists will tell you that there comes a moment when working, that nothing else in the world matters, you focus on nothing but the work, and you feel completely free from any earthly restraints. Even if you're not an artist, you will understand that feeling from watching this film. It's too bad that amazing films, such as this one, don't come along very often.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Film. Well Made and Well Acted
Review: I would highly recommend this to all Art students. Films like this come along rarely, so take advantage. Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden are both quite convincing. The film is pretty much based on fact. As an artist I enjoy creativity, whether it be painting ,acting, or whatever. This film satisfies on several levels. Jackson Pollock and Willem De Kooning were both inspirational to me as a young painter. Pollock was a genius tormented, as so many great artists have been. But, don't focus on his destructive forces, focus on that magnificent body of work that he created.

Rating:
Summary: vivid scenes painted with darkness
Review: Jackson Pollock was a painter who invented and perfected a style that rocked the NY art scene in the late forties and early nineteen fifties. His dedication for his work was downright manic. Except when he seemed to hit some lulls and became downright depressed. At that time in the mental health field it was a syndrome that was not treated in the same way that it was now and if it were Mr. Pollock might not have created the work that he did. In the movie, the word bi-polar or manic-depressant does not come up, but you see him work as well as shut mentally down often in this film. You also see the ugly side of alcohol and what it does to people who are allready unstable. Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden are absolutely wonderful and their acting really shines. The movie also brings to light the works of Mr. Pollock and the time that he lived.

Rating:
Summary: If you've ever wonder what Modern Art was about...
Review: About twenty minutes into Pollock I realised Ed harris is a better director than James Cameron. Now I see why he was so upset working on The Abyss -- he wasn't afraid of drowning. Of course some of you will scoff, and some of you will say (rhetorically) "could he be any worse?".

But seriously, this was the kind of project that an actor/director could really stink up.

He didn't. This is one of those movies that inspires you to go out and paint. For once I can see the significance of the artist's vision, his insecurities, his conceptual breathrough, and the inevitable conclusion it leads us to. Sure there are some "bumps" -- some uneven moments; insecurities... Too bad, it still works.

Of course, I don't know how much of it is word-for-word true, but Harris put it together and made a film anyone could be proud of. His supporting team was pretty impressive, too. I won't name them (more fun if you just see them -- Val Kilmer is a hoot), but they rose to the occaision. And they had a good script to go with.

After reading and hearing the dry descriptions, pretensious criticism, and the "my kid could do that" nonsense that Modern Art has be saddled with, "Pollock" comes out kicking and punching -- do you want your kid doing that? How *do* you descript a Pollock painting?

One moment in particular stays in my mind: Harris riding a bycyle and drinking a beer. I won't spoil it, but I was stunned at how fast he could turn my emotions around on me.

One dissapointment: Harris's commentary. Ed, shut up. Of course this might just be me.

Otherwise, brilliant. Flawed, but brilliant. And a bargain at twenty bucks.

Rating:
Summary: Not a masterpiece, regretfully
Review: This project is very self-fulfilling for Ed Harris and anyone related to him. I know now why Harris and Madigan were so bent on protesting Elia Kazan: they're just jealous 'cause they can't make a movie more coherent than a jelly bean. I wanted to like this film--I really did--but something kept me from truly enjoying it. One aspect that held me back was the editing: this baby needed to be cut down a little. Like I said, it's very fulfilling for Harris, but if it's not stimulating to the general viewer--only to the defend-to-the-death obsessed with Jack the Dripper fans--then it's not worth putting in your dastardly long quasi-wannabe biography. Harris needed to decide whether he was doing a biopic or a movie featuring the life of a real person: and yes, there is a major difference there. The lengthiness would have been relieved, as well as those fits of boredom areas. This film does have several A+ scenes, which make it sort of worth watching if you have two and a half hours that seem like eternity to spend. Most of the great scenes feature Marcia Gay Harden, who was perfect in this movie and quite deserving of the Oscar; actually the cast wasn't really that bad, they just drove themselves into the duldroms by the last third of the movie and became lifeless. Even Harris wasn't that great by the end--he was probably the weakest link of the movie. Like I said, Harden was excellent, and Madigan wasn't that bad either [I know, shocker, huh?] so...what am I getting at? Oh yeah, go watch a real biography of Pollock if you're that interested in him.

Rating:
Summary: Pollock
Review: Very inspirational for any artist! Best movie I've seen yet for losening up the creative spirit. Ed Harris as Jackson Pollock conveys an energy that relates to the artist, both the feeling of being a failure as well as being a god!

Rating:
Summary: Great Performances!
Review: In the era of teenyboper movie stars who probably can't drive cars or order alcohol yet, it is nice to see a movie driven by the performances of two increadible actors. Both Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden have taken the time to perfect their artform and are far from the smiling faces visibly reading notecards off camera that we have all become so used to seeing. In fact, watching this film is a visual feast because it suggests (even if it doesn't always hit the mark itself) what a movie is capable of becoming if competent actors are employed.

The story of Jackson Pollock is not a particularly satisfying one. With most artists, there is a violent debate over which handful out of the masses of talented people are going to be recognized as the ones who really shaped the creative directions of their time. This debate is especially interesting when it comes to Jackson Pollock, whose drip style of painting has many people convinced he was a no-talent ... who simply coasted by on what amounted to a "The emperor has no clothes" type of trick. For whatever reason, I personally have always enjoyed Pollock's paintings, so this side of Pollock's story is not particularly compelling for me. However, it does represent a direction the movie could have taken but chose not to. It is clear that Harris chose not to construct a metaphorical representation of the man that tried to articulate and explain his importance as an artist, but instead elected to present Pollock as he actually was. That is, in an unflattering light. In a sense, this choice is a testament not only to Pollock's reputation as an artist, but the strength of his personality, for at the end of the movie it is clear that the filmakers believe we will see him as a brilliant man despite the fact that they bombarded us with two hours of almost exclusively the lowest moments of his life.

In a way, the brutally honest handling of Pollock does allow the audience to get deep inside his head. The chaos of his personal life is sort of reflected in his bizarre and abstract works, though this is not a connection the movie strains to make. In fact, the movie never strains at all, which is what is so appealing about it, it is almost entirely non-manipulative. Or if it does manipulate, it does so in the direction opposite from that which would most benifit the picture. The decision was to present Pollock the man not Pollock the artist, and the motivation seems to be that you get one with the other.

Not enough can be said about Harris' performance. He is so totally immersed in the role that even his energetic painting scenes seem totally authentic. Imagine an actor pretending to be Jimi Hendrix playing the guitar and you'll recognize the difficulty. There are some icons that are so indellibly planted in our consciousness that any falseness in their representation is immediately apparent. The real revelation is Marcia Gay Harden, both for her performance and the complexity of the character she plays. Again, there is a strong authenticity to her role as the woman who basicly took care of everything in Pollock's life so that he could concentrate, some might say selfishly, entirely on his work. One might ask if freeing up the man so that he can be in such frequent undistracted contact with his inner demons was actually benifical to him, or humanity in general.

All in all, there are some times when this film is rather slow and begins to lose the attention of its viewers. Anybody who has any background in art should not miss it however as it does provide a wonderful opportunity to familiarize the events of Pollock's life and make your own decision about their worthiness.

Rating:
Summary: Not enough recognition in real life or otherwise..
Review: Having been a fan of Jackson Pollock for many years, I was looking forward to seeing this film but prepared for a slightly over-blown biography. Much to my suprise, this film was intense, thought provoking and visually amazing from start to finish.

This movie grabs a hold of you at the very beginning and although you expect the "tortured-artist angle" for some reason, it doesn't become cliche in this film. You are taken on a journey of Jackson Pollock's rise to fame and ultimate self destruction. It is truly fascinating to watch his paintings, character and relationships evolve throughout the years. It is interesting that his technique changes and art content almost mirror his personal life. I have always wondered how his "splatter technique" came to be and with this film you get an absolute sense of how it was possible for him to get to this level.

I was also pleasantly suprised to see how much time and energy was focused on his relationship with his wife, Lee Krasner who in her own right is a great American artist.

Ed Harris does a superb job in both the title role and as director. The entire cast does an exceptional job and in my opinion, should have received more attention than it did from both the critics and the academy.

There is the typical artist+alcohol+women=tragedy storyline but it is kept within reason as far as I am concerned giving you enough information to understand the artist for who he was, addictions and all without becoming melodramatic.

I am not well versed on Jackson Pollocks life and am not sure how much artistic license was taken in creating the story, however, it seems that everyone involved with this film took great care to get the story right..again, not flashy and melodramtic just real life. It is very apparent that Ed Harris reserched this and took his time in order to get it "just right". Which is exactly what he did.

Overall this is an excellent representation of an American Icon who does not get the credit he deserves in the Art World. It is a great tribute to both his creative mind and his downfalls.

Rating:
Summary: Extraordinary performances, Superb Period Feel
Review: It is easy to see how Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden managed to receive Oscar attention despite this being a non-box office film. Harris is one of the most dependable and versatile actors in Hollywood. He is always first rate in all his performances, and is one of those rare actors who can play drama or comedy, action or suspense. He can be a despicable villain, or a hero. But despite his impressive acting resume, this performance is the highpoint of his career. Harris is always good, but he has never been this good before. There are times he is so convincing in his role that it is a little creepy.

Marcia Gay Harden, on the other hand, despite a brilliant beginning to her screen career in the Coen Brothers MILLER'S CROSSING, has been somewhat hidden for the past decade (though she has been in several films since this film was released). POLLOCK demonstrates that this has been our great loss. She nails perfectly her role as Pollock's wife, lover, mother, friend, therapist, fellow artist, and greatest fan and promoter. I must say, however, that I am somewhat perplexed by her winning the Oscar. It isn't that her performance wasn't good enough, but her role in this movie just doesn't seem to fit the Best Supporting Actress category. I think she should have been nominated in the Best Actress category instead.

In addition to Harris and Harden, this film was dominated by canvases. Watching Harris work with brush and canvas was a constant delight in this film. I suppose that if you took a magnifying glass to Pollock's canvases, or if you are an expert on his paintings, you could uncover a host of painting errors in the film, but to my eye this was easily the most convincing performance by an actor as a painter actually engaged in the act of painting that I know.

Most of the movies I see set in the forties and fifties seem oddly glamorized and stylized. But this film's forties and fifties are intensely realistic. The art direction was subtle yet superb. I especially enjoyed a small scene where Pollock goes grocery shopping in the small town near his new Long Island house. The products on the shelves were just perfect. I really did feel that I was gaining a glimpse into the world of my parents.

I don't think this is quite a 5 Star film for one reason: like Pollock's paintings themselves, which at the urging of Clement Greenberg (marvelously portrayed by Jeffrey Tambor--Greenberg, one of the greatest art critics of the past half century, was both Pollock's most intelligent advocate and perceptive critic) were all about surface, the film is only about the surface of Pollock's life. His inner demons exploded onto the surface of his life, but where did those demons come from? Why was he so painfully shy? Why was he driven to drink so much all his adult life? From what did his erratic behavior stem (such as his bizarre Gene Krupa-like drumming on his food upon learning that his brother was moving to Connecticut)? Unless it was the intention of the filmmakers to stay on the surface of Pollock's life in analogy to his paintings, these are questions that needed answers. Contrast this to the incredible and tragically neglected film THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, about the relationship in the 1930s between a Texas school teacher (marvelously portrayed by a pre-JERRY McGUIRE Renee Zellweger) and pulp fiction writer and creator of Conan the Barbarian Robert E. Howard (Vincent D'Onofrio, in a performance fully as powerful as Harris's in this film). In this film, we also have a character who is a victim of inner turmoil, but unlike POLLOCK, the film provides a wide range of suggestions as to why Howard behaves in the ways that he does.

But, while this film may stay on the surfaces, as did Pollock with his canvases, at least in both instances they are brilliant surfaces.