Customer Reviews

Pollock (Special Edition)

5 star:		(50)
4 star:		(36)
3 star:		(12)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

American painter Jackson Pollock (1912-56) was a revolutionary figure in 20th century art. The film "Pollock" tells the story of his successes, setbacks, and inner torment. Directed by Ed Harris, who also plays the title role, this is very effective portrait of the man and the artist.

Excellent performances are also turned in by the supporting cast. Marcia Gay Harden is amazing as Lee Krasner, Pollock's wife and fellow painter; Harden is intelligent, sexy, passionate, and driven in this difficult role. Another standout performance comes from Amy Madigan, as art patron Peggy Guggenheim; Madigan creates an intriguingly creepy portrait of a powerful woman.

But this is Harris' film, and he is triumphant in the title role. His Pollock is the quintessential "tortured artist." But Harris rises above this cultural stereotype to create a complex, unsettling portrait of Pollock. Particularly magical are the scenes where Harris/Pollock is painting; these scenes are superbly complemented by Jeff Beal's musical score. And Harris is truly frightening when Pollock's inner rage finally spills out.

Ultimately, I see Ed Harris' "Pollock" as an important meditation on the role of a visionary artist in a society that is obsessed with consumption and profit. If you are interested in modern art or in good filmmaking, check out "Pollock."

Based on "Jackson Pollock: An American Saga" by Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith, this film is a portrait of a destructive, self indulgent man who though brilliant, was nonetheless a double-distilled jerk. Was it self-interest that motivated the ambitious Lee Krasner to stay with him ? Perhaps the need to nurture, and be a part of a talent greater than hers ? Who can tell what drives such complex relationships, and had she not been at his side, it is doubtful that he would have achieved his current place in art history; perhaps it was a fated, infernal partnership, all for art's sake.

Ed Harris as director and actor brought this story to life with believability and his chemistry with Marcia Gay Harden is superb; he received Oscar nomination for Best Actor, and she won for Best Supporting Actress, and both deservedly so. There is a fight scene towards the end of the film that is so real it sounds as if it is actually happening. I find myself lowering the volume, so my neighbors don't call the police.
Also excellent is Sada Thompson as Pollock's mother, and Amy Madigan (Mrs. Ed Harris in real life) as Peggy Guggenheim.

The cinematography, set, and costume design all capture the look of mid 20th century America, and the soundtrack by Jeff Beal is lovely; I particularly like the sprightly theme that seems sometimes to connect one scene to another.
I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the depiction of the creative process, like when he discovered his drip technique, and also loved the representation of the 1950 exhibit at the Betty Parsons Gallery, with the final camera shot zooming into the paint itself.
Though he struggled long and hard for fame, once it was his, he said "I feel like a clam without a shell". Lee survived him by by 28 years, and hopefully, found some peace and joy in life, along with the wonderful work she was to do once on her own.
This is not something to view on a date night, or for fun, but it is a fascinating film, especially for someone in the arts.

Ed Harris deserved the Best Actor trophy for Pollock over the heavily hyped Russell Crowe, who should have won last year for The Insider. And I even thought there might be a chance he'd win when the sublime Marcia Gay Harden beat the equally deserving (but younger, with a brighter future) Kate Hudson.

This film, based on the life and death of Jackson Pollock, is an acting paradise. Harris and Harden are both given ample scenery to chew, and Harris ups the ante by giving us a performance that not only shows the desperation and suffering in Pollock's life, but the peace he felt when he painted. And those painting scenes are so full of energy that it's easy to believe that Jackson Pollock is up there on the screen, painting yet another masterpiece.

If you're a fan of Pollock himself, there will be much for you to enjoy here, and even if you're not, you'll have the chance to see two of the best performances of the year.

The romantic notion of suffering for one's art has been cinematically rendered in countless films, depicting the lives of real life artists ranging from Van Gogh to Camille Claudel to Beethoven to Jim Morrison to Rimbaud; but rarely has a film penetrated as deeply as "Pollock," directed by and starring Ed Harris as the abstract painter Jackson Pollock. The story begins in 1941 and chronicles Pollock's life until the early `50s. It's a vivid, and at times grim portrait of a true artist struggling for recognition, as well as with the inner demons that plague his soul and are reflected in his art and the way he lives his life. It is said that the artist "sees" the world differently than the average person, which may be true; and it is that unique "vision" that sets the artist apart. And Pollock was no exception to the rule.

As romantic as it may sound, the reality of suffering for one's art is just that: Suffering. For realizing that vision and bringing it to fruition is more often than not an arduous and tortuous path to tread. Coalescing the fragments of that vision and transferring that information into reality can be a painful process, and one of the strengths of this film is that it so succinctly conveys that sense of desperation and frustration that are seemingly an intrinsic part of "creating." There's a scene in which Pollock, after having been commissioned to do a mural, sits on the floor of his studio with his back against the wall staring for days on end at the blank canvas stretched across the room, waiting for that spark of inspiration, that sudden moment when what he must do will crystallize in his mind's eye. It's a powerful, intense scene that allows you to share that creative process with the artist and experience the emotional turmoil of it, as well as the exhilaration of the moment when it all suddenly becomes clear, when the vision is realized. It's a stunning moment; Pollock's face fills the screen and you actually see it in his eyes, the exact moment of discovery. And it's absolute magic.

As Pollock, Ed Harris gives arguably the best performance of his career; he perfectly captures every emotional level of this complex individual, from the manic highs and lows (exacerbated by alcohol consumption) to the neutral moments in between. He totally immerses himself in the character, and what surfaces is a thorough and memorable picture of a tortured genius and flawed human being. It's an astounding piece of work, for which he most certainly should have taken home the Oscar for Best Actor.

Marcia Gay Harden received the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Lee Krasner, the woman who loved Pollock and devoted herself (even at the expense of her own career as an artist) to the man and his art. It's a terrific performance, through which Harden brings Lee to life, physically and emotionally. Her amount of screen time seemingly should have qualified her for a Best Actress nomination, but regardless, her work here is unquestionably deserving of the Oscar.

The supporting cast includes Amy Madigan (Peggy Guggenheim), Jennifer Connelly (Ruth), Jeffrey Tambor (Clement), Bud Cort (Howard), John Heard (Tony), Sada Thompson (Stella Pollock) and Val Kilmer (Willem de Kooning). Harris' triumph with "Pollock" does not begin and end with his extraordinary performance, however; though his acting is so exceptional it would be easy to overlook the brilliant job of directing he did with this film. And it is brilliant. The way this film is presented is the work of not only a seasoned professional, but of a professional artist with a unique vision of his own. One of the best films of the year (2000), hopefully it will in the future receive the acclaim of which it is so richly deserving. Hopefully, as well, Harris will direct again; for it is talent like his, and films like this one, that expand the Cinematic Universe as we know it.

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.

Such words may seem ironic when referring to the drip king of painting who bridled at any suggestion of "accident" in his work, but in Mr Harris' portrait of the artist there is a well rounded and sympathetic appreciation of all aspects of his work and life so that one for example does not come away feeling his family were unsympathetic, or that critics were fools, or that he, the artist, was another misunderstood genius and victim of an intolerant society. Mr Harris is very good at establishing cinematically relevant points with economy - the initial seduction by Ms Krasner, the dynamics of family at table, the imperatives of the alcoholic who has to have a sip whilst being embraced by his wife. He is also playing the role, and relies on his considerable acting skills to depict ageing rather than rely on makeup. Finally, we come away with an understanding of the artistic process of Mr Pollock who, if the writers are to be believed, would sit staring at a blank canvas for weeks, months, then explode in a frenzy of artistic energy. All in all, an excellent film in the difficult biopic genre.

Jackson Pollock, if this movie is to be believed, was a brilliant man whose talents were sometimes obscured by his depression and alcoholism. Ed Harris apparently spent a decade developing this film; I believe it. He gives a brave performance that made him a worthy nominee for Best Actor. Marcia Gay Harden also richly deserved her Oscar for playing Pollock's long-suffering wife, who stays with him literally thick and thin. The "You need, you need, you need" scene was all it took for me to know that her performance was going to be incredibly strong. As for the DVD, its an attractive package: the picture isn't as clear as I would have liked, but there is an excellent commentary by Harris himself, as well as a featurette and an interview with Harris, who discusses the movie. I saw this film simply because Harris was a contender for Best Actor, and I got much more than what I bargained for. "Pollock" is a great film that deserves 2 hours of your time.

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.

This well-acted film about abstract artist Jackson Pollock is such an obvious labor of love for director/star Ed Harris that it hurts me to report that, while it is excellent as an acting excercise, it is rather sketchy (no pun intended) as a biography. Harris (who appears to have added some pounds to his usually wiry frame a la DeNiro in "Raging Bull") completely absorbs himself in the role, reminiscent of Kirk Douglas' tortured Van Gogh in "Lust For Life". Marcia Gay Harden delivers a star-making performance as Pollock's wife, and Harris' real-life wife Amy Madigan is a hoot as the eccentric art patron Peggy Guggenheim. The film is flawed, however, in the part of the story it DOESN'T tell; namely, what happened to Pollock to make him so tortured? We are only presented with symptoms of mental illness (alcholic binges, psychotic outbursts, manic-depressive moodswings), but there is no attempt to explain what the triggers are. Pollock is shown in some scenes as being lucid and engaging, yet in others he appears oddly stilted and almost autistic. That quibble aside, this is still a compelling and worthwhile film; the scene in which Pollock makes his "breakthrough" is quite inspiring and worth the price of admission alone.

Jackson Pollock was a complex man. He was the youngest of five boys, born to a domineering mother who was never happy and a father who tried to provide for them. As an adult, his paintings would take him from obscurity to fame, although it did not happen right away. Yet, before he found fame and after, he seemed hell bent on his own destruction. This film took Ed Harris 15 years to get to the screen. He called it a labor of love and it is worth a look. The relationship with his mother is never clearly known, but the few scenes she is in, there is tension. His relationship with his wife is a roller coaster. After they married and movied out to Long Island, there was a period of about two years that he sobered up and was prolific in his work. But as he found fame, the pressure became too much. He started reading his press clippings and things with his wife and his family went down hill from there. He was a womanizer both before and during his marriage and an alcoholic. Lee Krasner, his wife refused to have children with him because he was hard enough to take care of. The film is the study of a human being sttruggling to find his own identity, and at the same time so consumed with his demons that he is impossible to live with or deal with. When many would have given up, Lee Krasner stuck with him and loved him. You can see where the film is going and how it is going to end, but don't let that discourage you from this interesting film, filled with great actors. You can tell by the detail that is put in the film, that Harris truly loved every minute of doing it.