Pollock

In many respects a traditional biopic, Pollock begins in 1941 when Pollock meets Krasner, who encourages him and attracts the attention of supportive critic Clement Greenberg (Jeffrey Tambor) and benefactor Peggy Guggenheim (Amy Madigan). As Pollock rises from obscurity to international acclaim, Harris brings careful balance to his portrayal of a driven creator who found peace during those brief, sober periods when art brought release from his tenacious inner demons. The film offers sympathy without sentiment, appreciation without misguided hagiography. As an acting showcase it's utterly captivating. As a compassionate but unflinching exploration of Jackson Pollock's intimate world, there's no doubt that Harris captured the essence of a man whose life was as torturous as his art was redeeming. --Jeff Shannon

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.


The tortured soul of a great artist   May 5, 2001
Michael J. Mazza (Pittsburgh, PA USA)
21 out of 22 found this review helpful

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."


Great Performances!   August 5, 2001
Dellin Canfield (dellincanfield@hotmail.com) (Boulder, CO.)
15 out of 17 found this review helpful

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.


I Still Wanted More Information   August 13, 2002
Francis J. Mcinerney (Commonwealth)
12 out of 13 found this review helpful

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.


One Of The Best Films Of The Decade!   September 11, 2002
Barron Laycock (Temple, New Hampshire United States)
12 out of 15 found this review helpful

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!