Traces the turbulent life of the well known artist jackson pollock. Although his wife lee krasner is dedicated to carving pollocks name into art history. Pollock finds himself in a downward spiral that threatens to destroy not only his marriage and promising career but perhaps even his life. Studio: Sony Pictures Home Ent Release Date: 03/06/2007 Starring: Ed Harris Amy Madigan Run time: 122 minutes Rating: R Director: Ed HarrisThe long road to Pollock began when actor Ed Harris received a biography of Jackson Pollock from his father, who noticed that his son bore an uncanny resemblance to the artist. Harris’s fascination with Pollock matched his physical similarity; the actor chose to direct and star in this impressive film biography. And his devotion assured a work of singular integrity, honoring the artist’s achievement in abstract expressionism while acknowledging that Pollock was a tormented, manic-depressive alcoholic whose death at 44 (in a possibly suicidal car crash) also claimed the life of an innocent woman. The film also suggests that Pollock’s success was largely attributable to the devotion of his wife, artist Lee Krasner, played with matching ferocity by Marcia Gay Harden in an Oscar®-winning performance.
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
Related Blogs
- Related Blogs on Pollock
- Paralleling Pollock 1 | Abstract Reality
March 21, 2010
#1
They say that there is a thin line between genius and madness. Unfortunately, it does not follow that if someone is on one side of the line that he / she will ever cross over to the other side. This film is testimony to that.
I do not give this movie 1 star because I think it was poorly done. For what it is, it’s a very well-done film. Ed Harris is fantastic as Pollock, and one can tell he had a passion for this particular part. Val Kilmer barely has a cameo and Jennifer Connelly is only in maybe 10% of the movie {sigh}.
The reason I slam this movie is because I’m not impressed by this artist or his work. I would have found a biographical movie on Ed Harris himself to be much more profound than this guy’s story.
In my family there are two artists: my father and sister. The artistic gene skipped over me entirely as I can barely draw a stick man. That said, I remain unconvinced that I can’t do anything as well as this guy did. Or, to put it another way, any kindergartner could have made random shapes like this guy & called it art. When I think of art I think of Raphael, not this guy.
So, since I had such a low regard for Pollock’s work, I could not help but have little interest in this movie. To me he was nothing but a cop out. That said, I’ll be as fair as I can here: if you happen to be a fan of Pollock’s you’re not going to find a better testimony of his life than this movie. The problem is I’m simply not impressed by that.
March 21, 2010
#2
POLLOCK focusses on the artist Jackson Pollock and his life which eventually spirals into tragic circumstances. We come to learn that Pollock is manic depressive who has the ability to change the moods of everyone around him.
The film was not as engaging as I had hoped. In fact, it was quite frustrating in parts, and to be honest, I was at a loss to see what all the fuss is over his works of art. Am I missing something? His paintings were appalling, in my opinion.
Ed Harris delivers a decent performance of a man whose life wasn’t worth making a movie over.
Yawn!
March 21, 2010
#3
Overwrought biopic of Jackson Pollock that probably wouldn’t have grated on me as much if it hadn’t left me with the suspicion that director/actor Ed Harris considers himself in the same league (i.e., “brilliant and troubled artist”) as his subject. On the one hand, Pollock’s achievement is certainly more debatable than similarly influential painters; on the other hand, it’s rather presumptious of Harris to equate himself with Pollock, debatable stature notwithstanding. (But, natch, this might be something else that the two of them “share”: bigfat egos.) Apparently, the unpleasant task of reminding Amazon customers that Mr. Harris has starred in such high-art movies as *Needful Things*, to use one egregious example, has fallen to little old me. Given the sheen of self-importance in *Pollock*, it seems that Harris needs reminding, as well. Perspective and humility are direly needed. That’s worth repeating: perspective and humility are direly needed. And that extends to the movie’s notions of how Pollock “discovered” his trademark drip technique. Over and above the discovery seeming like a lucky accident, the sequence — in true Hollywood fashion — manages to strip all creative mystery from the thing. “You’ve cracked it wide open!” Pollock’s wife Lee Krasner (Marcia Gay Harden) exults, as if he solved a Rubik’s Cube rather than created a revolutionary new style. Having said all this, the movie has its moments: the interiors of your typical artist’s apartment in the Village back in the 40′s, complete with bathtub in the kitchen . . . the time spent observing Pollock actually paint . . . the unglamorous portrayal of dipsomaniac bingeing . . . and finally the husk of the Has-Been.
March 21, 2010
#4
I have seen several films about Van Gogh, all which were fascinating. In each Van Gogh was a character that was portrayed in a manner that was human and who had ideas and humanity as well as a need to do art. By contrast, Harris’ Pollock lacked any humanity, except for one scene where he takes a dog to a vet. And Pollock didn’t seem to be someone who thought about life at all. He hardly cared about anyone and in the whole movie connected with no one with the exception of his wife, and that was far more a practical relationship than a love relationship. His wife Lee was portrayed as a generally uninteresting person as well. I was not drawn in by the film at all by any of the main characters. Pollock’s gift to the world was his art; who he was and the life he lived were not worth making a movie of if this is the best the story can be told in film.
March 21, 2010
#5
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.