Pollock (2000)

Pollock: Directed by Ed Harris. With Ed Harris, Robert Knott, Molly Regan, Marcia Gay Harden. A film about the life and career of the American painter, Jackson Pollock.

“This film was a major disappointment for me, and is yet another example why you donu0026#39;t put actors in charge. Harris is an earnest enough actor, but a film project in general needs to understand the broader nature of the art of film. When it is a film of another art (dance, music, painting, even film-making itself) it requires an even broader stance. Else what you have is a story about just another schmuck with a messed up life.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThere are so many elements of this story that Harris misses, but two particularly annoy.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eFirst: Art, and painting in particular, consists of producing the actual artifact and simultaneously presenting a narrative about the artist and artifact to the consuming public. Van Gogh was a great painter because of both his work and his brotheru0026#39;s publicizing of the artistu0026#39;s views. A trend in art history focuses more on the accident of the narrative than the talent of the artist, and Pollock is the key example. u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThatu0026#39;s because what really made Pollock was the contemporary film of him painting. His energy. The notion of brushwork so abstract that the brush never even touches the canvas. The notion of isolation from the urban dialog. That film is misplaced in this story as coming late. I recall it came earlier, and was a key in presenting the art. u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eSo whatu0026#39;s missed is the opportunity to focus on Lee as the real artist. Rather than being a sacrificing second-rate painter, she was the real abstract painter: brushwork so abstract she never even touches the brush. And the fact that the seminal film (of the real Pollock) is not exploited in this context is a tragically missed opportunity. Here, it is merely an excuse to fall off the wagon. A simple actoru0026#39;s device rather than a fulcrum for exploring cultural memes.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eSecond: Quite apart from the missed leverage of the historic film noted above, the medium of cinema as painting is completely ignored. Why shouldnu0026#39;t the nature of the film convey, at least in some small measure, the same ideas the paintings have?u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eCompare this to u0026#39;Vincent and Theo,u0026#39; where the pictures on the screen mirror those on the easel. Also u0026#39;The Draghtsmanu0026#39;s Contract?u0026#39; It would have been so easy for us to get a feel of what Pollock intended if the approach to the camera had some of Pollocku0026#39;s feel. Instead we get Aaron Copland? Instead we get a literal, completely composed linear camera perspective? Instead we get something we can understand? Instead we get no management of color and rhythm? Jackson would have vomited.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eNote the logical place for at least a titular statement of style, the sixty seconds or so right before the crash. No luck.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eHow great a film could have been woven around the notion of itself being art and also about art; of being a narrative of art and also a narrative about the narrative of art. Damn, weu0026#39;ll never know now.u003cbr/u003eu003cbr/u003eThis film is not bad because it is bad (like most films), rather it is bad because it is not good.”