Varietal: Spicy Red
Vintner: Ed Harris
Vintage: 2000
Vineyard: Sony Pictures Classics

by Ariana.


Usually when a seasoned actor finds a story he wants to star in and direct, he either wants to win an Oscar or he REALLY REALLY loves the story. In the case of Ed Harris latest project "Pollock," I think it might be both. Ed Harris picked up Pollock's biography and related so much to the character, he had to play him on screen. HAD TO. When the time came to choose a director, he loved the piece so much he didn't want someone else ruining his pure image. HIS IMAGE. Harris' comfort with the character and love of the story are an obvious part of what makes this film worth seeing. Ofcourse, after seeing some of the behaviour exhibited in the film...I'm not sure, he's someone you'd want to have in your living room or on a hot set....on the other hand, that usually seems to make BIG Hollywood want an actor more (just look at wifebeater Billy Bob Thorton, constantly hospitalized Calista Flockhart. or the ever popular Charlie Sheen...and to think once I too would've worn a cheerleader outfit for him).

Compared to so many movies like Vincent & Theo, All that Jazz, or Surviving Picasso which glorify all of the co-dependance, addictive personalities, selfloathing and even insanity some artists go through, this movie accepts and shows the artist's real life without judgement. The movie takes you through Jackson Pollock's adult life until it's tragic end with no glamourization, and no apologies. Much like his life would be seen through the artists eyes; poverty and the denial that one is living in poverty are perfectly represented. In one scene he splurges on a car, and in the next tries to pay his grocery debts with a painting. Just as many musicians live paycheck to paycheck, Pollock and his wife live literally painting to painting.

Although the movie doesn't even try to examine what created Jackson Pollock's complex nature, it does exhibit all of it. Things which are either excluded or exaggerated in most films are included objectively: Pollock's experiencing premature ejaculation and philandering -certainly an interesting combo, which could definitely get their own film in today's post freudian society...not to mention the scene where the 'artist' pisses in Mrs. Guggenheim's fireplace during a party (personally I had enough of this with Basquiat...my friend and I joke that maybe I'm not a real artist since I have no desire to go to the bathroom in public, in fact I have even less desire to go into public bathrooms, although I hear Joel Shumacher has some sort of thing for this,....hmmmm, maybe I am a real artist).

Jennifer Connelly did a great job playing the pretty and very curvaceous other woman, (although one can be sure she wasn't the only other woman). There's a great scene where Pollock is torn between her and his wife, played by Marcia Gay Harden (who deserves the nomination). After the audience has had only a slight peak at all his wife has done for him, Connelly's character states "but I'm the one who loves you." Ahh, yes to be young and know everything again..... and youth is presented with some realism. The fact that Connelly's character is any way prettier or more glamourous than the wife is not at all as relevant as that she is younger: that she is not his intellectual equal, that in no way is she competing with him nor does he have to live up to any expectations with her. That it makes him an even bigger man in her eyes, that he has become so egomaniacal that he craves an almost childlike love to overcompensate for his secret lack of selfworth. He is the all giving big daddy who knows everything and who doesn't even have to commit to her since to him she is more of an adoring child than an individual or equal.

So, Jackson Pollack was maybe not as loveable as Calder (what girl wouldn't love a man who made you jewelry upon meeting you) or as worldly as DeKoonig, but the movie is worth seeing because it hits a lot of notes that are true in the art world--that is before it became the Gay Bar of the nineties. The film doesn't delve deeply after showing you any of these things, but is instead very reflective of Pollock's art: instead of preaching, it only presents itself for the viewer to take home and think about later.

Interesting notes: the costumes were superb as were the sets, even the details in the foods and dishes they used... The cinematography however, was not as spectacular or innovative as I expected it to be considering Harris obviously had this film running in his mind for quite some time.


back.