[Anmeldelse] 'Pollock' (2000)
Mads Brevik
http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/reviews/pollock.php3
----
Distributor/Company: Sony Pictures Classics / Brant/Allen Production
Director: Ed Harris
Screenplay: Barbara Turner & Susan J. Emshwiller
Director of Photography: Lisa Rinzler
Score: Jeff Beal (end title song by Tom Waits)
Cast: Ed Harris, Marcia Gay Harden, Amy Madigan, Val Kilmer, Jennifer
Connelly
Running time: 122 min.
MPAA Rating: R
"I want to express my feelings rather than illustrate them. Technique is
just a means of arriving at a statement. ... I *can* control the flow of
paint: there is no accident, just as there is no beginning and no end."
Jackson Pollock, (1951)
The world-renown American painter Jackson Pollock (1912-1956) was one of
the pioneers of Abstract Expressionism, a style characterized by its
emphasis on unconscious, free, spontaneous and personal expression. His
semi-abstract, surrealistic works eventually gave way to dynamic 'action
paintings', and in the late 40's he developed his trademark
'drip'-technique, in which paint was dripped or 'thrown' onto the
canvas, forming intricate, linear patterns.
But perhaps it was the man's fragile psyche, not merely the artist, who
attracted Ed Harris to direct his first film and biopic, based on the
book 'Jackson Pollock: An American Saga', by Steven Naifeh and Gregory
White Smith. Harris has chosen a depictive approach, focusing on the
artist's neurotic behaviour, alcoholism, close relationships and
creative moments, rather than on his artistic motivation and
inspiration, or the psychological fuel that drove his self-destructive
behaviour. His approach is also conventional, in the sense that it tells
a typical story about a struggling artist, his turmoils, his desperate
hunger for recognition and untimely death.
The film opens in 1941 in New York City. Pollock (Ed Harris), an unknown
artist at this time, is visited by artist Lee Krasner (Marcia Gay
Harden). She introduces him to art collector and art patron Peggy
Guggenheim, who is impressed by his paintings and decides to exhibit his
art at her fancy Art of This Century Gallery. Pollock also gets
romantically entangled with Krasner, who seem devoted to him despite his
alcoholism and frequent emotional outbursts.
A few years later they marry and move away from the busy city to East
Hampton, Long Island. The tranquil surroundings seem to inspire his
artistic creativity, and he eventually discovers his innovative
drip-technique. A subsequent appearance in Life Magazine marks the
beginning of his rise to fame and the approval that he has so
desperately been seeking. As time goes by, however, he loses confidence
in himself and his own work, he starts drinking heavily again, and his
emotional relationship with Krasner starts to fall apart, while he is
having an open affair with another woman, Ruth Kligman (Jennifer
Connelly).
Director Ed Harris has invested a lot of time (about 10 years) and
energy in this labor of love, and he paints a simple, non-sentimental
portrait of a tormented artist, who only seem to be completely at ease
with himself when he's painting. Harris is excellent and completely
believable in his Oscar-nominated portrayal of Pollock as a neurotic,
frustrated, depressive and often unsympathetic artist. He immerses
himself and handles Pollock's emotional extremes with such care that his
performance never seems over-the-top or fabricated. Harris' first-hand
experience with painting is also evident in many of the film's painting
scenes (underscored by Jeff Beal's engaging and playful music),
particularly the mural-scene, in which Harris paints with a deliberate,
confident and swift hand. Marcia Gay Harden delivers a commendable
performance as the devoted, sympathetic, tough and strong-willed
Krasner. Her Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress was definitely
not undeserved.
The film's strength also lies in its good supporting cast, and its
ability to recreate the mood and feel of a post-depression era, with
struggling artists and spartan, cramped, bohemian surroundings. Amy
Madigan (Harris' wife) is engaging as the eccentric art collector
Guggenheim, Bud Cort is amusing as Putzel, the sweaty art aficionado who
brings Guggenheim's attention to Pollock, and Val Kilmer is fascinating
as the sophisticated, renown artist Willem DeKooning, whom Pollock
respected. Connelly appears late in the film as Kligman, Pollock's
young, luscious lover. Her intelligence, beauty and joy stand in stark
contrast to Pollock, who has now become a drunken, unsympathetic, fat
man. Connelly is not given much screentime, but she still brings a sense
of depth and seriousness to her character, who otherwise might have come
off as a two-dimensional pin-up cliche.
However, Harris' portrait of Pollock is flawed by lacking structure and
depth. Although the screenplay's depictive nature avoids the
conventional (and sometimes failed) 'psycho-analytic' approach seen in a
typical biopic, it also fails to shed sufficient light on some central
issues. What inspired or motivated his artistic drive? Why did he lose
confidence in himself? How did he and his family attempt to cope with
his neurotic problems? None of these questions seem to have been given
proper attention.
Another weakness of POLLOCK has to do with its lack of continuity and
rhythm. Again, I believe the screenwriters have to take some of the
blame here, not only the director or editor. Many of the scenes are good
per se, but the overall structure seems episodic and abrupt, robbing
some of the scenes of their dramatic impact. The last half hour is more
streamlined and focused though, and it flows better than the rest of the
film.
Although many issues are left unattended, the film does reveal a few of
his interesting opinions on art, some of which are expressed in his Life
Magazine interview. When asked for his response to some of his critics,
who have labelled his action paintings as "baked macaroni", he basically
says that they simply need to spend more time watching, and less time
thinking, in order to enjoy his work. When the reporter asks him "When
do you know when you're finished with a painting?", he simply replies,
"How do you know when you're finished making love?".
Overall, POLLOCK is a commendable first-time effort by Harris. I do wish
the first parts of the film had been better structured: By filling these
gaps, Harris could easily have bridged the gap between a 'great' film
and a merely 'good' one. Harris has essentially painted a somewhat
abstract portrait of an abstract painter. And it is a good portrait
worth taking a closer look at.
Rating: 7/10
--
- Mads Brevik - | http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/jc/
"There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in their
home."
-- Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977
Mads Brevik
http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/reviews/pollock.php3
----
portrait of a tormented artist, who seem to be completely at ease with
himself only when he's painting. Harris is excellent and completely
Mads Brevik
http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/reviews/pollock.php3
<Mads, som endelig har sett *alle* filmene til Jennifer Connelly...>
Pål Joakim Olsen
Mads Brevik
Ja, jeg gikk over til et nytt 'system' ganske nylig :) En 1-10 skala er
nok litt mer intuitiv enn en 'terningkast'-skala med inkrementer på 0.5.
Lars J. Aas
Mads Brevik <ma...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
> <Mads, som endelig har sett *alle* filmene til Jennifer Connelly...>
Gratulerer. Nå vil vi ha oppsummering. Hvordan rangeres filmene sett
helt generelt, og hvordan rangeres filmene når man har en Jennifer
Connelly-fiksering?
Lars J
--
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.
Mads Brevik
>
> In article <3B788113...@pvv.ntnu.no>,
> Mads Brevik <ma...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > <Mads, som endelig har sett *alle* filmene til Jennifer Connelly...>
>
> Gratulerer. Nå vil vi ha oppsummering. Hvordan rangeres filmene sett
> helt generelt, og hvordan rangeres filmene når man har en Jennifer
> Connelly-fiksering?
Hva er det du egentlig forsøker å antyde her? At jeg er såpass naiv at
jeg kaster all kritisk sans ut vinduet bare fordi Connelly - en av mine
favorittskuespillere - er med i filmen? (har du i det hele tatt lest
omtalene mine?) Eller at omtalene er ment å være 'objektive'? (objektive
rangeringer finner du i de Olympiske Leker) Dersom du er interessert i
en 'oppsummering' kan du lese omtalene på hjemmesiden min.
Lars J. Aas
Mads Brevik <ma...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
> "Lars J. Aas" wrote:
> > In article <3B788113...@pvv.ntnu.no>,
> > Mads Brevik <ma...@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote:
> > > <Mads, som endelig har sett *alle* filmene til Jennifer Connelly...>
> >
> > Gratulerer. Nå vil vi ha oppsummering. Hvordan rangeres filmene sett
> > helt generelt, og hvordan rangeres filmene når man har en Jennifer
> > Connelly-fiksering?
>
> Hva er det du egentlig forsøker å antyde her?
Ingen ting. Jeg lurte på hvordan de rangeres som filmer (som er det
dine anmeldelser gir svar på), og hvordan de rangeres om man skal se
dem pga at man har en Jennifer Connelly-fiksering :) Det var forsåvidt
ganske fleipete ment, men jeg ser jeg ikke slengte med noen smileys for
å gjøre det klinkende klart.