I don't know when I discovered Andy Warhol, or how, but I know I was in Junior High. I think I found a book about pop art in the library or something and checked it out. Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans immediately appealed to me. I don't know why. I remember discovering and liking Klaus Oldenburg's soft sculptures as well. And there was also the splatter paintings of Jackson Pollack.

I didn't really like Pollack's art much. I'd seen plenty of work like his in art class coming out of my classmate's paintboxes. And my own. I didn't get it. I didn't have a context in which to place the paintings. I could have done a painting like that, I thought. Anyone could.

Pollack's paintings never did appeal to me. I didn't get it as an adult either. I never really stopped to look at them that closely, or to consider them in any other context other than the original thoughts I had as a child. "Pollock," the film directed by and starring Ed Harris, finally gives me that context.

In the hand of Harris, and of scripters Barbara Turner and Susan Emshwiller, Pollock becomes a unique and interesting figure. Harris takes his time molding the character and exposing many the facets of the man. At first, we think him to be a moron, or at best, an idiot savant. Harris plays him as a mumbling imbecile. But we soon discover more about the artist than just his mental limitations (which might be some sort of odd autism). On the negative cusp of this character, as brought to life by Harris, is a dark and horrific alcoholism that is surely part of whatever mental instability it is that Pollock suffers from. On the positive is a talented and uncompromising artist. Marcia Gay Harden, as artist Lee Krasner, sees only the positive. Becoming Pollock's lover, and eventually his wife, Krasner also acts as agent, cheerleader, cook, comrade and rescuer to the man. Without her, it is obvious he would have died early in an alcoholic stupor and achieved nothing.

"Pollock" as a film is phenomenal even if it is not perfect. The film does not explore Pollock's childhood. His mother, played by Sada Thompson (so good to see her again), and his brothers are very important to Pollock and knowing them and his childhood history seems to be paramount to the story. Harris and his scripters seem to virtually gloss over this. Instead we see his never ending struggle to please his mother with his work and his success. We also see, in a rather startling seen, his need for his older brother's attention. A crucial scene mid-film solidifies this idea. It is one of the many crystalized instances in "Pollock" that magically and, seemingly, simply expose important moments and ideas in Pollock's life. Harris, as a director, is oft times brilliant in his ability to display important moments and ideas simply and perfectly in the film. The first scene in the picture, a slo-mo shot of Harris as Pollock at an opening displays the fascinating idea of a man at the height of his popularity struggling to understand exactly what it all means. Harris does this with one perfect shot, one perfect moment, and it's a moment that is his acting at it's most profound and poignant. It is a moment of depth and vision that proves Harris to be capable of creating a masterpiece on film as both an actor and a director.

Of course, "Pollock" is an actor's film. Harris directs the film with his own performance clearly in mind. But his wonderful use of visuals and cinematics proves he is quite a capable director. Another favorite moment is a scene of Pollock in a wooded area where he is quite possibly coming to the realization that he has lost everything. Harris pulls the camera back physically while zooming in via the lens (a trick originated by Alfred Hitchcock for "Vertigo") and the effect is stunning. Pollock, seemingly still against a horizon, appears to be standing in front of a natural backdrop that is losing it's focus. It's a beautiful and delicate shot. You just have to see it. It looks as if nothing is happening and yet, at the same time, everything is obviously pulling apart, coming loose at the seems. Flux.

And then there is, of course, the defining moment of the film, when Pollock first drips paint. Suddenly it became clear to me how profound and important that moment was, and how major that moment was for art. In a historical context, it's not only simply that Pollock was the first guy to do it, it is that in doing this he broke every rule of art; he exploded every concept that we, as a visual human race, had about art. Pollock, by simply dripping paint onto a canvas, expanded the concept of art. More precisely, he ripped the concept of art to shreds. He exploded and imploded the entire visual sense of the world at the exact same time. In a historical context, it is no surprise that he was considered both a genius and a degenerate. As Warhol would do just a generation later, Pollock expanded the boundaries of what was art, what could be art, and what art meant.

Similarly, the historical context reveals, literally, an American nation coming right out of WWII. As great victors in the world arena, America became a vast homogenized wasteland of suburbs and TV dinners. But right under that uniform existence lay the deep fears of atomic age. Pollock, like any great artist of his time, explored that dark side and insisted on shedding light upon it. If we could bomb an entire city to smithereens, if we could create huge explosions by splitting tiny atoms, then whose to say what art is. In a world where mass destruction seemed as simple as child's play, as simple as pushing a button, Pollock made art seem as simple as child's play. But the result of that child's play was as horrific and as disturbing as the atom bomb itself. In conquering the art of mass destruction, the world carved a place for Jackson Pollock to conquer the art of deconstructing art itself.

And laden too in Pollock's images are themes of anger, confusion, pain and the incomprehension of life itself. Pollock's painting explore beauty by questioning our notion of beauty. And in this deconstruction of beauty lies the beauty of destruction, the beauty of confusion, the beauty of suffering, and the beauty of an incomprehensible existence. In context, Pollock's paintings are much more than mere splatters of paint on canvas. In context, they are more than just an artistic "gimmick."

The end of "Pollock," the movie, is as incomprehensible and as pointless as the death of Jackson Pollock himself. At first disappointed with the end of "Pollock" as a mere filmed representation of a historical event, I now see it as the only logical conclusion to the film. As impenetrable as Pollock was as a human being, his art spoke volumes about him. After deconstructing art, Pollock had nothing left to do but destroy his life and deconstruct himself.

Note:

Also with Bud Cort, Val Kilmer (as William DeKooning), Amy Madigan (as Peggy Guggenheim), Jeffrey Tambor, John Heard, and Jennifer Connelly.

Harris is also a producer here.

Report Card Script: A Acting: A Cinematography\Lighting: A+ Special Effects\Make Up: A+ Music: B+ Final Grade: A

More of Lodger's reviews indexed alphabetically! Just click your favorite letter to go there.

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

HOME