Never Seen It #229: Pollock

To whom shall I hire myself out? / What blog must I adore? / What holy image is attacked? / What hearts must I break? / What of the 400 movies I've never seen before? / What lie must I maintain? / And, what blood shed?

Pollock

2000

Ed Harris

Thanks to all those from Group C who were able to check out this week's Film Club movie and write about it. If you missed the deadline, check out what your peers wrote, and then hop down into the comments!

~~~~~~~~~~

Walter

The depiction of Jackson Pollock in the 2000 movie portrays him as someone who loved nature. His paintings were natural and he thrived in nature, felt serenity in nature. Everyone around him was the opposite of natural—fake and soul sucking through criticism, pomp, and consumerism. Their love for his art only lasted as long as they felt it was novel enough to pontificate over whatever concept they were trying to draw out of him. Perhaps they were jealous, insecure, and ungrateful for creativity. Unfortunate for Pollock, and so many other artists, that this attention drove him into the same darkness of those around him. Except for Lee—she knew how to create a buffer around him for some time. She felt Pollock's creativity in his painting and in his tender soul. And although she bolstered his creations to help them make a living, she never expected much other than Pollock's love, for which he could give naturally as long as consumer culture didn't penetrate the buffer that Lee tried so hard to defend around Pollock.

This movie drew me in more than I expected. Well-written, casted, and directed, I give this a 90% rating, only because I didn't cry. Maybe I wasn't in the mood for a cry, but typically a 100% moving would draw this out of me. Nevertheless, I'm glad this was picked, and recommend it for anyone who struggles with the multitudes of personalities that humans bear when caught up in with one another. This movie reminds us that creativity is nature, and nature is creativity—don't take either for granted.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maeve

"How do you know when a painting is finished?" is a question asked in this movie and "how do you make such an interesting and talented person seem boring?" is what I repeatedly asked while watching it. Maybe it's that most of Pollock's life wasn't new information to me, but I kept wanting more. Although, I guess they did a great job of depicting depression. There are several moments where we see Pollock just stop and stare, my guy is going through it. I find biopics hard to rate, since the plot is just someone's life, it can't take risks or narrative spins. There's no way this would have ended with him dying in a car crash with his girlfriend if it wasn't true to history. I don't really know what point I'm trying to make here. Although, I do think the whole movie is perfectly cast. 

This movie made me revisit the works of Pollock, which I've always enjoyed. If you haven't seen one of his paintings in person, I'd highly recommend it—pretty much every art museum in NYC has one (although, as shown in the movie, I'm sure Peggy wishes the Guggenheim had exclusivity). It was thrilling in the movie when he finally "found" his style. As someone who has worked for artists in many ways (studio manager, assistant, gallerist), one of the moments that rang the most true was when Jackson finds success and can't stop talking about himself, his work, and how famous he is, making everything about him. To be an artist is to be delusional. 

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about the art business. Not just because it is genuinely part of my day-to-day, but I just read this fascinating non-fiction book: Get the Picture by Bianca Bosker. The author begins by stating how she doesn't really "get" art or know how to feel when she's looking at works, whether they're famous works or by grad students. She fully immerses herself in the industry, going to nonstop openings, working for artists as an assistant, working for two types of galleries, talking to blue chip collectors, and eventually working as security at the Guggenheim. I cannot recommend it enough for anyone looking to learn about the industry or also just understand art in a broad sense. Plus, it's the first time I've done the "Leo pointing at the tv screen" meme while reading. You mean everyone does cost analysis relative to travel expenses sheets for the Miami fairs and tries to find room in the margins?! 

Not the point at all, and yes, Pollock's life and works are fascinating and made even far more interesting by his shocking death, but I would have loved a movie about de Kooning instead. I prefer his work (more aesthetically captivating to me), and his life is also worthy of an on-screen adaptation. Is it asking too much for them to go back in time and spin off this movie with Val Kilmer reprising his role?

GRADE: 3 out of 5

~~~~~~~~~~

Joe

I told myself that I'd be satisfied if the film spoke to the Why of Jackson Pollock. Even if it was a bad movie, I'd still appreciate the experience if it helped me see why this guy is an artist whose name I know and whose genre I can recall easily. I can close my eyes and visualize the type of painting that Pollock is famous for making. Why?

Pollock answers the question by not answering it. That's about as abstract an explanation as I can give. Pollock says something along the lines of: it comes from within. And so the film does the best job that it can in exploring Pollock's "within," which is basically not very much, since he was the type of person who kept a lot inside. The film ultimately lands on the idea that some people are just unknowable. Pollock also attempts to explain his art as looking at a bed of flowers, and appreciating the beauty without wondering why. I buy it, and I really can look at a painting and appreciate it without thinking about why... but sometimes, I just want to know Why, ya know? I've always wanted to know Why with Jackson Pollock. What makes his work special? I'm not a naysayer, I sincerely want to know.

Are we then supposed to apply the "bed of flowers" argument to Pollock the 2000 film too? I don't think so. I think we probably get a sufficient sense of the Why for this thing, the more I think about it. First, Ed Harris was inspired by Pollock's biography enough to want to make this his passion project, and he producers, directs, and stars. He does all the painting in this film himself! That's enough right there, even without considering how enigmatic a figure Jackson Pollock the real person was. It's not surprising that we are watching a film about "a troubled genius," since those stories play well on screen. I appreciate the fact that the film didn't overdo it, containing that troubled genius to a tight two hours.

And Pollock does the heavy lifting in letting you know that this is Important Art coming from a deep Source of Inspiration. When Pollock has a breakthrough, we hear a jaunty little musical motif alerting us to the fact that something Special is happening here. Pollock doesn't manage to sufficiently explain to me why the paintings themselves are special, but it does a great job in making it feel like they are special anyway.

Here's something that's probably important, due to the non-fictional nature of this thing: Jackson Pollock seemed like an asshole. This seemed like a real and honest depiction. Also something that I felt to be real and true was the scene where he and his wife / fellow abstract painter Lee Krasner discuss the (im)possibility of having a child was unique for this type of film. Krasner splits the difference between two clichés. It's not that she's willing to acquiesce to Pollock's every demand because he's a genius, and it's not that she's a constant impediment on his genius because she cannot handle is unruly behavior. It's more that she acknowledges how important of an artist he is, and puts up with his shit because of that, but only to a point. She doesn't want to cross the line, and a baby would be crossing it. I felt like this was indicative of Pollock painting (sorry) a real and true picture of Pollock. He was complicated, and the film makes him seem rightfully complicated.

But was he a good painter? The film wants you to walk away from this experience thinking that he was, and I certainly don't know enough about abstract expressionism to argue this fact. I also don't think the film was beholden to giving any concrete answers as to Why he's considered a good painter. I traveled outside the text to figure out why, and got a lot of answers. Could be that he was just the first to do it, and that's what makes him important. Could be that he accidentally created paintings that act as fractals, which represent the fractals we see in nature, which is subconsciously soothing to the human eye. Could be that the CIA purposefully elevated Pollock's commercial appeal so as to combat socialist art during the Cold War.

Or it could be that it really is just like a bed of flowers, just like the man said. I appreciate the beauty. I do! Maybe I'm not there completely with paintings, but I'm definitely there with movies. I see a work of art like Pollock and I don't necessarily need the Why. Its meaning comes from within, and is inexplainable.

GRADE: 3.5 pukes out of 5

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kait

There are four scenes in this movie that I keep thinking about. First, when Jeffrey Tambor's character both antagonizes Jackson Pollock and makes an astute observation about Pollock when critiquing one of his paintings for being too blue. Pollock hears the comment, grabs the painting from his country shed, and then stands it in the middle of the living room ready to make it less blue with white paint. But then Pollock pauses and cannot bring himself to do so, even though clearly outraged by the critique and desperate for the validation. Tambor's character says something along the lines of how the only thing sacred to Pollock is his art—not anyone else, not anyone's feelings, just his art. That is the only thing he will not destroy, and man, did that stick with me. Art being the most precious thing to this tortured artist makes sense. It is also painful to watch when those around him treat him as a sacred painting, yet he cannot do the same for anyone. Not even himself! It has me thinking about sacredness, what or who is deemed most dear and what in our lives leads us to protect certain but not all things. How heartbreaking to watch fellow artist and Pollock's wife, Lee Krasner, believe in him, challenge him, support him, LOVE him, and for him to be wholly incapable of reciprocity. Perhaps no love is sacred when one never felt love as a child. Perhaps no love is sacred when you're an asshole. Perhaps love could be sacred but addiction and ego get in the way. Let's just throw it all on a canvas and see what sticks!  

The next scene I cannot get out of my head is when Pollock goes berserk on Lee when she says she doesn't want to have a child with him. He pushes and pushes and gets angrier and angrier until finally Lee explodes about how he's so damn needy. There's no way she could even raise a child if she wanted to because all of her time and energy goes to taking care of HIM. And I LOVE when she yelled right back at him making it damn clear that he cannot take and take and take from her. How oblivious can he be to his severe shortcomings and then also have the audacity to demand she birth a child because that's what married people do? Infuriating. I felt every single syllable Lee articulated in that scene. What a powerhouse performance by Marcia Gay Harden, which earned her the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. 

Third scene I keep thinking about is when Pollock is full on alcoholic again and bursts into the house to lose his mind on Lee, Tambor's character, and I think Tambor's character's wife. Pollock is pissed because everyone isn't obsessed with him anymore, Lee makes a comment about how his work is shit now that he's drinking again and then Pollock and his blind rage hurl unspeakable insults and threats at Lee. She must have been so used to it at that point that at first she barely batted an eye. Tambor's dumb ass and his wife sit there dumbfounded, saying and doing nothing as part of the never ending enabling of Pollock's behavior. Then, when you think it can't get any worse, Pollock tells Lee he'll kill her and she fires back in tears now "you are killing me! you're killing me, you're killing me, you're killing me!" Holy moses. I cried with her in that moment and was absolutely shaken by that line. Loving that man was absolutely killing her. Yet, loving that man was keeping him alive. Time and time again he would have been dead in the water if not for Lee. What a tragedy. 

And that brings me to the fourth and final scene where Pollock kills himself and his hot new girlfriend's friend by crashing his car drunk on the side of the road. Cutting out the sound as the two women are screaming as if Pollock had decidedly tuned out of life in that moment was very impactful and made that scene pretty chilling to watch. He demands they return to the car so he can drive them home absolutely wasted, and proceeds swiftly down another literal road of destruction. No one could have stopped him, not even two people in the car screaming at the top of their lungs. Has me wondering what pushed him over the edge that time? The dog he found in the road? Did that dog die? The dog died so he wanted to die? Depression sure is something. 

All in all, I did not love the movie, but appreciated it. I had a hard time believing this was the 1940s for some reason, and I also struggled to follow some of the timeline, especially when they would cut out abruptly to a random place when Pollock was waking up from a bender. I did appreciate learning about Pollock's life and learning about Lee Krasner even more so. Loved her haircut and style. I wish she had left Pollock, but love is complicated. Overall rating out of 5, I'd say a 3. Not bad. 

~~~~~~~~~~~

GROUP AVERAGE GRADE: 3.5 pukes out of 5

Thanks again, everybody. Hope to see you on the discussion board!

(NEXT TIME: We travel to Paris, Texas, in which we probably find out whether Paris, Texas is a real place or not.)