Pollock

Each year I look forward to the Oscars. It is a time to reflect on the good, the bad, and the ugly of last year’s films. It is also a time to applaud when films I liked get recognition and a time to scowl when films I did not like get an approving nod. I try to see most major films as they open. This means that there are very few surprises at Oscar time. One film I did not see last year was “Pollock”. But due to the nomination of Ed Harris for best actor I decided to check out this movie.

Not only does Ed Harris star in “Pollock” but also directed and co-produced the film. Quite often I am disappointed when a Hollywood star attains the status that allows him or her to direct and produce themselves. Many decry the collaborative nature of Hollywood films because it can dilute and suppress true innovation. But more often than not, I find when one person has control bad movies that should have died in committee get made.

I was pleased to see that “Pollock” did not suffer from the influence of Ed Harris, but rather, benefited from his performance. He most definitely deserved his Oscar nomination. I at first questioned whether the life of Jackson Pollock was of sufficient interest to carry a 117-minute film. I have never been a big Jackson Pollock fan. What little I had seen of his art did not grab me. On the other hand his life story as told in this movie grabbed my attention like a train wreck.

No one wants to see a train wreck, but who can look away when one happens. There is nothing new in the story of Jackson Pollock. How many times have we seen a talented artist that struggles with poverty, substance abuse, and mental illness? While there is nothing new in this scenario, Pollock provides an abundance of insight into the demons driving this one artist.

I gained new insight into this artist and by proxy the film itself from one comment Jackson makes in the film. Early in the film and early in the career of Jackson Pollock critics and viewers alike try to decipher the meaning of his paintings. Later when a reporter from Life magazine asks how he responds to his critics that compare his work to among other things a bowl of macaroni, he responds that his art should be compared to a field of flowers. He explains that when you look at a field of flowers you don’t try to discern the meaning of the flowers you just enjoy looking at them. And Thanks to The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and Ed Harris I enjoyed this look at the life of an American Artist.

Stephen Van Lydegraf

3/11/2001