Pollock (Special Edition)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

Attention: Je n'ai pas encore reçu ce film... On m'avait signalé, il me semble qu'il a été déjà expédié! Pouvez-vous vérifier?

Even positive reviews of this film hint at dissatisfactions without necessarily articulating them. For me, there were several problems.
*
The first was the failure of the film to go beyond the commonly publicised persona of Jackson Pollock; the excessive alcohol use, mental instability, and of course the feting by the art establishment and the popular media are all well documented here, but then such is the case elsewhere too; the depiction of the artist's painting technique is also available in the original documentaries made about him - for the film to achieve real greatness, I think it needed to provide insights beyond a surface accuracy of events. Ed Harris obviously has been fascinated by Jackson Pollock, has researched him thoroughly, and feels some special connection, but it's not so clear whether he has understood him, whether he has fathomed him deeply enough to illuminate the man from within.
*
The second main problem has some bearing on the first. The visual art world itself is not presented with much depth. Clement Greenberg and Peggy Guggenheim are amusing caricatures, but beyond the amusing cliches there is little or no exploration of their deeper motivations - watching this film I don't see how a viewer could begin to understand the place of the visual arts within the broader culture. Why did modern art matter as much as it did in this period of history? Not an easy question, and not one likely to yield an easy answer, certainly not an answer readily translated to the medium of film, admittedly. Still, it would make me feel more involved with the film if I felt that someone, somewhere had been wrestling with both the question and potential answers. Instead there is the horrible suspicion that the artist is broadly equated with a sports star, or perhaps a movie star, and that the motivation primarily implied in his life is a thirst for fame, fortune, and beating the next guy, winning the race - that such a motivation existed is not in doubt (source material, such as letters to his brother verifies this), but it is shallow to single it out as the prime motivation. What motivated Pollock to choose the visual arts above all else? Where did his inspiration originate? Again, difficult questions, but less well publicised facts might have shone light here - for instance, watching the film you would be hard pressed to know that Pollock's brother was also initially an aspiring artist, and that he had supported Jackson both financially and emotionally in an amazing way; furthermore, it's hard to appreciate the crucial agonistic relationship Pollock had to Picasso's work.
*
The scene in which Pollock 'discovers' his drip technique, or action painting, showcases the limitations of the film as a whole. The 'climactic' nature of the scene is foreshadowed by a slow build-up, and chased along by manipulative, and frankly rather irritating, music. The volume levels increase, the 'action' in terms of Pollock 'dancing' around his canvas, the rapidity of cuts and the multiplicity of camera angles, all conspire to leave you in no doubt that you have witnessed a pivotal moment in the film. All this would be fine if you were watching a baseball player hitting a winning home run in the deciding game of the series, but it seems to be far too easy a take on the less spectator orientated process of creating art of lasting value. The standard Hollywood techniques for manipulating audience reaction feel laughable in this setting.
*
The blame for all this must be shouldered by Ed Harris, but it might be construed as spiteful to enlarge upon this fact. Suffice to mention that a entirely different, and for me far more sensitive and successful, approach to exploring the artistic process can be found in Jacques Rivette's film, 'La Belle Noiseuse'. I would gently suggest seeing the latter film before lauding 'Pollock' beyond its worth.