Ed Harris' Jackson Pollock

Pollock (2000) is a biographical-fiction film which focuses on the career of the famous 20th century American painter and the relationships he had with people during it. Details about Jackson Pollock’s life before his career, such as his childhood and the development of his craft are not present in the film. At the start of the film Pollock has already settled into the role of “brilliant but under-accomplished painter” and the plot goes on to detail his rise to prominence.  The role of Pollock is played by the film’s director Ed Harris, who bares a significant physical likeness to the artist at least in terms of build and head shape. While resemblance to the subject being portrayed is not necessary in a biopic  (we have wardrobe designers and  hair-and-makeup people for that sort of thing) the coincidence is a nice touch.

In addition to a lack of detail concerning his early years, the film shows us very little of Pollock’s personality beyond the fact that he was a drunk asshole who seemed to only be content when working. The focus of Pollock is very much centered on his work and his methods. The specificity of content works well as it allows the film to use its 122-minute runtime to go in depth on the subject of Pollock’s creative process. The audience gets to watch Pollock develop his distinct style, positing that he is singlehandedly responsible for the creation of Abstract Expressionism and therefore bore the brunt of the struggle of validating the movement.

The film’s subjective representation of its subject causes one to consider the purpose of biography. Is it more important to represent the subject as completely as possible, including the specific details of their personal life or should the focus be on the accomplishments that made the subject worthy of being profiled? Pollock would argue for the latter, placing importance on the depiction of the unique achievements of the subject rather than featuring the events in the subject’s life which led to these achievements.

Due to this decision to focus on work instead of character, the relationships in the film are very static and flat. All other characters in the film, such as Pollock’s wife, Lee Krasner (Marcia Gay Harden) and art critic Clem Greenberg (Jeffrey Tambor) are characterized by their relationship to Pollock. They are flat and static characters, seeming to exist only for the purpose of supporting the dysfunctional genius the film paints as Pollock. This results in a sort of hollow-feeling movie, the detached emotions featured translate into a detached relationship with the audience.

Pollock does a wonderful job of profiling and informing the audience on the methodology behind the artist’s work. However, there the film does little to establish an emotional connection with the audience. They have no reason to become invested in any of the characters. This is perhaps a good thing considering the film ends with Pollock’s untimely and unheroic death, driving drunk and crashing into a tree, killing a young girl in the passenger seat. Maybe the unseemly nature of Pollock’s personal life factored into Harris’ decision to focus simply on the artist’s work. Regardless, the quality of the film is dependent on its communication of historical fact rather than drama.