*NOTE: Below the review is a link to an interesting Jackson Pollock-inspired site.

The other night I watched the film Pollock, directed by and starring Ed Harris.

Pollock tells the story of innovative/groundbreaking/troubled artist Jackson Pollock from his first encounters with wife Lee Krasner (Marcia Gay Harden, who won the 2000 Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her portrayal) and Peggy Guggenheim (played by Harris’ wife, Amy Madigan) in 1941 to his death in 1956.

As Ed Harris says in the special features on the DVD, it’s as though Pollock was a child trapped in an adult’s body with the impulse control and social graces of a child, ill-prepared for a grown-up existence. An apt description for a man who lashes out, drinks excessively, and lives in a fantasy world most of the time.

When he first meets his future wife, a talented artist in her own right, she is blown away by Pollock’s yet to be discovered genius. She puts her own career on hold to support and manage her husband and, in effect, become his caretaker.

Jackson and Lee escape the fast-paced life of New York City for the more relaxed environs of Long Island. Here, with a new studio and his drinking under control, Pollock is free to explore his art and allow his unique vision to take flight.

Soon, as his fame begins to level off, Jackson slips back into the old destructive habits he had once given up, leading him down a slippery slope that ends in tragedy.

Pollock is a tremendous film that didn’t get the credit it was due. As biopics go, it is certainly one of my favorites. While not paced like some of the more recent films of this genre (Ray or Walk the Line) and Jackson Pollock certainly isn’t as much a part of American culture - at least not as these others were/are - this film does take us into the life of such a gifted and influential figure and tells a compelling story. (Why is it that most genius is coupled with some sort of social, psychological, or physical disorder?)

There are a series of small supporting roles to round out the cast (Tom Bower, Jennifer Connelly, John Heard, Val Kilmer, and Jeffrey Tambor) but one of the things that interests me the most is that Ed Harris does all of his own painting. Like Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon, and Jamie Foxx performing in their respective roles, Harris learned how Pollock worked and was able to get into his creative process in order to recreate (at least in part) many of the styles in Pollock’s portfolio. Sure, they only show him working on it and then cut to a version that was completed by staff artists who copied the pieces exactly, but it’s still quite impressive.

Whether you are interested in art or not, Ed Harris and Marcia Gay Harden give stellar performances in this film and I highly recommend it.

*****
I was looking around for desktop wallpaper of some of Pollock’s paintings and came across this site that allows you to paint in a browser window in the style of Jackson Pollock.

It’s just a bit of fun!

Paul Giamatti is excellent - as always - Edward Norton is mysterious and intense, and Jessica Biel is out of place yet a beauty in The Illusionist.

Set in early 20th Century Vienna, The Illusionist tells the story of the love affair between Eisenheim the Illusionist (Norton) and Sophie (Biel), the soon-to-be fiancee of Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). Falling in love as children, Sophie and Eisenheim are forbidden to see each other because they come from different social worlds. When they try to run away together their plot is foiled by Sophie’s family and Eisenheim leaves Vienna to escape the pain. Fast forward 15 years and we find Eisenheim performing mind-boggling feats, the secrets to which he learned during his travels across Russia, Asia Minor, and the Orient. When his act catches the attention of the chief inspector (Giamatti) Leopold comes to see the spectacle.

When prompted for a volunteer, Leopold offers up the lovely Sophie to take part, leading down the ill-fated path of their affair leaving accusations of murder, fraud, evil wizardry, and deception in its wake.

Always a fan of Paul Giamatti and Edward Norton, I was pleased with their respective performances. Norton is at times playful, ever the showman, certainly passionate and never reveals too much of what is really going on. He is somewhat overshadowed by the performance of Giamatti who lowers his voice and aptly takes on the air of authority without arrogance that carries the film and drives the plot forward even when it feels like it’s beginning to slow down. Jessica Biel plays the defiant intended without much depth and she doesn’t add much to the dialogue other than being the driving force behind Eisenheim’s actions. In many ways, she’s there as eye candy - not that I’m complaining - more than she is there to add much to the discussion. (Though it is turn-of-the-century Europe when women weren’t as empowered.)

All in all I’d say The Illusionist is an ok film. I don’t regret seeing it, but I didn’t leave the theater feeling like it was great either. I can’t put my finger on it but there was something lacking in it. There isn’t a lot of humor to lighten the mood - though there are a couple of scenes that have whimsical elements - so maybe that’s it. In most films there is a good balance of drama, comedy, tragedy, suspense, and romance. Even if the movie is predominantly one over the rest, the others are still present to provide a wholeness to the story. The Illusionist had each of these elements but the balance was off just enough to bring it down a little.

But, again, overall it’s not bad.

Having finally seen all 5 of the Best Picture nominees, I can honestly say that Crash was certainly the most deserving.

Also winning for Editing and a fantastic Original Screenplay - along with nominations for Supporting Actor (Matt Dillon), Director (Paul Haggis), and Song (In the Deep) - Crash offers a deeper look at the lives of a diverse group of people whose paths cross in L.A. during the course of a few fateful winter days.

The DA (Brendan Fraser) and his wife (Sandra Bullock) are car-jacked; the thieves (Ludacris & Larenz Tate) hit an old man; while searching for the stolen car, two cops (Dillon & Ryan Phillippe) pull over and molest a television director and his wife (Terrence Howard & Thandie Newton); a shop owner is vandalized and goes after the man who changed his locks; and an investigator (Don Cheadle) fights with his partner/girlfriend (Jennifer Esposito) while working a case and trying to find his criminal brother.

Crash is a film about prejudice, stereotyping, and trying to live into who you are instead of who everyone says you are. As the plot unfolds, the audience quickly makes judgments about the characters based on their speech, their actions, and their ethnicities. We assume what will happen next based on past actions. But what we soon realize is that these lives are not at all what they at first seemed.

The first line says so much about the film to follow:

It’s the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We’re always behind this metal and glass. I think we miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.

In a world where everyone is rushing around, looking out only for themselves, the characters are numb to those around them. They see what they want to see; they see what is convenient to see. But the film challenges them, and by extension us, to look deeper, to consider that their lives are more than just the color of their skin.

At the beginning, each character lives on the surface. But as the cameras take us into their homes we find another side. Some have a smooth polish for their public selves, while others are more compassionate than they first appear to be. Different situations, different circumstances dictate our identities. Greatly divergent sides of our personalities come out depending on the whens, wheres, and whats we face. If we spend our lives avoiding real interactions we will lose sight of the humanity of those around us, and our own, until we crash into each other and are reminded of that which is real.
*****
And now for something completely different.

For a fun diversion, I headed out to the only theater in town playing Little Miss Sunshine. Starring Alan Arkin, Abigail Breslin, Steve Carell, Toni Collette, Paul Dano, and Greg Kinnear, this film is a touching story about family that tells us, no matter how messed up things get, we’re in this thing together.

After attempting suicide, Frank (Carell) - the #1 Proust scholar in the world - goes to live with his sister’s family to be watched as he recovers. There he finds an unsuccessful motivational speaker (Kinnear) for a father, a voluntarily mute teenager (Dano), a heroin/sex addict grandfather (Arkin), and a hopeful child beauty queen (Breslin).

Upon receiving a message that the winner of a child pageant was forced to step down, little Olive, as the runner up, is given the opportunity to be in the Little Miss Sunshine competition in two days. After much arguing, the family loads into their old VW bus and begins their wild road trip to southern California. Along the way, hilarity ensues as the family turns on each other and unexpected obstacles get in their way.

Though it seems as though no one can quite reach their goals no matter how great their efforts, as Grampa reminds them, a loser is someone who is so afraid of losing that he doesn’t even try. You’re a winner because you try.

This movie has an independent film feel to it but it has a great heart to it followed up by some excellent writing and performances. Of particular note, given Steve Carell’s comedic genius and the fact the Paul Dano doesn’t talk for most of the film, they share glances throughout that say so much without saying anything.

See it. You won’t be disappointed.

After watching The Village a couple of weeks ago I’ve been in the mood for the “scary-what’s-out-there-psychological-off-beat-I’m-now-afraid-of-the-dark-again” genre. The first film that came to mind was 1999’s The Blair Witch Project. I thought about putting it in tonight, but I just couldn’t do it.

I’m not a horror movie junkie and I don’t believe in witchcraft or anything like that, but boy do I have an active imagination! And if I watch a scary movie at night, especially alone, it will freak me out a little bit. I’ll hear every tiny noise in my apartment that night!

I know a lot of people didn’t like The Blair Witch when it came out during my senior year of high school. They said it was so stupid that they did all the fake press before hand and built it up to be some sort of “lost footage” of three students who disappeared in the woods. I can see their point. It’s tough to keep audiences entertained, especially in the horror movies where everyone is expecting unusual things to happen and the music is all too telling of what’s coming next.

But one of the things I really like about Blair Witch is that it is its own film. It’s different. They took unknown actors and shot it as though it were really doc footage and “home movies” with people having fairly realistic reactions under stress. Movies just aren’t made that way. It was risky and, for me anyway, it works.

The best part about the film is that it is playing with your senses throughout. You hear noises that aren’t quite natural coming from every direction. You actually get disoriented alongside the characters because you see what they see.

I’m a pretty discerning person when it comes to plots. I can usually figure out any twists fairly quickly - I figured out that Jennifer Aniston was behind it in Derailed the first time I saw the preview - and I’m always expecting the unexpected. I watch for subtle cues and look at all the details. In spite of all that, though, I can pretty easily allow myself to get drawn in to the world that the movie presents. I can let go of my “that’s not real” reflex enough to be affected by the characters and what happens to them.

One of the best ways to get an audience is to keep the unknown unknown for as long as possible. Keep hinting at it but don’t reveal the object of fear until the last few minutes. Not being able to identify the “evil thing that is out there” will cause the audience to begin to form images in their minds which will often be more terrifying than anything that could show up on the screen, thus adding to the suspense of the story. This works especially well in Blair Witch because you never actually see the witches. You hear them, you see them attacking the outside of the tent, but you never see any part of a witch throughout. And yet, one by one the characters disappear.

Another thing that I think works is the gradual progression of isolation that the characters face over the course of the film. They start off at home, surrounded by the comfortable, the familiar before heading out to the small town. From there, they visit with everyday townspeople, keeping it relatively normal, almost ordinary. Then they head out to meet with the “crazy lady” on the fringes before reaching a cemetery outside of town and then out to the forest. Little by little they head outside of safety.

The forest is obviously a secluded area and the loss of a map makes it all the more daunting and disorienting. As the group loses a member, tensions rise and there is greater loneliness and fear. Being in a tent certainly doesn’t provide the most security either. When they get to the house, you are at the height of your anxiety because it’s difficult to figure out where sounds are coming from, you’re closed in, the children’s handprints make you feel like something terrible has happened to innocence in this place and at the end you’re left hanging with the source of fear is never revealed and everything becomes quiet after the camera hits the floor.

I almost watched it. But it’s too late to even think about putting it in now.

Well, here it is, our final review in the Oscar Review series of Best Pictures leading up to tomorrow night’s 78th Academy Awards ceremonies (8pm EST on ABC). There were a few moments in there when I didn’t think I’d make it through the 37 reviews I had set for myself. I’ve tried to be fair with those I didn’t particularly like but because you’re dealing with stories that convey such emotional depth, it’s hard to not be subjective. I hope you enjoyed following along as much as I have enjoyed taking this stroll through movie history.

And now, for last year’s winner…

Winner of 4 of its 7 nominations - including Best Picture, Director (Clint Eastwood), Actress (Hilary Swank with her second award from as many nominations), and Supporting Actor (Morgan Freeman, his first) - Million Dollar Baby is a moving tale of courage, hard work, and finding family.

Frankie Dunn (Eastwood) and his friend Scrap (Freeman) run a gym for up and coming boxers. One day, all-heart but few skills Maggie Fitzgerald (Swank) walks in looking for a trainer. Frankie doesn’t train girls but because of her persistence and drive, he gives Maggie a shot.

Quickly making her way up the rankings, Maggie and Frankie develop a strong bond that goes beyond the sweaty gym. When Maggie’s family shows nothing but selfishness and greed, and Frankie runs out of hope for reclaiming ties with his own family, the pair reach out to each other for the support they need.

When tragedy strikes while in the ring, Frankie is faced with an overwhelming decision that strikes him to the core. If he chooses one option he’ll be going against his faith and his own desire. If he chooses the other he will be leaving his “Mo Chuisle” to live a life she doesn’t want.
*****
Up against formidable opponents in the nominations for Best Picture - Ray, Finding Neverland, and Sideways (that I’ve seen) - Million Dollar Baby came out on top to snag the statuette. Each of its fellow nominees are excellent films, each one touching on a different part of the human experience in powerful ways making it a formidable challenge to select one that rises above the rest.

Though it has nothing to do with reviewing the film, I remember the first time I saw Million Dollar Baby. It was last spring after it had already won. I was on vacation in London and during my last day there, having seen everything I wanted to see, I ventured into one of the cinemas on Leicester Square where I bought my ticket, went up to my assigned seat - which I wasn’t used to when seeing a movie - and waited for the lights in the small, cramped theater to dim. It was physically uncomfortable given the accommodations, but it left me with no reservations that this is a great film.

We will soon know which films will join this, and others, in the long list of Oscar winners. Not having yet seen all the nominees I couldn’t venture a guess as to who will be awarded the little gold men. All I can say is, if these past 37 films - and the others that won other categories, if not the top honors - are any indication, the winners tomorrow night will represent excellence in filmmaking, will be examples of storytelling at its best, and will touch on the many facets of the human condition that are found in each one of us.