Nice movie
An interesting movie. Greetings.
shareYes, I agree. Worth watching. This was probably one of Jason Patric's better roles although he still played the same type of character.
shareI agree also. Jason's very good and this is a decent movie, but something keeps it from being a great movie – it's a little too ambitious with the action and becomes a bit thin. But the performances and script make this worthwhile.
shareThis movie is more on target about art than "Pollock". But it's intelligent not "smart"; people confuse those two notions like they would also think Pollock could actually even try to paint something close to a Rembrandt.
Also: Jason Patric and Irène Jacob are what movie actors should be!
They can act. Irène Jacob is one of the rare actresses that can portray femininity realistically and yet still be strong in a realistic modern context. Kieslowski understood this.
"Pollock" was notable for Ed Harris' strong performance, but I didn't get any sense of the artist beyond his selfishness and abuse. Maybe that was the point of the film, but I expected to have some appreciation for his art as well – and I'm still lacking that.
And yes, Jason Patric and Irène Jacob work very well together. This film may be a bit too esoteric for most audiences, and it's far from perfect, but I found this a lot more rewarding than "Pollock." Better artwork too, in my opinion.
"Art is either plagiarism or revolution." Paul Gauguin
Music keys give us the difference in regards to the levels of plagiarism both movies are honest about; one more than the other; and why this movie is better.
In “Pollock”: you have the ridiculous scene when he “cracks” art and sees how to gain the acceptance he craves and learns how to drip house paint on the floor of his poor soul and there is this JOY! His lady buddy jumps! Whoot! Whoot! As they would say these days. That's about cracking mimicry, like his dumb fans, not process; but it was giving joy to his narcissism, and selfish and dumb and ugly ideas. The movie thinks, like Ed Harris, that this is a GRAND moment! No. He's dumb. Stupid. And ugly. That whole moment is really and truly about saying Pollock is disingenuous fraud who thinks he is part of a sincere revolution; which is: the worst kind!
In this movie: when Patric’s character learns to “crack” the code to acceptance; he’s learning and there is a process, a form and an aesthetic morality that does mean something (even if plagiarism); as it shows him buying the ingredients to make paint, false memories of his father, then his solid bread oven to be used for baking his faux "art". While faux, it’s still about the process that gives his plagiarism meaning. While not better or even good or even art (the movie), it's not as gross and false as Pollock the movie or his "art".