Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?

2006, directed by Harry Moses.

This is a story of Teri Horton, a female truck driver and trailer park dweller, who takes on the art world elite. Teri purchased a painting at a thrift shop for five dollars, which she doesn't even like. I think it was meant to be a joke for a friend of hers. The picture is just paint spattered on a huge canvas. She and the friend decide to sell it at a yard sale and a local art teacher sees it and tells them it may be a Jackson Pollock. Teri had never heard of Jackson Pollock, but she began to do some research and discovered it seemed possible to her that it could be.

Enter the art experts. At first she couldn't even get any to look at the painting. They say it's impossible that it could be Pollock because she is not rich and found it in a thrift shop. Already you can see these people are pretty closed minded.

Teri spends years trying to find out if her painting is a Pollock, and if it is, to get the art experts to agree that it is. Apparently that is the only way anyone will buy a painting for a large sum of money. If the experts say it is, then it is. If they don't, then it can't be.

But the experts are a scared, closed minded, arrogant bunch. They are not in search of the truth, they are in pursuit of expanding their own huge egos. Teri has an expert helping her, a man who does scientific authentifications for the art world elite, and he finds proof that it's a Pollock. He finds Jackson Pollock's fingerprint on the painting. The art experts say the fingerprint isn't proof, it's daydreaming. Then the expert finds the same acrylic paint on the painting and on the floor of Pollock's studio. Cut to the experts saying anything painted with acrylic can't be a Pollock. Excuse me, are they stupid? They are flat out denying scientific fact. If acrylic paint is scientifically proven to be on the floor in Pollock's studio, then the man painted with acrylics. There is no gray area here. But the experts stubbornly stick to their opinions that it doesn't look like Pollock and he didn't use acrylics and Pollocks can't be found at thrift shops. Can anyone be found to take a stand and speak the unpopular truth?

Teri is a stubborn old gal and I think their refusal to admit the truth just encourages her to prove them wrong. It's become a matter of principle for her. I can totally relate, I'm the same way, although maybe not as stubborn. But then again, give me a potential multi-million dollar jackpot and then we'd find out how stubborn I can be.

I really enjoyed the film, and shockingly, came to find some beauty in some of the Pollock paintings. I can't explain my attraction to the paintings, but I can totally get behind Teri's fight. People who deny proven facts in preference of their own opinions baffle me, it's arrogance into the stratosphere; and what baffles me even more is that the whole art world and potential buyers actually support this arrogant stupidity.

The Soloist

The Soloist, 2008, starring Jamie Foxx and Robert Downey Jr. Directed by Joe Wright.

In this movie, Downey plays Mr. Lopez, a newspaper reporter who one day discovers Mr. Ayers, played by Foxx, outside playing music. Mr. Ayers is a talented and passionate musician, but he is homeless due to mental illness. Lopez wants to write some newspaper articles about Ayers, and does, and eventually comes to know and respect Ayers. This movie is based on real people.

The movie teaches us about homelessness and some reasons for people being in that position, and hopefully viewers will learn a little more empathy and respect.

I thought everything about the movie was very well done. I was very impressed with Jamie Foxx's acting ability. I thought Foxx was a comedian, and therefore have never paid him much attention. He did a fantastic job in a difficult role, and I'm impressed. He'll be on my radar from now on.

Good movie, I recommend it.

At The Death House Door

2008, directed by Peter Gilbert and Steve James.

I watched part of the film and had to turn it off, it's disgusting.

The preacher in this film, Rev. Pickett, says of one of the men whose death he witnessed, as the man lay on the gurney to die, the Rev. says he just wanted to "bash his head in." Then he says "No. That's not Christian. I didn't mean it." and goes on to explain "I just wanted to see him die."

Well, that's certainly more Christian of him.

Then a few moments later, the Rev.'s daughter is talking about how when the killing had resumed in Huntsville (the death penalty had been illegal for a time), all the citizens were so proud. She says she was proud.

How very Christian for a whole town to be proud of killing. The Rev.'s done a good job.

I don't understand why people act the way they do. This preacher isn't unique. Why do people follow? Why don't they say this guy's a hypocrite and his teaching is wrong? It's NOT Christian. Have they ever picked up and read a bible for themselves? I think that's one problem - people don't read the bible for themselves, instead they choose to believe whoever wants to get up in front of them and speak loudly and with enthusiasm. In fact, I'm pretty sure people don't want to THINK for themselves either.

Or maybe they just search until they find someone telling them what they want to hear. Maybe they want it to be ok for the government to kill people so they search until they find a church/preacher who assures them it is. It's extremely opposite of what the bible teaches, but if we don't read the bible or hold ourselves responsible, we can pretend we don't know any better.

Just this morning on tv (today's Sunday), I heard a Rev. before his weekly televised mass say that the church is what connects us with God. Talking about how we need his church to be close to God. Um, no. What we need is to be close to God without people with their own agendas getting in the way. We need to take responsibility for ourselves and use our own brains. Think. Be rational.

The film also talks about how one of the killed convicts was most likely innocent and how there was abundant proof and that the real killer was actually going around confessing to the crime. But the cops and lawyers and judge didn't want to be bothered with all that. They had someone and they intended to go ahead and kill him and call it solved and paid for. And they did kill him. And they do call it done and paid for.

I just hope nobody with any power ever decides I killed someone. There is nothing you can do to change some people's minds once they have decided. All the proof in the world will go ignored, denied even. They'll make shit up to pretend they are right, and fight loudly and enthusiastically and without ever growing tired enough to shut up (if you shut up, rational thought might creep in). Which, unfortunately, works on a lot of other people. He who yells the loudest and with the most conviction is obviously right and telling the truth (see the Maury Povich show for evidence).

We can only hope this type of person is not in a position to make life and death decisions over the rest of us. But of course, some of them are.

This film just points out a lot of what's wrong with people, and I don't mean the convicts.