Home
search
more | tips
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 12 comments in total 

12 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
Interesting personal story & look at the "Art" world, 29 January 2007
Author: rse-3 from Martha's Vineyard, Mass

This documentary tells the story of Teri Horton's crusade to get her $5 garage sale find certified as a genuine Jackson Pollock painting. I found myself really enjoying her feisty, earthy spirit, and contrasting it with the attitude of the "Art" world, which has been so dismissive of her claim, because it comes from outside their commonly held standards and beliefs. The contrast between her truck drivin', swearin', fried chicken & beer, trailer park life and the rarified "art world" people she was dealing with is both striking and funny. I must confess that, along with Teri, I knew very little about Jackson Pollock. Seeing this movie has impelled me to find out more about his interesting life.

Was the above comment useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Tell Me If I Like This Movie. . ., 29 May 2007
7/10
Author: vegasite from Vegas

There's this old joke about a small town exhibit of Norman Rockwell paintings where a snobbish big city critic is trashing the art at every turn.

"We know why you don't like this art". says a local.

"And why is that?" asks the critic.

"Because we don't need you to tell us if it's any good!"

And thus, this film begs the question, "Is collecting modern art about art or collecting autographs?"

This HBO documentary details the adventures of Teri Horton (Tugboat Annie of the Trailer Park and professional dumpster diver); a small town gal finding herself in possession of what might very well be an original Jackson Pollock potentially worth millions and sets out to prove its authenticity. Herein lies the rub of modern art; "If you don't know who did it, is it any good"? We watch as the painting is wagged from pompous art critics to curious aficionados, business persons and forensic specialists each with their own take and assessment of authenticity. Little of which has anything to do with the actual art on the canvas.

Here is a fascinating look at the facade of modern art and the stuffed shirts who make cowardly proclamations regarding authenticity while avoiding the content of the painting itself.

Interesting stuff whether you like modern art or not; and while Ms. Horton's rural irascibility wears mighty thin by the end of the film, there's enough fun and insight to give anyone an art lesson.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Good and bad, 17 May 2007
7/10
Author: ahe207 from United States

This was very entertaining and quite a story. However, many of the documentary's claims about the artworld are unfounded. They interview a small handful of slightly and some totally ego-centric people and label them as "the art world". In fact, most of the art world would love for this story to be true, that a truck driver has miraculously discovered a Jackson Pollack in perfect condition that found its way to a yard sale the whole United states away from where it was originally painted. The documentary neglects to focus on many overwhelming amount of evidence that call the piece a fraud and instead focus on the few details tat suggest its authenticity. This in effect portrays a sense of drama that is unreal. Good film though!

Was the above comment useful to you?

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
The subjective authentication methodology of provenancing art would be invalidated if the forensic authentication of this painting is accepted., 17 September 2007
10/10
Author: golem_number1 from Toronto

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

"Who The #$&% is Jackson Pollock?" is a powerful indictment of the art establishment. It challenges and exposes established and esteemed art valuators and dealers as amateurs and incompetents.

Forensics, the same techniques which are used to provide investigate and provide evidence for criminal prosecutions, proves the authenticity of the thrift store bought Jackson Pollock painting. Comparative analysis of paint chips, photographs, fingerprints, etc., which provided irrefutable proof of the painting's authenticity is absurdly rejected by esteemed art valuators who rely on subjective opinion and often questionable historical provenance. The pretentious Illuminati of the art world won't accept the forensic authentication of the painting because it proves that their subjective methodology of provenancing and valuating art is fraudulent.

Was the above comment useful to you?

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
What about the fingerprints???, 25 June 2007
10/10
Author: joatru from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I gotta tell ya, anybody who watches this movie should understand two things: One, the art world snobs thus portrayed are typical of what you'll encounter in the art world; they are the RULE, not the exception! (I know from personal experience: I am a professional fine artist.) Two, people with common sense are often maligned because of their supposed lack of intelligence, but listen, NASA, the military, world governments, hell, even the sports world are just a few examples where communication is carried on with nomenclatures which are specific to their disciplines; now, if you don't understand NASA's nomenclature, are we then to surmise that you're an idiot?? Hell, I bet you don't even understand what in hell rappers' slang means, and you may hold that proverbial degree in rocket science! So just because a person is ignorant (not stupid, there's a vast difference) of a subject doesn't mean that they lack intelligence: I can't speak French, but I qualified for MENSA membership.

Now to the spoiler...don't read it if you haven't seen the movie (It's not much of a spoiler, because if you've researched this controversy on the Internet you'll already have run across this.).

At the end of the movie it's revealed that there is a third fingerprint match: one that comes from an undisputed original Jackson Pollock! So now there is a fingerprint from a bona fide Jackson Pollock painting that matches the fingerprint on the paint can from Jackson Pollock's studio that matches the fingerprint on the back of the painting in question. Enough evidence for you? It is for me!!! And if you doubt the ability of the forensic examiner, or think that the methodology used was spurious, then I suggest that you see the movie, or view it again and pay closer attention this time.

And as an aside, my old man was thrown in the drunk tank a few times, just like Pollock; my dad was never fingerprinted, either.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Definitely worth watching, 18 January 2008
7/10
Author: Jim Powell from United States

This film is entertaining in many ways. The people in the film cover a pretty broad range, but I think it's safe to say that most of them are quirky. Quirky in a good way, though. The story was interesting as well as the whys and hows that originated the story. Without giving too much away, let's just say that the filmmaker does a good job. The story has the ever-popular David v Goliath, Individual v Large Corporate Mentality, and Common Man v The Elite that pretty much anyone can enjoy.

Knowledge of art and artists isn't necessary, and it isn't necessary for you to know the intricacies of the art world. It's all laid out for you in the film. You don't even have to be interested in art to enjoy the movie; you just have to be interested in watching a good story and letting the real-life personalities lead the way.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Fact or Fiction?, 5 November 2007
10/10
Author: shaktimama from United States

This film was so beautifully shot and written, the characters are so larger than life it almost seems to be fiction.

Rarely does narration work so well in a documentary, but here kept me entertained and believing that the stakes were so high I almost thought it was a murder mystery! The many questions raised about fame, authenticity, and the absurdity of both the art world and the main character left me wanting more! The characters are so brilliant they seem to be caricatures played out by talented actors.

I throughly enjoyed this film and highly recommend it to documentary and art lovers alike.

Was the above comment useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
loved this movie, 17 March 2008
9/10
Author: gattihogan from United States

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

hi . am i the only person who noticed that when the painting was compared with the known Pollock that the two seemed to be part of the same piece of canvas, like the piece had been cut to a smaller size? there were lines that crossed over at the right places, like a puzzle would fit. i especially followed some of the yellow lines and they were continuous on both paintings. seems worth a closer look to me. i enjoyed the movie.since we are a love Pollock,hate Pollack family , it was fun to watch this film together although no one changed their mind on their position.we tried to get to MOMA recently but picked the one day that it was closed. i'll try again the next time we are in new york.

Was the above comment useful to you?

0 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
The movie is fun, not really meant to outrage anyone, 15 July 2007
8/10
Author: edstock707 from United States

This movie always keeps its tongue in its cheek. It could have made characters such as Hoving out to be despicable know-it-all who refuse to be wrong. The movie does have a "60 Minutes" feel to it, which is not surprising considering the involvement of Don Hewitt. A tendency to shade things might be expected, but really, no matter which side of the story one supports, there's plenty there to appreciate. Even the heavies in the film seem to be having a good time, maybe because they realize this isn't about some evil art forger trying to pass off a masterwork while bilking unsuspecting art lovers. It really is about the principles involved - and everyone in the movie truly does appear to be driven more by principle than anything else (with the exception of the sleazy art agent, perhaps).

If nothing else, the film should end up encouraging viewers to learn a bit more about art appreciation and art history. With the ongoing controversy about the Alex Matter alleged-Pollocks, the story is timely and provoking while remaining highly entertaining.

Side notes: I disagree that Teri Horton comes off as money-hungry. She reportedly turned down at least two multi-million dollar offers for the painting.

The comment in a previous review regarding her unwillingness to meet with Frankie Brown, the Pollock-esquire splatter artist, is a bit inaccurate. You can read more about him and Teri Horton at www.fine art registry.com/articles/

Further investigation into the matter by Paul Biro, the art forensics specialist, is reported at his web site (Biro fine art restoration).

Was the above comment useful to you?

18 out of 37 people found the following comment useful :-
This Film Is Annoying! Its Anti-intellectualism Let's You KNow Who The Real Snobs Are!, 18 February 2007
1/10
Author: Michael McGonigle (mmcgonigle@philamuseum.org) from Philadelphia, PA.

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I was bothered by the anti-intellectual attitude displayed by Teri Horton and others in the film. What is this pathetic snobbery you find in ignorant people who feel their opinions should be considered simply because they admittedly know nothing about the topic they are talking about?

Teri shows great smugness by her distaste towards the "Pollock" painting she buys at the thrift shop saying, "Painting should look like something!" I bet this makes her feel all-superior to those of us who like Jackson Pollock because, obviously she knows what "painting" is supposed to look like and we don't.

Teri's claim that she was dismissed by snobbish art world types because she is a drunken, foul-mouthed, truck driver is specious. I would never say that no one in the art world was ever rude to her, but consider this, if her "Pollock" is genuine and worth more than $100 million, why wouldn't gallery owners and art dealers talk to her?

If the painting were genuine, the gallery that represents it would get a 15% - 20% commission on the sale. The good publicity the sale would generate would be a boon to any art dealer and that would lead to even more sales for the gallery. It makes no sense that they never even bothered to return her calls.

Unless you consider this, Teri says that the first art dealers she spoke to asked about the "provenance" of the "Pollock" and she didn't know what a provenance was. Much filmic hilarity ensues from the cockamamie "provenance" Teri fabricates. It goes like this, the painting came into being during a drunken night of painting that included James Cagney, Joan Crawford, John Wayne, a naked Broderick Crawford and ended with Jackson Pollock signing the painting with his penis.

Pretend you're a gallery owner; you get a call from a woman who, while slurring her words, says she has a Jackson Pollock for sale. You ask where she got it and then she lets loose this story of alcoholic Hollywood revelry so clearly improbable it beggars the imagination. Would you call her back?

Another problem is the involvement of Tod Volpe, the convicted thief, embezzler and fraud who is retained by Teri to represent her questionable "Pollock". Isn't that like starting a new business and then hiring Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Andy Fastow and the other Enron thieves to run it? Then you explain your hires to investors by reasoning since business is corrupt, and these guys are corrupt, they are the perfect management team! Isn't this lunacy?

At one point, Volpe (the convicted fraud) says it is the art world's job to prove that Teri's painting is NOT a real Pollock. What? Is he an idiot as well as a liar and thief? Hey Volpe, you are asking millions for this painting, you have to prove it IS a Pollock. The burden of proof is on the people making the claim.

The biggest piece of evidence for the paintings authenticity is the discovery of a partial fingerprint on the back of Teri's "Pollock". The film claims there are no known Jackson Pollock fingerprints in existence, so the self-proclaimed "forensics expert" Paul Biro goes to the Pollock/Krasner Institute and lifts a Pollock fingerprint off a paint can from his studio that he will try to match with the fingerprint found on Teri's painting.

First question, if there are no known Pollock fingerprints in existence, how does Biro know that the one he got from the paint can is really Jackson Pollock's? Second question, since Pollock was arrested for being drunk and disorderly a few times, are the filmmakers really sure there are no fingerprints of his in existence?

I had questions about fingerprints and the law, so I spoke with a public defender here in Philadelphia about fingerprint evidence.

Teri says "if you can send someone to the electric chair by fingerprint evidence, why can't you authenticate a painting?" Well, in fact, you CAN'T send someone to the electric chair based solely on fingerprint evidence.

Paul Biro finds three matching points on the partial print found on Teri's "Pollock" and the alleged Pollock fingerprint from the paint can. Is that enough? Is there a legal standard here? The answer surprisingly is NO! There is no set legal number of points that have to match for a fingerprint to be considered proof of identity, but according to my legal expert, three points would never be considered anywhere near enough.

All in all, the fingerprint evidence in the film does not meet even the most minimal legal standards and that is the only solid evidence they have.

But the clincher for me was when I discovered the existence of a painter named Francis Hogan Brown, who was well known for painting copies of Jackson Pollock's work that were virtually identical to Pollock. Brown says that he distributed lots of these knock-offs in the Southern California area on or around the time Teri Horton claims to have purchased her "Pollock".

In fact, Brown says the painting in the film (which he has seen in photographs) looks just like one of his. He says that for several years now, he has repeatedly asked to see Teri Horton's "Pollock" up close, but that Tod Volpe and Teri Horton have refused to let him anywhere near it. Why is that? If William Hogan Brown can prove that the disputed "Pollock" Teri has is one of his own paintings, doesn't that settle this case?

One final thing, the film goes to great lengths to show that the former museum director Thomas Hoving is an arrogant, know-it-all, jerk. So what? You don't have to look very hard in the art world to find a pompous ass. I am willing to bet that it would also not be difficult to find a truck driver who is also a pompous jerk. But what does that prove? Absolutely nothing.

Was the above comment useful to you?
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot synopsis Ratings External reviews
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user comments Your vote history