| 
 
  | 
| Ed Harris | 
Since the late 1970s, Ed Harris has
  made more than 50 television and film appearances. It didn’t
  take long for audiences to stand up and take notice. In 1983,
  Harris’ performance as John Glenn in Philip Kaufman’s The Right Stuff put him on the map of Hollywood’s
  most talented actors. Keeping busy throughout much of the eighties
  and nineties, Harris won wide acclaim for his roles in such films
  as Places in the Heart (1984), The Abyss (1989)
  and Glengarry Glen Ross (1992). Though never asserting
  himself as strictly the leading man, Harris won even more acclaim-and
  two Oscar nominations-for his roles in Ron Howard’s Apollo 13 (1995) and Peter Weir’s The Truman Show (1998). In 2000, Ed Harris decided to try his hand at something
  new: producing and directing. With Pollock, Harris asserts
  himself as a true auteur-a man that can really do it all.
  Here, Harris talks about his first attempt behind the camera and
  the difficulties of bringing art to life.
Stephen Ashton (MM): Many
  moviemakers have discovered-often, after it’s too late-that
  making a film about an artist can be difficult. What drew you
  to the challenge, and to Pollock in particular?
Ed Harris (EH): I think
  it was the dynamism of his character: a complex man who had to
  struggle to realize himself and to find himself. I thought his
  was a great story, a journey. He was a bit of an underdog, a guy
  who had to fight through all of these artistic influences to arrive
  at a place of true originality. He had a great spirit and his
  own way of doing things. All of these things were attractive to
  me. He was a fascinating character and his story was kind of a
  challenge to me too-I like a challenge
| 
 Buffalo Soldiers (2001)  | 
MM: Speaking of challenges,
  how difficult was it to direct your first feature and also be
  the centerpoint of the film as an actor?
EH: It was quite a challenge.
MM: How did you keep
  motivated to continue directing and starring in the film?
EH: I immersed myself
  in Pollock, his person and his work. The whole project grew on
  me: working on the script and getting into the character. I came
  to have a lot of empathy for the guy; not just for his art, but
  for the struggles he had as person.
MM: What struggles
  would those be?
EH: I think that, emotionally,
  he didn’t really mature much past adolescence. I think he had
  a feeling of not belonging. Even in school he had a sense of not
  belonging, he was always kind of an outsider. I think it was part
  of his biological makeup too, being a “different breed.”
  I think he was trying to live a life with openness and vulnerability,
  which he needed for his creative spirit.
MM: Had you tried
  your hand at any screenwriting before Pollock came along?
| 
 
  | 
| Pollock | 
EH: No, not really. I
  didn’t really write this one, but I worked on it a lot. [Writing
  credits go to Barbara Turner and Susan J. Emschwiller, based on
  Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith’s book Jackson Pollock:
    An American Saga]. The original screenplay was over 250 pages
  long; I had to get it down to 110. The original script was trying
  to capture the essence of his work and times. It was complicated-it
  overlapped and was interwoven in time-but I wanted to make
  it more straightforward.
MM: What compelled
  you to direct the film as well, especially considering you’d
  never directed a film before?
EH: I had been working
  so hard and long on it-I was so into it. You know when you
  align yourself with a property really invest yourself into? The
  years were going by and either I was being a fool or really committed
  to it. I just had to do it. I decided to direct out of default,
  in a way. I had become so intimate with it all, with Pollock,
  that I really didn’t want to relinquish control.
MM: And now, looking
  at the finished product, do you think that was a wise decision?
EH: Well, I’m pretty
  satisfied with the outcome.
MM: When watching
  the film, one can’t help but be struck by how nature seemed
  to influence Pollock’s work. Was this something you did intentionally?
EH: We just wanted to
  suggest that subtly. We experimented with shooting a lot of images
  of nature, but it felt a little too on the nose. I think it was
  more unconscious. He was a pretty observant guy and I think he
  took in things. There are stories of him looking-really penetrating
  objects-and getting inside them in some way. I think the
  Pollock had a sense of the oneness of things-no beginning,
  no end-and I think he had some cosmic sense.
MM: Why didn’t you
  put some of that in the film?
EH: That’s a good question.
  I really didn’t know how to do it without some narration or a
  cinematic trick. I wanted to just hint at it. I wanted to keep
  it more subjective and personal. I thought, for the film to work
  at all, it would have to be his emotional journey.
MM: I was really struck
  by the way you ‘became’ Pollock, the painter-the
    way you danced over the canvases. It really looked like the way Pollock must have moved. How did you work on the painting
      part?
EH: I am intrigued by
  painting-a solitary act where you can see your results just
  as soon as you step back. I started to paint and decided that
  I wanted to do all of the painting in the film myself.
MM: Did you do any
  additional research on Pollock so that you could portray
    him accurately?
EH: I studied the Namuth
  film. In fact, his son gave me a bunch of outtakes, but you know,
  it is kind of like what Pollock said: ‘Things come out of
  a need.’ If you’ve got a big canvas, and you need to get
  around it, the best way to do it is the way he did it-with
  a little alternating dance step. And the more I painted, the more
  I experimented with painting in his technique.
MM: What was your
  favorite part about making Pollock?
EH: I loved the painting.
  It was the most relaxing time of the filmmaking process for me.
  I didn’t have to worry about anything, just paint on the canvas.
  That was great. I felt like I was creating something at that moment,
  something that had some merit. Whether I was doing that or not
  is not the point-I just had to focus on what I was doing:
  painting. I didn’t have to act.
MM: You’ve actually
  taken up painting since deciding to make the film, right?
EH: I did. I built a
  painting studio at my house, and I love it.
MM: Do you think you’ll
  stick with it?
EH: I’d like to. I am
  really kind of curious as to what I would come up with after getting
  Pollock out of my system-I’d like to know if I have a style
  of my own.

