Basquiat

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie 'Basquiat'. It is a subtle portrayal of a complex character, beautifully acted by Jeffrey Wright. It would have been easy for the film-makers to go over board with this movie. Basquiat sure did have the character to allow that. And the fact they didn't feel the need to do that, is why I like this movie so much. It'd been easy to concentrate more on the drug taking, on his immense paranoia, and on his lively lifestyle that went beyond Andy Warhol and Madonna. And doing that would have probably got the movie more hype, attention and plaudits. Instead the makers of this movie just give glimpses of his life and merely suggest a whole lot more, and this works well. It's a movie that goes along more at a stroll than a run, and grows in stature and depth as it does so.

But, the 'problem' if you can call it that, with 'Basquiat' is that you need to know this man's art, and this man's character to really enjoy and appreciate this movie. And that's why I think it maybe doesn't get the sympathetic reviews or attention it deserves. If you didn't know about this man's life before seeing the movie, then I don't know what you could take from the film. And if you watch it without knowing about him and his art, then I can imagine it wouldn't really hit the mark.

What makes this movie beautiful in it's subtlety is that it does great justice to the wonderful talent and nature of Jean Michel Basquiat. And if you love his art, then do watch this movie, it's well worth it.

9/10

I thought this film captured the feel of SoHo and the downtown art scene in 1980's NYC. (I lived in NYC from 1986 until 2001.) I really like the untethered, free-spirited, and dangerous elements of Basquiat's character. The movie doesn't fit into the film school model of a perfectly constructed piece, but I find that appealling; the film is artful and enjoyable. I watch it whenever it shows up on one of the film channels unedited and uninterrupted. Hope you enjoy it as well.

Basquiat tells the story of the meteoric rise of youthful artist Jean-Michel Basquiat. Starting out as a street artist, living in Thompkins Square Park in a cardboard box, Jean-Michel is "discovered" by Andy Warhol's art world and becomes a star. But success has a high price, and Basquiat pays with friendship and love.

I can't pretend to understand art. So I can't say I understand what makes one artist valuable or famous and another one nothing. Basquiat is one of those mysteries. What made his art special? I do not know. But his life was interesting, and the way this film challenges race is important. I have wondered why we distinguish "black" things, but not "white" things...

And Andy Warhol. Wow. I don't know a lot about him, but if he was anything like what David Bowie portrayed, he must have been quite strange to be around. No doubt Bowie and Warhol met, so the portrayal is probably correct.

of Jean Michel Basquiat and the art world of the 80's. Granted, the film is a bit abstruse, and some viewers have complained about the music tracks (actually Basquiat's own music from his band); but it does serve to show the disaffected life of an artist, who seemed to gain fame, money, and fair-weather friends, despite himself.

Jeffrey Wright is very understated, but believable as Basquiat. Apparently he and his father were estranged, until he became famous. Then everyone wanted something from him. Not just another story of fame and its vices, however; because the film does NOT show his life as glamorous, indeed once he has "made it" we still see him dining at Lutece, people critiquing, being unaccepting of him as a person. Perhaps in real life this was one of the sources of his insecurities, and reason for his drug addiction. Certainly, if one believes even half of what is written about the NY art world- it cannot have been a forgiving place.

That aside, the film also has some interesting cameos, David Bowie as Warhol is excellent, Dennis Hopper as the Zurich art dealer, Bruno Bischofsburger is very believable. An amusing cameo with Christopher Walken as a James Lipton character; a pretentious interviewer. The only annoying performance was Parker Posey, as gallery owner Mary Boone, who perhaps portrayed this person too close to the mark.

Keeping in mind that Basquiat was under age 30 when he died, this story is credible. An artist who rose too fast, was used and discarded- apparently in real life Basquiat had a tendency to be generous, and gave away many of his paintings. There is one scene where he is beaten up so two street people can take steal a "SAMO" inscription on a piece of metal.

The visuals are also noteworthy, while an earlier review critiqued the surfboarding sequence, I find that a preferable segue to Basquiat's need to escape; apparently he owned a good deal of property in Hawai'i and spent time there as well.

The scenes with Claire Forlani are also effective, Basquiat's some-time girlfriend, we see her as a waitress, then a junkie, then a cleaned-up version, going to Columbia. The NY street sequences are realistic, It is not glamorous (though the accompanying jazz music is). It shows the schizophrenic nature of NY; Lutece, a homeless person sleeping outside, a man selling stuffed animals on the street, and Bruno Bischofsberger(Hopper) who mistakes Basquiat for a homeless person, trying to clean the windows on his Mercedes. Very realistic.

I highly recommend this film; it does not glamorize the story, and while it may not be completely accurate, it rings true, and portrays a life many artists may wish for, until they get it. 9/10

Why is it whenever a work comes out about an artist of a modern slant, there arrives the masses claiming their dogs might paint better...and how about the simple complaint that "they didn't show us what was going on in his mind..."

Hogwash. Art will always be in the eye of the beholder, and unless you hear it from the horse's mouth, nobody knows what is going on in the head of anyone else. Take a look at Julian Schnabel's most recent work "Before Night Falls," and subject it to the same analysis. The only reason we might know more about Reinaldo Arenas is because he wrote it down...the motives are not always as clear as we might hope to believe we have grasp of...

How about Jackson Pollack? How many of us know that the "Wizard of Oz," an apparently simple, innocent childhood fable, was actually a political statement of the author (and this is from the "horse's mouth")?

Take the film for what it is and don't spend your time looking for the boom mic to peek into shots or read Basquiat's mind and you might find it enjoyable. For the art critics out there, let us not pretend to understand the process unless you are somewhat of an artist yourself, okay. Because you cannot understand the motive does not change the fact it may exist on some other plane than we perceive. Okay, off of my soap box!