Basquiat

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" is a film with an agenda. Far from being a neutral stage upon which the life and emotion of the artist is played out for us to observe, this film wants to make a point about the art world, casting Basquiat as Oliver Twist. If you are looking to find out what drives an artist you are not going to find it here - unless the answer is money. The filmmakers did not go very far into the head of their subject - either that or he was a very shallow and vapid person. I did not get the feeling from this film that Basquiat was a true artist; rather, he came off as an opportunist who figured out how to capture the mechanics of bad abstract impressionism and pass himself off as one. Then a lucky break, combined with silly art collectors who have way too much money and not enough of their own thought processes, multiplied by a guilt ridden population of white people flush with 1980's cash, combine to equal the phenomenon of Basquiat.

I am not saying that this is (or is not) the truth. In the world of art there are no truths anyway. What I am saying is that this is not a neutral biography. It may pay to do a little bit of research into Basquiat before watching the film. As for myself, I admit to watching it only because I was bored and nothing else was on. I knew vaguely the story, and who Basquiat was, but had no opinions of and no real knowledge about him. Since I am not the type of person who forms his opinions on any subject based on information from only one source, I did some research into Basquiat after the film before coming to any sort of conclusions. What those conclusions were are irrelevant as far as this review is concerned - but what does concern me are the many people who undoubtedly had their opinion about Basquiat fed to them by this film and who now consider themselves educated on the subject.

As far as the film itself, it is not bad. Not great, but not bad. It had a certain feeling to it. But it is hard to get beyond its portrayal of the subject, as he is the reason for the film. As noted, Basquiat comes off as an empty headed and shallow individual without a lot of talent or original thought who likes to use drugs and drink a lot. The film's Basquiat seemed not to care much about art, that it was an afterthought to him. He was shown as a dabbler - dabbling in music too but not doing much or giving it much effort. Perhaps that is the truth, I don't know, because overall the film is more a study of art and what constitutes it and gives it value than a biography of an artist - and postulates that today's art is more about the name than the actual piece. The same thing that is given away for free by a homeless man who lives in a box can be worth six figures if the right people decide that it should. I also felt that he filmmakers relied on cliché' a bit too much for my liking. The scene that sticks out in my mind is the one where Basquiat was on a schoolyard basketball court with his buddy, who was trying to get him to play. Basquiat was totally inept at the game and had no desire to play whatsoever. The filmmakers were obviously trying to demonstrate either one or both of two things - that Basquiat was so much of a cerebral artist that he was incapable of physical sport, or that Basquiat was a black man who could not play basketball. Whatever the case, the scene was painful to watch. It was ham-fisted imagery at its worst. A well done scene with some good conversation and emotion could have sent the same message intended in the schoolyard - actually could have done it better because as blockheaded as the schoolyard scene was, it still did not send a clear and defined message.

The acting in Basquiat was for the most part serviceable, with David Bowie turning in the most inspired performance as Andy Warhol. Bowie brought a subtle warmth and humanity to a person who is often portrayed as a cold cartoon character. Although Warhol was clearly intended to be an exploiter in the film, Bowie managed to show him as a person who felt that Basquiat was a true friend and not just a paycheck. This is an Andy Warhol who cared about people, and who could have his feelings hurt just like anyone else. This is not the stereotypical movie Warhol, playing with people like the proverbial chess pieces. This Warhol genuinely admired the work of his protégés. And David Bowie would know, wouldn't he? He was there. I got the feeling that Bowie took the part to make a statement about Warhol - as if he was annoyed by younger filmmakers using the stereotypical Warhol image in an exploitative way. I felt that he was subversively reading the lines between the lines. Good for him.

This film is more a commentary on the art world, on racism, and on exploitation than it is a biography. I would say that it is better to look at it this way, for as a biography it is biased and somewhat mean-spirited. Remember the first line of this review? It seemed to me that the filmmakers were saying that Basquiat was bereft of talent and inspiration - that he was a bum and a drug abuser who got lucky. Perhaps he was, but I'd prefer to make up my own mind. So it would pay to know a bit about the subject before watching - this Basquiat is a light dessert, not the main course.

While the evocation of the 1980s, obvious passion for the artist's work and magnificent acting from the ensemble cast should have made this movie a '10', it has one fatal flaw: this film, Basquiat, dealing with a young man's struggle for identity, fails to mention or even hint at the fact that he had both female and male sexual partners. While I highly respect the acting ability of Jeffrey Wright (just check out his performance in Westworld), he was not only misdirected but simply miscast. To understand the real Basquiat, see the 2010 documentary Jean-Michel Basquiat - The Radiant Child. There, you see a cute, good-looking, charismatic, ambitious although introverted young man whom you could easily imagine receiving offers from men and women alike - and equally imagine the offers being taken up. The portrayal in the film, Basquiat, is of a slightly autistic, inarticulate, heterosexual boor with a 'junkie walk' before he was even a junkie. It is well documented that the artist David Bowes was a male lover of Basquiat's, and other characters from the era, some still alive today, attest that while living on the street he would often exchange sexual favors with both males and females for a place to sleep for the night; not uncommon practice for the homeless. I mention all this not to disrespect the memory of Jean-Michel as I'm actually a great fan of his. Let's instead respect him by honoring him truthfully and mentioning the unmentionable: male-to-male sexuality.

Directors and scriptwriters be damned; you spoil otherwise good movies. Just when will film-makers get over their homophobic paranoia? Why make a movie about Howard Hughs and not mention he had bedded most Hollywood leading men of his day? Why make a movie about Alexander the Great misrepresenting his life-long male lover and companion, and not mentioning his Persian male lover? Why make a film about Archilles and pretend that his male lover, whose death caused his downfall, was his platonic cousin? Why make a movie about Cole Porter and not mention anything? The list goes on.

I'm a sucker for movies set in New York City, which is one reason I decided to see this, that and the supporting cast. I don't know much about Basquiat, his life or work, so I don't know how accurate the movie is, nor do I know much about art, but this film drew me in. I know the film was made by a friend and compatriot of Basquiat, Julian Schnabel, and if there's a weakness, it's that sometimes we feel this is an inside job. Nevertheless, we do go inside the art world, get to know about graffiti, and we get to understand what makes Basquiat tick. I also thought Jeffrey Wright was good in the title role. The supporting cast were all first-rate as well.

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