Jean-Michel Basquiat: The Radiant Child

This "Radiant Child" documentary is clearly a very biased production as its producers were all close and chummy associates of American graffiti artist, Jean-Michel Basquiat.

IMO - Basquiat's talent as a gifted artist (with vast potential) was marginal, at best. After viewing numerous examples of his work in this production - I would actually go so far as to say that Basquiat was, basically, without talent and his artistic insight was atrociously counterfeit.

Basquiat's success in the art world was just a flash-in-the-pan, and, in 1988, he died at age 27 from a heroin overdose.

Basquiat's artwork transcended the culture of the streets, circa 1980. He started out as a graffiti artist and rapidly become one of the world's coolest underground painters. The interview footage, if you've never seen clips of Jean-Michel Basquiat, puts the viewer into the perspective of his artwork, and conveys how his ideas were partly influenced from past artists, partly his immediate emotions, and wholly groundbreaking. He became known for crossing out words on the canvas, which indirectly strengthened the meaning of his avant-guard, street poetry. Basquiat was an innovative painter who was ahead of his time. His drive was about being totally original; that is, the very best, when it came to originality. As far as a documentary, "Jean-Michel Basquiat: the Radiant Child," works well. As soon as the director presents the eventful rise and fame of the subject, the film takes a righteous step back to discuss Basquiat's background and influences. In addition, documentaries about a single subject should never depict a person's life in chronological order; it becomes more like a Barbara Walter's special, and we don't want that. I think the audiences's predilection for this film will depend on their fascination for the subject at hand; the chaotic life of an artist, the rise and fall of a famed celebrity. I absolutely adore these stories. They usually start and finish the same, but sometimes, events take the turn for the worse, and the icon dies at a very young age. Jean-Michel Basquiat was only 27 when he died of a hot-heroin overdose. Fame, fortune, and loneliness drove his drug addiction to an unbearable end. When you hear these stories, sometimes these celebrities make it, and sometimes, they never get to live long enough to tell it themselves. Always pray for their recovery. Basquiat's work might have become more famous as a result of his death, but there's never a price too high for a persons life; not fame, fortune, or history in the making. I think the strength of documentary filmmaking deals primarily with the subject. If the viewer is drawn to the central figure, then it's really hard to objectively critique the way a documentary is filmed. Personally, I don't think "The Radiant Child" provides strong enough direction, but more importantly, a strong passion for the subject, Jean-Michel Basquiat, and it certainly shows. "The Radiant Child" lacks the spontaneity and hipness of "Exit through the Gift Shop" (2010), but any art lover, interested in the short, yet successful life of Basquiat, will certainly enjoy this documentary. Basquiat was so daring and conceptual with his work, that when he wanted to explore a traumatic event from his childhood, he would literally paint in the manner of a five year-old child . A child; he was far from it. Radiant; he was above and beyond.

For too long, the only Jean-Michel Basquiat we've had in film is Julian Schnabel's 1996 biopic (a good movie but heavily fictionalized), and the Downtown 81, a patchwork curiosity. I saw this doc with a bit of apprehension, worrying I might see a film of rehashed, superficial hype about some famous guy's famous coolness and his famous burnout. I came away really pleased.

The doc is conventional, a no-frills mix of archive footage & contemporary interviews, but this works well - it left the focus on well-selected interviews and Basquiat's artwork, which the filmmaker apparently had free rein to use and did so liberally. The catalyst for this documentary is Tamra Davis's own footage of Basquiat (circa 1986/87?), and those sections are definitely a highlight.

The substance comes from a surprisingly diverse collection of interviews, none of which wastes any screen time. There were the ex-girlfriends, old friends and art dealers, but Robert Farris Thompson, the Yale art professor who may have never met Basquiat, had some of the films most interesting comments. Diego Cortez ("I was sick of seeing white walls with white people drinking white wine") and Fab 5 Freddy both had lines that were hits with the audience. But still, the focus on Basquiat's artwork itself was the best thing here.

Some of the most-repeated, least-interesting gossip I've heard about Basquiat are referenced (he dated Madonna, painted in an expensive suit, etc etc) but this is kept to a minimum.

The weak link was too much reference to the mythical time Basquiat was "living on the streets" as a teenager. It's said he was living on the streets (or with girlfriends, to be more precise) because he was a broke kid determined to live in New York. But the record was also set straight about his background: he wasn't a genius who magically spawned from uneducated poverty. His family was well-off, he was exposed to art, music and intellectual thinking at an early age. And yet one of those interviewed got away with saying he couldn't handle the pressure of success because he'd only a little while before "he was living in the streets."

The other odd omission was any information about the girlfriend Jennifer Goode despite several photos of her, when other women in his life were interviewed at length.

Overall, very good work, and a must-see for anyone interested in the work of Basquiat.

Jean-Michel Basquiat wasn't always a wonderful guy. He could be stubborn, and a "work-aholic" when it came to his art (he ultimately made over 1,000 paintings and postcards in his ten years making art), and got addicted to heroin which, if anyone brought it up around him, he would get vicious and vindictive. He died when he was 27 years old, and at a low point in his life and career following the death of his good friend Andy Warhol. But this isn't really what Tamra Davis wants to show, at least not entirely. She wants to give a fair assessment of her friend's work, a true artist in the sense that he pushed boundaries and conventions, did things his way, and got recognition and praise though somehow stayed on the fringe when it came to widespread acceptance. Like Jimi Hendrix, he was even revolutionary in his efforts at what he did, borrowing from others in a "neo-expressionist" style that was fresh, hip, but had a basic quality to it that could be understood.

We get a view of his career- how he started off as an underground artist living downtown Manhattan at a time where, as one person puts it, "everybody did everything." No inspiration was lost on people who painted, had a band, made movies, wrote poetry and fiction, and made other art projects or graffiti. Basquiat, or "Samo" as he was called (such as "Same Ol' S***"), put up worded graffiti all over the city that got him some attention, and he had a band with Vincent Gallo where nobody could play an intstrument. But it was the very graffiti drawings he did, starting with postcards that he got sold to Warhol on a whim, and then with paintings by the dozen that he took off. One of the joys of the film is Davis showing us so much of the art, how much there was variety in his work even if so much seemed the same child-like drawings. For how simple and crude they appear, one sees a pattern, and there's an amazing sophistication in his work.

Perhaps those who are not fans of Basquiat- and the documentary shows how there were some who looked down on his work, some of which (like the current MoMA director) have recanted- may not get a lot out of the movie. But as a film about the nature of an artist, how he works and how he interacts with people, some infamous like Warhol (their collaboration story is one of the highlights), and some not like the hangers-on at his apartment, it works very well. Some of Davis' low budget aesthetic makes it a little less than great, such as the newer interviews she's done with former curators, artists, musicians, and art dealers and buyers, are lessened in quality by bad audio and video. But perhaps (?) that was part of the point, too. She has an artist as her subject, also a close friend (Davis has some nice if uninteresting anecdotes about eating Chhinese food with Jean-Michel), and the work, and his life and his stories told from a 1986 interview done personally with him, speaks for itself.

This all said, if you are a fan, or think you are, or even just enjoyed Julian Schnabel's 1996 movie, this goes more in-depth and you get a lot of great looks at his daring, provocative artwork, and his process. 8.5./10

I really liked this movie and what it shows not only about the new york art scene of the 1980s and Basquiat, but about how fame and success can easily lead to destruction. However, at times the movie is hard to watch because the sound is TERRIBLE! I don't understand how clearly talented film makers could take so little time and have so little care about the sound. They clearly took lots of time and care in interviewing many important and interesting players within the scene and Basquiat's life, but often I fell out of the movie simply because i was struggling to understand the bad audio, then starting to wonder why the audio was so bad. Some interviews had clearly exposed clip on mics and that was so much preferred to the other interviews where the audio was either distorted, rustle or clearly just a camera mic. I mean, even the interview done on the analog video camera in the 1980s sounded so much better than half of the interviews that feature prominently in the film.

I want to recommend this movie highly, as I feel its story has a lot of continuity to the artists of today, but i also have to strongly warn them that the audio is so bad that it might not be worth the struggle.

Please! please! Please! Documentary film makers out there, care as much about the sound as you care about the image and content. All three are needed to make a movie work. Nothing is more frustrating than suffering through an interview solely because the sound is bad. Learn something about sound. Care about your sound, or hire some one who does!