Jean Michel Basquiat: Demystifying Myths

Abstract

In the two films Basquiat (1996) directed by Julian Schnabel and Basquiat: The Radiant Child (2010) directed by Tamra Davis we get two different representations of Jean Michel Basquiat (1960-1988). They both use different material and resources to tell a story about Basquiat that set out to be personal and poignant because they both knew him in his lifetime. The significance of this is that the viewer in theory will see an aspect of Basquiat that is authentic and tasteful. I will discuss in this essay, how far the portrayals of Basquiat by his acquaintances can actually demystify the myths that surrounded Basquiat through the visual medium of film. They are both emotive portrayals but the extent to which the films emotionally grasp the audience is subjective. In watching the film (1996) and the documentary (2010) (for the purpose of differentiation, I will be using this terminology for the remainder of the essay), I felt that the portrayal of Basquiat was not cohesive between the two. This is interesting because both directors were portraying Basquiat from the angle of in memorabilia or as a tribute to him as their acquaintance. They both knew him in different relational aspects which inevitably meant that their portrayal of him was different overall. How far were the directors successful in their portrayals and were their specific agendas in creating their representation of Basquiat fulfilled?

Context

In the documentary (2010) we get a sense of the wider artistic context that Basquiat was living in: New York in the 80s, which we do not get in the film (1996). New York at the time was brimming with artistic bohemian types and the documentary (2010) makes a distinct point of showing that Basquiat and his lifestyle was in the zeitgeist of the time and place of New York City in the 80s. The remarkable thing about Basquiat is that he was an artist that reached such high acclaim in such a short amount of time. The reason I point out the contextualisation given by Davis in the documentary is because the film (1994), written by Julian Schnabel, did not correctly cover all of the contexts. Certain aspects about Basquiat were brushed over or under represented. The specific reasons for his lifestyle choices were never explicit. His hatred for institutions due to his mother’s institutionalisation from when he was 13 led him to leave his home at 15 and take up his street lifestyle which was an extreme opposite of his Upper Middle Class upbringing. I feel it is important to point this out because the myth or perception that was often fixated upon was this notion of Basquiat as a black street artist which plays with certain aspects of race that associate his art work with un-cultivation and un-education. Basquiat was trilingual and had been exposed to art from a young age. The street aspect of his art was a part of his gimmick or popularity and the film (1996) calls out this irony in his upbringing in the re dramatization of an infamous interview[1].

The fact that the film (1996) was fictionalised shows that we need to take the representation of Basquiat with a pinch of salt. Characters were fabricated and amalgamated into one. For instance, Gina Cardinale was a cocktail of a number of Basquiat girlfriends but was ultimately modelled off of Suzanne Mallouk, a long-time girlfriend of his, who was extensively interviewed in the documentary (2010) and gave valuable insights about him through her intimate connection with him. This is an example to show the extent that certain aspects of fact were bent in order to sensationalise Basquiat. Her role was minimised into an underdeveloped character. Also, the fact that Albert Milo was an alter ego of the director himself and the fact that his self-portrayal in the film put him in a more central role than he held in real life, hints at the agenda that Schnabel had in the film which I will go into later in the essay. The lack of contextualisation in the film (1996) inevitably clouds the perception that one has of Basquiat. There is a sensationalised portrayal that focusses on the persona and lifestyle of Basquiat: in the film (1996) there is a focus on Basquiat’s drug abuse throughout and this was manifested in a few different negative ways. The actor Jeffery Wright has hardly any narrative in the film and his speech is often stunted and his movements disjointed. However, actual footage of Basquiat shows a coherent Basquiat who is in his hay-day able to present himself in a cleanly and civilised manner.

Directors’ agenda

I will now go on to discuss the relations of the directors to the subject and their reasons for their portrayal of Basquiat. I will then go on to discuss the execution of their intended portrayal and then discuss the perceptions that come through of Basquiat through the filmography in particular scenes of the film (1996) and the documentary (2010).

Julian Schnabel, in a short clip about his exhibition “Art and Film” at the Art Gallery of Ontario (AGO) in 2010, Julian speaks about his motivations for wanting to direct a film about Basquiat. He says as he is sat in his pyjamas in his studio: “When Jean Michel died and somebody asked me to help them to help them to talk about what a painters life was, I felt that I owed it to him to portray that in the right way. I had been in that basement with him, I had seen those things so I didn’t have to make those things up. I knew my subject.” This stated relation and sensitivity for Basquiat has been heavily criticised by some art critics. Basquiat in death had reached immortality. Schnabel knew Basquiat on a professional level, they were by no means friends and it was perceived that Schnabel actually resented the stardom that Basquiat received. The portrayal of Basquiat is emotive and cinematic, however there were some denigrating factors of Schnabel’s portrayal. The portrayal of Basquiat paints him as a street urchin who cannot string together a sentence. The movie focuses on Basquiat’s persona as a black uncultivated street urchin who just managed gate-crash the Art World.

There is no real focus on Basquiat’s work but a focus on his drug taking and unruly lifestyle. This especially stands out because the only real juxtaposition that we get of another artist in the film other than Warhol, was a representation of Julian Schnabel himself in the character of Albert Milo. Art Curator Okwui Enwezor put it aptly: “At every turn it is Schnabel’s benevolent mug, his quietly confident posture, his sedate and settled family life (wife, kids and parents) and lovely house filled with his huge operatic paintings, that are matched against Basquiat’s insecure, nervous, itinerant and autistic presence. It is also a fact that the only original artwork in the film is Schnabel’s, including the sloppily repainted ‘Basquiats’.”[2] Enwezor argues that Schabel’s portrayal of Basquiat is a case of artist envy because he uses anecdotal evidence to build a persona with a few egotistic nods to himself throughout. Julian Schnabel’s relationship with Basquiat was merely professional acquaintance and nothing more but his portrayal in the film (1996) placed him as closer to Basquiat than was the truth. The portrayal is heavily flawed because as we will discuss when I go on to analyse the documentary (2010), there is so much footage and photography of Basquiat that can prove Basquiat to be so much more than a drug addicted street urchin. He lived a very public lifestyle and was not camera shy. He cannot speak for himself, but he appeared enough and affected enough people for his portrayal to go beyond mere anecdote. Can we brush over the falsification because it is “only a film”? I would argue no, because the director’s intent cannot be ignored. A direct scene that shows poignantly what I am saying about Schnabel’s agenda to insert himself and weave himself into Basquiat’s narrative is one of the last scenes of Basquiat in the film where Basquiat is limping around the streets of New York City in clogs and pyjamas foreshadowing and dramatizing his tragic end and impending death. I thought the imagery was especially poignant because it is once again an insert of Schnabel’s persona on Basquiat. I mentioned earlier how Schnabel was interviewed about his exhibition “Art and Film” in his pyjamas which is in fact one of his trademarks. In the climax of the film we see an undertone of the director’s agenda: an egotistical portrayal and insertion of himself into Basquiat’s narrative by putting Basquiat into his own trademark: grey pyjamas.

In the documentary (2010), directed by Tamra Davis, we get a more complex portrayal of Basquiat. This goes beyond the aspect of the medium of documentary which allows one to conduct interviews with those that knew the subject. Documentary is not necessarily better than film because portrayal can be skewed by editing or pointed questioning or even the clouded vision or memory of the perceptions of those that wish to commemorate the deceased. Davis had access to actual content which Schnabel was denied by Basquiat’s estate: she effectively commemorated Basquiat’ artistic genius. Davis focused her documentary around Basquiat as a multi-faceted persona. She effectively portrayed his artistic expression and the contexts in which he was inspired as well as his methods, all in real time. We see footage of Basquiat with his paintings, painting his artworks and in the press, at parties, on television shows and most interestingly, in interviews. This is especially poignant in contrast with Schnabel’s portrayal because we see more than the drugs. Basquiat is coherent, aware, conscious and at the very least, able to string together a sentence. The cinematography of the documentary is exceptional. From the music: erratic jazz played behind jumping scenes of images and quick cuts that almost mirror Basquiat and his exuberance. The visual essays are especially informative and analytical about Basquiat, how he feeling when he created the paintings, his influences and the content that he covered. Basquiat often made references to Art History in his work in jest in an ironic manner, almost mocking Fine Art yet showing his awareness and genius in doing. One painting that stood out for me was Basquiat re-portrayal of the Mona Lisa (Figure 1). Its strokes are not sparing and are sharp in opposition to the soft fine strokes of Leonardo Da Vinci adding a colourful spin both figuratively and literally to the original. We never really get a sense of the striking

complexity of Basquiat’s artistry in Schnabel’s portrayal or his makeshift remade paintings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, in both films it is hard to separate the directors’ agenda from the portrayal from the personification of Basquiat. The fact that Tamra Davis, the director of the documentary (2010), included her voice in the movie may have been a choice to show her sentiments but the inclusion of her voice made the documentary far too subjective. There was also the voices and opinions of those who she interviewed, possibly further mythologizing the persona of Basquiat. In the film (1996), Schnabel included and amalgamated characters into one with the representation of Albert Milo being interpreted as his own image or personification. In conclusion, both directors are not exempt of putting their own opinions and selves in their representation of Basquiat.

[1] Chou, Kimberley. "Basquiat: Behind the Interview." Art In America. 21 July 2010. Web. 8 Oct. 2015.

[2] Enwezor, Okwui. "Frieze Magazine | Archive | Basquiat." Frieze Magazine RSS. 1 Feb. 1997. Web. 8 Oct. 2015. <http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/basquiat/>