Skip to main content

I can’t even see what’s good any more.

Basquiat
(1996)

Julian Schnabel’s directorial debut Basquiat unsurprisingly wallows in the world of the sensitive artist, being one himself (once, rather modestly, and elegantly, claiming he was “the closest thing to Picasso that you’ll see in this fucking life”). Indeed, he was part of the New York art scene he depicts in this biopic, personified in Gary Oldman’s character. The film’s a rather meandering, listless affair, as one might expect from a self-involved and cossetted creative sensibility, but it’s kept afloat by a sterling central performance from Jeffrey Wright as the titular force and a series of interesting supporting players, not least one David Bowie as Andy Warhol.


Bowie actually steals the picture whenever he’s on screen, ensuring his version of Warhol is the funniest space cadet you could imagine. Never quite in the present, he’s the mentally absent progenitor and culprit responsible for the commercialised art scene New York has become, and, whether its arguing where Saddle Row is with a fellow diner (New York or New Jersey), recalling his pet ducks (“We called them the Garcia Brothers”), or holding forth on the merits of piss-painting (“Oxidisation art”), Bowie consistently lifts the picture out of its staid self-importance.


I don’t know very much about Basquiat (I have to admit, this hasn’t inspired me to learn more), but one would get the impression that, despite Schnabel’s comments about knowing what it’s like to be attacked and judged as an artist, Basquiat’s fame was more a result of being foisted upon a receptive market than because of his spontaneous talent. At times he’s portrayed as some sort of innocent savant, too pure for the world in which he finds himself, his perspective illustrated by grainy video footage and the unsubtle period strains of The Pogues and PIL. Michael Wincott (great to see him not playing a snarling villain for a change) as Rene Ricard announces “I will make you a star” and just like that Basquiat is. In contrast, Willem Dafoe’s electrician self-protectively pronounces “I’m glad I never got any recognition. It’s given me time to develop”. The seductiveness of being an unsung genius is the first thing mentioned in the picture, invoking Van Gogh,and Basquiat’s path is painted as a victim of the fame that ate him alive and encouraged his narcotic habit (Wright considered Schnabel made the artist appear too much the victim).


Curiously, while Basquiat is presented as perma-stoned, there’s little in the way of presentation of his heroin addiction; he takes drugs with Benicio del Toro’s Benny Dalmau and requires resuscitation by Claire Forlani’s Gina (Forlani’s very good, but it’s a token role) but mostly meanders along unscathed, with the odd mention of his corrupted complexion. All the hard work seems to be done by Wright, and its director tackling stronger subjects such as racism (via the responses to a dinner party at Basquiat’s solitary presence in the restaurant, and Christopher Walken’s interviewer) feel rather clumsy. One comes away from the picture curiously unmoved, impressed by the performances but sensing that, intentionally or otherwise, Schnabel has merely essayed a world of artifice he is also a part of, one that lacks substance and thrives on vague pseudishness. Can currently be found on YouTube



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

Big things have small beginnings.

Prometheus (2012) Post- Gladiator , Ridley Scott opted for an “All work and no pondering” approach to film making. The result has been the completion of as many movies since the turn of the Millennium as he directed in the previous twenty years. Now well into his seventies, he has experienced the most sustained period of success of his career.  For me, it’s also been easily the least-interesting period. All of them entirely competently made, but all displaying the machine-tooled approach that was previously more associated with his brother.

Isn’t sugar better than vinegar?

Femme Fatale (2002) (SPOILERS) Some have attempted to rescue Femme Fatale from the dumpster of critical rejection and audience indifference with the claim that it’s De Palma’s last great movie. It isn’t that by a long shot, but it might rank as the last truly unfettered display of his obsessions and sensibilities, complete with a ludicrous twist – so ludicrous, it’s either a stroke of genius or mile-long pile up.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979) Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

It's something trying to get out.

The Owl Service (1969-70) I may have caught a glimpse of Channel 4’s repeat of  The Owl Service  in 1987, but not enough to stick in the mind. My formative experience was Alan Garner’s novel, which was read several years earlier during English lessons. Garner’s tapestry of magical-mythical storytelling had an impact, with its possession theme and blending of legend with the here and now. Garner depicts a Britain where past and present are mutable, and where there is no safety net of objective reality; life becomes a strange waking dream. His fantasy landscapes are both attractive and disturbing; the uncanny reaching out from the corners of the attic.  But I have to admit that the themes of class and discrimination went virtually unnoticed in the wake of such high weirdness. The other Garner books I read saw young protagonists transported to fantasy realms. The resonance of  The Owl Service  came from the fragmenting of the rural normal. When the author notes that he neve

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.