Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘Jean-Michel’ Review: Jean-Michel Basquiat Finally Gets the Fantastic Documentary He Deserves

Published

on

‘Jean-Michel’ Review: Jean-Michel Basquiat Finally Gets the Fantastic Documentary He Deserves

“Jean-Michel” is the Jean-Michel Basquiat documentary we’ve been waiting for — the fantastic one he deserves. Over the years, there have been a sprinkling of films built around Basquiat, like the boho vérité snapshot “Downtown 81” (2000) or “Boom for Real: The Late Teenage Years of Jean-Michel Basquiat” (2018), which captured the period in the late ’70s after he’d broken with his family, when he was a scene-maker cultivating the seeds of his art and fame. Both those films are heady time capsules, and so, in a different way, is Julian Schnabel’s “Basquiat” (1996), a biopic — starring the hypnotic Jeffrey Wright — that was way ahead of the curve in recognizing the poetic sway of Basquiat’s art and image.

But “Jean-Michel,” directed by Quinn Whitney Wilson and Viridiana Lieberman (it just premiered at the Tribeca Festival and was bought by Netflix), is the first movie to penetrate the Basquiat mystique and give you a full-scale portrait of who he was: New York child of privilege, driven prodigy, bohemian scavenger, downtown rock star, thrill-seeking junkie, media celebrity, meditative soul, spiky and timeless art genius. It’s the first Basquiat film to be made in cooperation with his family, who provided the archive — home movies, photographs, sketches, notebooks — that fills in Basquiat’s life as never before.

When the family estate cooperates in a biography, it can mean the rough edges are sanded off — that you’re getting a burnished, officially approved portrait. But that’s not what happens in “Jean-Michel.” I’m sure there are sordid details that were left on the cutting-room floor (and it’s jarring that the movie leaves out his relationship with the artist Suzanne Mallouk), but the film is bracingly direct about who Basquiat was, his many dimensions and contradictions. He was a singularly charismatic and, by most accounts, ingratiating person, so it’s not like the film has to fudge that, but he could also be moody and jealous and ruthless (at an opening at the Whitney, he used a pen to deface one of Schnabel’s paintings). He was like a planet revolving around himself, and the film does justice to the light and dark sides of that orbit.

The closest thing “Jean-Michel” has to an agenda is to undercut a stubbornly persistent dimension of the Basquiat legend: that he was a “primitive” genius who rose up out of the streets. It’s important to say that we have this image, in part, because it was cultivated by Basquiat himself. But the media dug the myth a little too much; their consuming embrace of it carried a racist undertone, as if Basquiat could only be understood as a derelict version of virtuosity.   

It’s true, of course, that he started off as an underground graffiti artist who named himself SAMO (for “same old shit”) and ultimately crossed over to the gallery world. And it’s true that he went through a self-styled homeless period. But “Jean-Michel” fills in the ground floor of his life — that his father, Gerard, a Haitian immigrant who became a New York businessman, and his mother, Matilde, a fourth-generation Puerto Rican, raised him and his two younger sisters in a Brooklyn brownstone that the family owned. They were a close-knit clan, and Jean-Michel was doted on by his mother. He attended private school and wanted to be a cartoonist. But he’s described by his adult sisters, Lisane and Jeanine, as a ball of unruly energy who couldn’t settle down in class; he was too much of a rebel dreamer.

Advertisement

His life took a turn after he was hit by a car (at age 7), and his parents divorced. (In the film, the prospect of losing his family devastated the young Jean-Michel.) Matilde, who had cultivated the love of art in him, declined into mental illness once she was on her own, and his father was basically a 1950s straight-arrow who wanted to shoehorn Jean-Michel into the American Dream. Jean-Michel was having none of that, so in his teens, stoked by the post-punk fervor of the late ’70s, he ran away from home. It’s crucial to note that this was happening at a moment, at least in New York, when squatting had become hip. Madonna did it too, and she and Basquiat had a fling as she was on the verge of fame.

What’s striking about Basquiat’s creativity, which the documentary captures with a seductive, voluminous presentation of the development of his art, is that he was a fountain that never turned off. We see samples of his art as a child, and there’s no question that as he got older he deliberately hung onto and refined elements of that blotchy, scalding style; he saw the expression of his childhood self as the ultimate freedom. Yet by the time he’d reached his teens (he began painting at 15), and was selling postcards on the street for a few dollars, his work had begun to acquire the vibratory quality that made it seem like you were staring at psychological X-rays. “There is no filter,” says one observer. “You’re looking inside his brain.” That’s exactly the talismanic quality of Basquiat’s paintings. He used mixed media (words, collage, geometric piping, icons like the repeated use of a crown, erupting scrawls) to make it feel like you were downloading his soul in its distilled form. The paintings were incantations, shot through with rapture and anxiety, threaded with a secret coded history of the culture. Basquiat looked into himself and saw the world — of Black experience, and of American experience — and then reflected that world back to us.

Growing up, Jean-Michel Basquiat chose to be a drifting bohemian, but the nightclub culture that became his second home was starting to interact with the media in a new way. We see clips of Basquiat on “TV Party,” the New York cable public-access show, where he sat around with people like Christ Stein and Fab 5 Freddy. For a while, his hair is shaved into a widow’s-peak dagger, but what’s disarming about his presence is how gentle and gregarious it is. We see interview segments where he lets his guard down, and also ones where he reveals himself by revealing next to nothing. He’s notably more wary in the interviews he began to give when he was getting famous. One takes place in his loft studio, and as the interviewer nudges him with questions about a painting, all tethered to a kind of racist skepticism (Why did you make that choice? Is it all arbitrary?), Basquiat fends off the cluelessness by creating an aura of invincibility around himself very much like that of Bob Dylan in the mid-’60s.

If you go to see a Jean-Michel Basquiat retrospective (and this movie has the effect of one), it’s astonishing to confront everything he painted, and the maturity of it, all before he died at the age of 27. It’s no hype to say that he can remind one of Picasso. There is only one Picasso, but Basquiat had that kind of fecund imagination, that endlessly varied and prolific joy. He worked fast, and took refuge in his work much as Picasso did. By the time he became buddies with Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel was the one doing the inspiring. The movie colors in their friendship, which we can see was quite close; they each got something out of the other, but it’s also clear that they adored each other. That’s why Warhol, after decades of not painting by hand, was moved to start again, in what became a collaborative project. The critics hated it, and they were too harsh; they couldn’t process the dual authorship, and by then they had turned, almost reflexively, on Warhol. The bad response soured the friendship….and then Warhol died. This left Jean-Michel without the mentor who had been a fulcrum for him.                  

He returned to his family, showing up in Brooklyn in a limo one day, handing out money, but in a way he was lost. Jennifer Goode, a girlfriend of his from 1984 to 1988, tells the story of his heroin addiction (she was his partner in junk), and how they would go to Hawaii so that he could get clean. They travelled extensively for his art openings around the world, and Jean-Michel would power through when he was someplace where he couldn’t get drugs. He should have gone to rehab, but he was deeply private, like Philip Seymour Hoffman, who also felt himself to be invincible and used heroin to self-medicate his way into an early grave. The film presents some evidence that Basquiat, near the end, was losing interest in art (he talked about wanting to become a writer). But I don’t believe that. He lived and breathed painting; it’s hard to conceive of him abandoning it. The paintings, of course, now sell for so much that they have put him on that rarefied level, along with Van Gogh and Francis Bacon and Picasso. There are still Basquiat doubters who think that’s a travesty. Don’t listen to them. Decide for yourself by seeing “Jean-Michel.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass (2026) | Movie Review | Deep Focus Review

Published

on

Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass (2026) | Movie Review | Deep Focus Review

A deliriously funny riff on The Wizard of Oz from director David Wain, Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass is a goofy patchwork of ideas. Some of them don’t work, but most of them do if you’re in on the joke. Written by Wain and his longtime collaborator Ken Marino, the comedy features an incredible number of hilarious people, sometimes playing absurdist versions of themselves. Jon Hamm, Jennifer Aniston, John Slattery, and Elizabeth Banks, among others, cameo alongside a cast of lesser-known but no less talented performers. Headlining the movie is Zoey Deutch, who, amid an impressive list of credits, has proven her knack for ridiculous humor like this (see 2019’s Zombieland: Double Tap). Wain directs a series of episodic segments that follow characters who skip along a yellow brick road of surreal gags and jokes about Hollywood. It’s all a bit nonsensical and ludicrous, but it made me laugh a lot. 

For those of us who loved MTV’s sketch-comedy show The State (1993-1995) or Wain’s spoof movies such as Wet Hot American Summer (2001) and They Came Together (2014), Gail Daughtry will feel like a warm blanket. The State was a comedy troupe nesting ground for talent, many of whom went on to create and appear in dozens of other shows (Viva Variety, Reno 911!, Childrens Hospital, etc.), while member Michael Showalter has become a well-respected director whose output includes the indie comedy The Big Sick (2017) and the upcoming Colleen Hoover book adaptation Verity. Whenever Wain and Marino reteam with various members of The State (Michael Ian Black, Thomas Lennon, Kerri Kenney-Silver, Joe Lo Truglio, et al.), there’s usually something special in store. Even if the material doesn’t always work as a whole—see The Ten (2007), an anthology movie that pokes fun at the Ten Commandments—the result is bound to include some big laughs. 

Deutch plays the titular Kansas bumpkin, a hairdresser who plans to marry her fiancé and lifelong sweetheart, the ingeniously named Tom Soursap McNoodleman (Michael Cassidy), in two weeks. At once naive and intense, she’s never been with anyone else. Neither has Tom. But after sharing their picks for a celebrity sex pass, Tom almost instantly encounters his choice in the flesh and then takes advantage of the opportunity. Burned because she didn’t actually think they were serious about following through, Gail resolves to seek out her chosen celebrity, Jon Hamm, and have sex with him to balance the scales. And so, Gail is off to see The Wonderful Wizard of Hollywood, alongside her coworker named Otto (Miles Gutierrez-Riley), an anagram of Toto. As the story unfolds, Gail Daughtry spoofs the structure of Dorothy’s adventure to Oz, except that Gail’s destination is Tinseltown.

Just as New York was “another character” in They Came Together, Los Angeles becomes one here. But instead of capturing the city’s flavor, Gail and Otto gravitate toward CityWalk at Universal Studios and, based on their hotel concierge’s recommendations, other local hotspots such as McDonald’s, Starbucks, and 7-Eleven. Gail and Otto begin searching for Hamm and gather friends along the way. Among them are Vincent (Marino), a former paparazzo who dreams of snapping a photo of Hamm; Caleb (Ben Wang), an aspiring CAA talent agent; and the crazed Slattery, who wants to work with Hamm again after their Mad Men days. Hot on their trail are two cartoonish mobsters (Joe Lo Truglio, Mather Zickel) desperate to recover a briefcase that was switched with Gail’s at LAX and contains information about their boss’ (Sabrina Impacciatore) plans to dismantle the global financial system. Their quest eventually brings them to Hamm, whose private security (Tobie Windham) enforces not with his fists or a taser, but with an obscure promise to make anyone who tests him “real sick.” 

Advertisement

Gail’s travels are occasionally interrupted by Fourth Wall-breaking commentary from the film’s narrator, a mailman played by Fred Malmed. It’s one of the aspects of the movie that doesn’t work, but Gail Daughtry’s framework is less essential than the inspired jokes throughout. Wain and Marino riotously showcase the most banal aspects of LA, a signature of their delightfully dumb humor, which almost always lands as intended. Granted, some unfamiliar with their brand of comedy may take a while to get on its wavelength, and others may never understand why it’s funny. Still, there are enough non sequiturs and random punchlines blended with raunchy and occasionally dark-as-hell asides to keep the viewer off-kilter yet chuckling throughout. 

There’s an irreverent surprise around every corner in Gail Daughtry, and Deutch fits right in with her comedian costars. Her impressive range renders the silliest moments without winking at the audience, but she also never reduces her character to a mere comic device. It’s also a joy to watch celebrities of Hamm and Aniston’s caliber poke fun at their image, even if the movie doesn’t challenge Being John Malkovich (1999) in its self-referentiality. Outside of last year’s disappointing The Naked Gun, few comedies today attempt to be pure joke machines. Wain and Marino deliver a movie that will probably take some time to be discovered and cherished for what it is, but after a few rewatches, much like the director’s other features, it’s sure to become a cult favorite.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Film reviews: ‘The Invite’ and ‘Minions & Monsters’

Published

on

Film reviews: ‘The Invite’ and ‘Minions & Monsters’

‘The Invite’

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Summer movie reviews: Supergirl, Disclosure Day, and Toy Story 5

Published

on

Summer movie reviews: Supergirl, Disclosure Day, and Toy Story 5

It’s summer blockbuster movie season and there have been a lot of new releases from many of the biggest studios and directors. Some of the biggest titles include “Supergirl”, “Disclosure Day”, and “Toy Story 5.”

GBH’s Morning Edition guest host Tori Bedford spoke with GBH correspondent and film critic Sarah G. Vincent, along with GBH’s Callie Crossley, an avid cinephile and host of Under the Radar with Callie Crossley, for their take on some of the season’s biggest releases. What follows is a lightly edited transcript.

SUPERGIRL

Tori Bedford: So one of the biggest movies to hit theaters lately has been the next installment in James Gunn’s new DC Universe, “Supergirl”, starring Millie Alcock. Sarah, let’s start with you. What did you think?

Sarah G. Vincent: I actually loved it. It’s the first summer movie where I didn’t have any disclaimers of “I liked it but…” I was very invested in the storyline because if someone hurt my fluffy baby, I would run around the universe and try to save him. Also, I like that it was like a superhero movie with a woman where she didn’t become a surrogate mother, where she wasn’t sexualized, where she was dealing with real emotion. The real emotion really hit me. I love the backstory. It was gorgeous. I understand that it’s a lot of jokey jokes.

Advertisement

Bedford: What do you mean jokey jokes?

Vincent: On the present day storyline where she’s helping Ruthye, they do try to keep it light because they’re dealing with a lot of heavy issues, and so there are a lot of like flippant jokes and one-liners and everything. And I didn’t mind that because this is still a blockbuster and I think that a blockbuster does need to have some like mass appeal. I’m not going for a Bergman film, right?

Bedford: Yeah, it’s summer. Like, chill out.

Vincent: Right.

Bedford: What’d you think, Callie?

Advertisement

Callie Crossley: I am the “but” — I liked it except some of the themes were so heavy, even though presented in an entertaining way. So, don’t take me wrong. You should see it. It’s a popcorn movie. But I was like, “OK…”

Bedford: You wanted more jokey jokes.

Crossley: Well, it was just to me, I looked at it and I thought, “Epstein Files” because we have a plot of young girls being trafficked to an island of crazy men. So that’s what came to me. But then I thought, I guess I’m just— I live in news, so this is what I would think of. But I can understand in the moment why it was there, but I’m not sure it resolved itself for me in the best way possible that sort of made it maybe not so uncomfortable about it. Now, she is great, Millie Alcock as Supergirl, and I loved her backstory. I really enjoyed that part. And there are some cameos from Superman. So you really get to see the difference between the two of them and why there is a difference, because now you know the backstory.

Bedford: I love their relationship, where he’s like, “This is why Krypto is not well-behaved” and she’s all disorganized.

DISCLOSURE DAY

Advertisement

Bedford: All right, next up — I can’t wait to talk about this. Steven Spielberg is back with an alien mystery thriller, “Disclosure Day.” This man is obsessed with aliens.

Callie, let’s start with you. What’d you think?

Crossley: I went because it’s Steven Spielberg, and I wanted everything. So again, this is a popcorn movie, and out of the gate, you are really on a ride, and you’re like, “What’s happening?” So, I would say the first part of the movie, you’re just caught up in trying to understand where he’s going with it, and it’s a lot of action, and it’s Spielberg-esque in that way. And that John Williams score is fabulous. What I had a problem with was the end of it. I’m going to use the word unimaginative because I am not giving away the plot, so no spoilers here, It’s unimaginative in how he resolves it because I think it’s old-fashioned in both how he presents some of the folk, and also in the methodology of how he wants to get the word out. So that sort of threw me off and I’m thinking, “That’s not a word I use with Steven Spielberg. I should not be using unimaginative.” I still say you should see it, but those are my thoughts.

Vincent: At 2.5 hours, I would say, I warned you. So as an action movie where people are being chased, like the bad guys are chasing the good guys, it’s a great movie. As a movie where it takes an alternate sort of sci-fi approach to the idea of possession and what it would look like, terrific. Actually, a really provocative, wonderful idea. Emily Blunt does a wonderful job.

Crossley: Fabulous.

Advertisement

Bedford: She’s great in the movie.

Vincent: I think she owns the movie, and if the movie was just about her character, I would probably give it like closer to a 90 than where I landed, which was probably in the 70s.

Bedford: I was just going to say … I got out of this, and I thought, “Am I stupid? Or was this really dumb?” It was fun though.

Crossley: This is not a Spielberg movie you’re going to remember, I say.

Vincent: No, yeah, you’re not.

Advertisement

Crossley: And there’s a lot of reviewers saying it’s fabulous. And I’m like, were we at the same place?

Bedford: Am I dumb?

Crossley: But still, it’s a popcorn movie. Got some really good stuff in there you could enjoy.

TOY STORY 5

Bedford: All right, finally: Woody, Buzz, and all their friends are back again for “Toy Story 5,” and this one is taking on big tech as a teaching tablet enters the toy box. Sarah, what’d you think?

Advertisement

Vincent: I loved it. It’s my favorite Toy Story. And I would say that what I loved about this movie is when you go to movies, usually technology is the bad guy, period. And this movie is much more nuanced. And no one is really the bad guy. It presents the pros and cons of everything. And it’s about authentic relationships and it shows how in the past, a relationship without technology was fraught, in retrospect, with problems for Jesse, with the trauma she endured by losing her person. Now in the present with their new human basically having this crisis of “how do I make friends?” So I think it shows the universal problem of how you make authentic relationships, and the technology is only showing how that problem persists. It embodies now, but it’s always been a problem.

Crossley: I think it’s brilliantly done in this way. It doesn’t demonize all the folks that usually get demonized. The tech gets demonized. Sometimes the parents get demonized. That did not happen at all. But for me, any story about friendship that’s told authentically is going to get me. And they know how to get you. It’s a really, really important story about finding your tribe, as Sarah said. Now, having said that, it’s still not my favorite. Toy Story 3 is my favorite. And I went back just to say, “Okay, let me just go look at the end of 3 again to see if I had the same response.”

Bedford: Oh, masochist, my God.

Crossley: Well, because I just wanted to see. I looked at my computer, watched only the end, and sobbed yet again.

Bedford: I know, that’s all I’ve got to say about this franchise. How much more crying do you want me to do?

Advertisement

Crossley: I misted up at the end of this. I did not sob, as I scared the children in 3 before in the theater. But this time I did mist up because really, they know how to get you. It’s so worth seeing.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending