While watching Basquiat, it was fairly difficult to put into words what the genera of the film was. It wasn’t a biography or a documentary, but it also used many facts about Jean Michel’s life. After some deliberation, I would call it a biographical narrative. It tells the story of Basquiat, which is the biographical component, but it also displays that information as more of a story than a biography. This seems like a completely fair interpretation and I am sure Julian Schnabel would agree with my description. The film uses Julian Schnabel’s art as a substitute to Basquiat’s very well. I am familiar with Basquiat’s work in my prior experiences and it reflected his style very well. His very famous “scull” was seen in the film and it resembled …show more content…
When Jean Michel sold his “ignorant art” to Andy Warhol, you could see how much detail went into those little cards. These were the pieces of art I was more used to seeing. You could tell that the director put an equal amount of effort to make those little cards great. To be completely honest, I am happy that they did not use Basquiat’s art in the film. The reproductions were added much more creativity to the film. Don’t get me wrong, it would have been more authentic to use Basquiat’s actual estate in the movie, but that’s not what this movie was about. As I said earlier, this is a biographical narrative. In a certain way, Basquiat’s artistic style was being honored and was used as an influence for this movie. I feel a majority of this movie is about Basquiat as an artist and a person. His story is being shown through the entire movie. Not every scene is about his art, but every scene is about Basquiat. His story, in my opinion, is something that needs to be distributed just as much as his art. If you think about it, his art as already been distributed. You can find images of hundreds of his paintings, but how many stories about his life can you find? This film does his story