post 3

Basquiat continued its impressive style with great editing, acting, and analytical approaches of who the characters were as people. There is a certainty that Basquiat was a troubled individual whose art took him to the top, while his addiction and demons took him to the bottom. One does not have to be a movie critic to pick up on this, but it is relevant to this post's main points. The film's introduction presents a dreamworld that only the audience could have understood in which Basquiat stands with his mother at an art studio while examining one of Picasso's paintings. The importance is the crown he wears that further relates to his storytelling later into movie. As he regains his friendship with Bonecio Del Toro, he explains his mother's tale in which a prince's voice becomes imprisoned. The analytical approach here would imply that Basquiat was this prince and as he reached a height in his career, his voice no longer matter. The only thing that mattered to people was his art and naturally, Basquiat couldn't relate. His addiction would become worse and his way of escaping reality was demonstrated through his love for getting "high". However, his fantasy world did not end with this one fairy tale.
Throughout the film Basquiat stares at the sky and sees a man surving the beautiful waves of Hawaii. Most likely, this vision of a surfer is a demonstration of his wish to leave the city life and be somewhere free in which noone would stand in his way (just beauty and fun). This tells the audience that Basquiat's dream was not to simply become famous and be respected by everyone. Instead, he just wanted the chance to feel free and enjoy the beauty of nature.
At one point in the movie some footage presents a bird eating a frog. This clip symbolizes Basquiat's life. He became famous and his career flew high as a bird and once he received this face, his heart had been eaten. Everything Basquiat believed in was turned into a hypocrisy. He was not same person at this point. Rather, he was another example of Jackson Pollock. His career had hit a point in which people only recognized him for being a product/tool to be used by Warhol (played by David Bowie). Basquiat was emotionally disturbed and his one friend played by Bonecio Del Toro was no longer in touch with him. His girlfriend was no longer with him and he had to rely on his friendship with a man that he wasn't sure to trust. It is completely understandable to cope with his depression, but were drugs the only way to deal with this?
The question remains, who is experiencing these sights and sounds? Do they advance the plot? The answer is we (the audience) and Basquiat are experiencing these sights and sounds. However, the people who knew him didn't understand what Basquiat felt inside and the way that society can understand is through this film. This was a major reason I enjoyed Pollock and Basquiat. Those who encountered Basquiat in the real world couldn't understand his mentality, but the director somehow had a reasonable understanding of his vision and managed to transfer these thoughts through film. Some could argue this statement, but these visions that the directory added do advance the plot. Sometimes Basquiat's character is so hard to analyze that without these extra details, the audience would have a more tough time understanding who Basquiat was as a person. Yes, specific hints such as pouring syrup on a table for everyone to see gives an idea of who is being portrayed, but the concept of his intentions and who he was inside could only be further demonstrated through these extra, little clips.
The entire reading of Jamison perfectly demonstrates the relation of madness and creaitvity, but a specific quote from page 52 helps explain Jackson Pollock and Basquiat. "By our own spirits are we deified. We poets in our youth begin in gladness. But thereof come in the end despondency and madness." Basically, I interpret this as partial evidence that creativity and madness go together. Not to mention, the 19th century poet who wrote this committed suicide at the age of 17. However, the point is valid and at least partially truthful. Some people who have an obscure genius and creativity tend to be a little bit nuts. After all, where does this creativity and weird sense of genius come from if one is not at least a little bit crazy? Michael Strahan recently said in an interview regarding football players that "hey, what do you expect? In order to be so good at a sport, you have to be a little bit crazy". Such an example does not relate to art, but I feel an example of madness and skill can relate to madness and creativity.
Jackson Pollock and Basquiat do demonstrate the Jamison's article. These two artists were genius in their own sense, but realistically, were crazier than a crack house rat. No offense directed, but can one really argue that there was not a bit of madness in either of these two artists? There are too many examples from the films that have already been given by the class members concerning actions that were a little bit crazy. Instead, Pollock gives some interesting styles and techniques in the film that demonstrate Jackson was a little bit crazy. The silent filming at the art shows that show close up angles on Jackson's face gave large explanations that he was a little bit crazy inside. He wouldn't speak and would just stare into the open. These camera angles and the lack of sound effect the audience's understanding of who he was inside. He was simply "mad". Basquiat on the other hand had some different emotional issues. The image of the surfer, however, gave an easy understanding that he could look at everything as art, but at the same time, that surfer demonstrated his dream for the future. Basquiat was mentally crazy and the directing and close up angles on his visions helped create a better understanding of who he was. "It is the links between moods, temperament, and thought that we turn next." Basquiat and Pollock thought with creativity, but their creativity and the reactions that people displayed created their offset mood.