Kanye West's In Whose Name? divides critics as 'frustrating but grimly compelling' movie about star's fall from grace branded 'the documentary that no-one asked for'
- Have YOU got a story? Email tips@dailymail.co.uk
Kanye West's In Whose Name? divided critics as they gave their verdict on the 'frustrating but grimly compelling' movie about the star's fall from grace, with some brutally calling it the 'documentary that no-one asked for'.
The American documentary film, directed and produced by Nico Ballesteros, follows the Stronger rapper's life between 2018 to 2024.
It hit the big screen in the U.S on September 19 and lasts 109 minutes after over 3,000 hours worth of filming over those six years.
Viewers will watch a number of events that hit the headlines over that time, including his divorce with ex-wife Kim Kardashian, 44, living with bipolar and and his various controversial comments, including his antisemitic views, which have hit numerous headlines.
A number of writers have already been able to watch the documentary ahead of its release and shared what they think about it all.
Suffice to say the reception has been mixed, with some gripped by scenes of the star's decline, which others found to be self-indulgent.
Kanye West's In Whose Name? has divided critics as 'frustrating but grimly compelling' movie about the star's fall from grace, while others have it the 'documentary that no-one asked for'
The American documentary film, directed and produced by Nico Ballesteros, follows the Stronger rapper's life between 2019 to 2024
The Guardian's Andrew Lawrence's awarded the documentary an impressive four stars, with his headline stating: 'Kanye’s descent makes for grimly compelling watch.'
He writes: 'The longer Ballesteros’s doc went on, the more I found myself harkening to the way it began: with Ye on tour with Lady Gaga as part of the rollout for Graduation, just before his Taylor Swift moment at the MTV Video Music Awards set the stage for his villain arc.
'It was a refreshing reminder of who Ye once was: a totally unlikely pop star whose transcendent music spoke to a generation of poor and middle-class strivers.
'And while In Whose Name?, the most compelling of the Ye career autopsies by far, offers a more complete picture of where and how it all went so wrong, it doesn’t leave you feeling any less frustrated with the few new answers it manages to get.'
The New York Times' Nicolas Rapold writes: 'Ballesteros follows Ye through creative meetings and family chats, giving a behind-the-scenes look to public flash points, such as his embrace of Donald Trump and MAGA hats in 2018, and his shocking antisemitic invective in 2022 that led to a falling-out with Adidas as well as many supporters.
'Ye talks freely about how mental health issues affect his art, reflects on his mother and family, and acidly critiques the role of race in the music business and public sphere.'
He adds: 'The film, which could definitely focus more on the multiple-Grammy-Award-winner’s music, peters out around 2024, a year before Ye released
'But Ballesteros, who started the project when he was 18 years old, does his best to portray a reflexive iconoclast without excusing the inexcusable.'
A number of celebrities appear in the documentary, including Elon Musk (right)
However The Hollywood Reporter's Frank Scheck made his view very clear stating in the headline: ‘The Chronicle of Kanye West’s Chaos That You Never Asked For.'
He writes: 'The prospect of spending nearly two unfiltered hours with Kanye West, excuse me, Ye, should fill anyone with dread.
'But that’s exactly what you get with Nico Ballesteros’ documentary, six years in the making and edited down from some 3,000 hours of raw footage.
'This documentary portrait of the hip-hop superstar certainly delivers what it promises — an unflinching look showcasing its subject’s many inner demons.
'But for those not fascinated by the twists and turns of Ye’s clearly disturbed mind, In Whose Name, makes for a painful viewing experience.'
He continues: 'The debuting filmmaker, who began the project when he was just 18 years old, certainly had … access.
'He seems to be present for any number of intense personal moments, and how and why he was granted such close proximity is a mystery not addressed in the film. With any other celebrity, it would be surprising.
'With Ye, it seems just as inexplicable as everything else he does.'
In Whose Name hit the big screen in the U.S on September 19 and lasts 109 minutes after over 3,000 hours worth of filming over those six years
The Rolling Stone's Jeff Ihaza writes: 'We see intimate moments in the home of the Kardashians; he explodes on Kris Jenner, as his then-in-laws’ family pleads with him to get back on his meds. In these unvarnished moments, we’re given a look into the level of volatility that surrounds Ye, though it never rises to the level of revealing anything revelatory.
'Watching any of the public output from Ye over the past six years would lead you precisely to the conclusion that this is what things must look like behind the scenes.
'These moments do, however, humanize some of Ye’s struggles. His own sense of being trapped is nearly palpable in his facial expression.
'A pained, searching gaze that feels like it’s aimed everywhere at once. There is, of course, a genius behind all of this madness.
'To Ballesteros’ credit, we’re not here to lionize an artist burdened by their own brilliance. As the film progresses, it’s easy to get lost in its rawness, like combing through the camera roll on someone’s phone.
'It functions as a remarkable view into the banality of celebrity life. More often than not, Ye is alone in a car, waiting to be ushered into a brief meeting with some other famous person, where they muse about nothing for a moment and go on their way, shuttled once again in a car.'
Meanwhile Variety's Steven J. Horowitz describes the doc as 'an Intimate Yet Frustrating Look Inside the Wild World of Kanye West'.
He adds: 'The film attempts to thread more than 3,000 hours of footage collected between 2018 and 2024 into an unflinching portrayal of West, a perennial lightning rod for controversy usually sparked by his own hand.
'On its face, the doc maintains its momentum merely based on access — one might wonder why Ballesteros, who was 18 years old when he started filming, was permitted to shadow him — yet the film as a whole is as tedious and frustrating as West himself, a figure who is so deeply certain of his opinions yet wildly unmoored.'
He ends with: 'At the end of “In Whose Name?,” West has lost his goodwill. AEG and Live Nation won’t offer him a tour. Las Vegas’ Sphere won’t return his calls.
'And yet, he’s “almost like a masochist.” He asks, should he have blown up his deals with the Gap and Adidas?
'The answer, he says, is yes. It’s a maddening yet fitting end to a film about a figure so consumed in his own hubris that he can’t see through it. “In Whose Name?,” consequently, can’t avoid the same fate.'
