Chelsea Walls

I connect with what this thing is supposed to be, but the substance of these artists is poor. Nothing we see from them rises above the level of teenage poetry. The Chelsea Hotel is still a mecca for poets and artists, even if today it's more a mecca for kids of Kerouac. This movie shows the Chelsea as a mecca for 21st century sulking hipsters who learned hippy-dom from Woodstock DVDs. I don't think that's accurate. If you take away the artist premise and the reputation of the Chelsea as a setting, and replace it with a college dorm full of political science majors, you'd have an equally fascinating film.

But I find the building, the inside of that building, to be beautiful.

I've just seen the dvd of Chelsea Walls and the one thing that seems to be missed by all the other people who have commented on the film is that the screenplay was written by actress Nicole Burdette and existed first as a stage play by her.

Ethan Hawke seems to be getting all the blame for this films lack of narrative structure, but did the play have any? I seriously doubt it. I don't think it was something that Hawke removed just for the film. The script is made up mostly of behavior. Behavior is the kind of thing that serious writers work very hard to expunge from their work in an effort to get to the real meat -- the story or narrative, the thing that the writer needs to say. Chelsea Walls is not that. It plunges the viewer into behavior without any effort to explain what you're watching or who the characters are. This is definitely not what most people expect or want when they go to the movies.

Still though, the actors are very capable, and they are mostly really wonderful to watch. If Burdette had given them the telephone directory to read they probably would have made it at least a little interesting to sit and watch for a while, just because of who they are.

What Hawke, his editor and cameraman have put together here is an ultimately haunting and very poetic experience. I too, like others, have found it very hard to get out of my system. Images and moments from the film still haunt me. There are bits that are true and extremely beautiful in this film, things that are very keenly observed. That, I believe, is what Ethan Hawke brought to Burdette's script.

It was never a very commercial project, but, jeez, all the stones that people are hurling at him seem a little excessive.

I feel so ashamed for the people who have trashed this film, they obviously don't know a lot about movies. This film is a wonderful work of art, and it seems that many of the people posting comments here don't appreciate art. Many have noted the grainy and obscure shots in the movie, that is because it was filmed entirely in digital format. It is the second film in the InDigEnt series of films shot entirely on digital, and on a budget of $150,000 or less (another film in this project being Richard Linklater's "Tape", which is an AMAZING film). The film was shot over a period of 16 days using Sony PD-100 digital cameras. As for the writing and characters that have been belittled, these characters are not entirely the creation of screenwriter Nicole Burdette, the story was inspired by the play "Under Milk Wood" by a man called Dylan Thomas, you may have heard of him... if you haven't, go to school, and then come back and critique this movie. Thomas actually resided in the Chelsea at one point in time, as well as Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen. And if you didn't enjoy the music of the film by Wilco/Jeff Tweedy... shame on you. Chelsea Walls is a wonderful film, directed by an amazing artist. For Hawke's directorial debut, I think he did a wonderful job.

Christopher Walken is credited as a character without a name (and his name appears on the VHS cassette). Can anyone tell my exactly what part he plays and/or when he appeared? I surely didn't see him - and I watched for him through the whole movie as I expected him to fit in quite well in this original movie. Or maybe I just went blind?

Chelsea Walls is not the usual film, that somehow all of the characters and their stories are inter-related. In 'Walls', none of the characters and their stories touch one another. This is what makes it more life-like, because all of us know that this is reality and not the movies. This film requires the participation of the audience in viewing it, there are many fascinating characters who are telling fascinating stories, just watch and listen. Finally, it is about Americans who are still 'On the Road' for that career in the arts and the experiences that they have and the people that enter their lives while they are on that journey. It is somewhat in the genre of Jack Kerouac, the difference being that this is a group of total strangers who never connect with each other, just with life.