Chelsea Walls

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?

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.

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.

The residents don't seem to have money to turn on the lights, so most of the time I can't even see who is talking. There are many scenes that contain incomprehensible monologues which are superimposed onto irrelevant visuals. The numerous characters and the unrelated stories make the whole film impossible to understand for me.

There are many lines like the one above in this film. Ethan Hawke in his first work as a director has tried to capture the feeling of these modern beatniks who reside in the Chelsea Hotel in NYC and have chosen for themselves a way of life that is different than the kind of life our society would consider successful. These people aren't even artists, they're just artist wannabes. A little boy says it very clearly "It's hard to say who really is a poet these days". What makes them interesting and what they have in common is that they can't stand the modern world, their perspective on life and the belief that happiness is in simple things. There are several moments in this film that make that so clear. One of them is when Val tells Audrey (played brilliantly by Rosario Dawson) "We only have 43 dollars" and her answer is "We're just living Val. Lots of people do that.". While I was watching this film I was thinking of something I had heard in Charlie Kauffman's 'Adaptation'. "In real life nothing really happens" and I think that's exactly what Ethan Hawke's purpose is, to show us the life of some not so ordinary people who however have feelings and ordinary problems. Ethan Hawke has a wonderful script in his hands, but he fails to deliver and that's the most diappointing thing about this film. But other than that this film has so many beautiful poetic moments that it's worth watching. I understand though that if you never dreamed of this kind of life, if everything that you think matters is to make money in order to afford the comforts of modern life then this film will never appeal to you.