Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaSemi-autobiographical story of Conrad Rooks, who travels to France to undergo a drug-withdrawal cure. Flashbacks to the beginings of psychedelia in San Fran.Semi-autobiographical story of Conrad Rooks, who travels to France to undergo a drug-withdrawal cure. Flashbacks to the beginings of psychedelia in San Fran.Semi-autobiographical story of Conrad Rooks, who travels to France to undergo a drug-withdrawal cure. Flashbacks to the beginings of psychedelia in San Fran.
- Direção
- Roteirista
- Artistas
- Prêmios
- 1 vitória e 1 indicação no total
Avaliações em destaque
Conrad Rooks' hallucinogenic gem also boasts one of the most hypnotic film scores of all time by Ravi Shankar.Rooks knows his story,and although he tends to wander at times,he's always keeps the action moving on course.Russel Harwick's (Rooks) attempts to "escape" the rehab center are hilarious.This film probably captures the essence of the sixties counter-culture like few films ever have. Although you might be tempted not to see this trip all the way through,you will only be cheating yourself out of one of the greatest movie endings of all time.
Semi-autobiographical story of Conrad Rooks, who travels to France to undergo a drug-withdrawal cure. Flashbacks to the beginnings of psychedelia in San Francisco.
The film briefly depicts Chappaqua, New York, a hamlet in Westchester County, in a few minutes of wintry panoramas. In the film, the hamlet is an overt symbol of drug-free suburban childhood innocence. It also serves as one of the film's many nods to Native American culture. The word "chappaqua" derives from the Wappinger (a nation of the Algonquian peoples) word for "laurel swamp." This is like the very definition of an art film. For those interested in Burroughs, Ginsberg and the beat generation, 1960s counter-culture, or any of that... this is a must-see. But it is first and foremost an art film, not a movie with a strong narrative. Dracula showing up for no reason? Yeah, it has that. Drug-induced delusions? Yep. It is interesting and I don't doubt it has a cult following, but it is really more of time capsule than a good movie.
The film briefly depicts Chappaqua, New York, a hamlet in Westchester County, in a few minutes of wintry panoramas. In the film, the hamlet is an overt symbol of drug-free suburban childhood innocence. It also serves as one of the film's many nods to Native American culture. The word "chappaqua" derives from the Wappinger (a nation of the Algonquian peoples) word for "laurel swamp." This is like the very definition of an art film. For those interested in Burroughs, Ginsberg and the beat generation, 1960s counter-culture, or any of that... this is a must-see. But it is first and foremost an art film, not a movie with a strong narrative. Dracula showing up for no reason? Yeah, it has that. Drug-induced delusions? Yep. It is interesting and I don't doubt it has a cult following, but it is really more of time capsule than a good movie.
Conrad Rooks was a visionary; this film loosely recounts his journey to rehab, with Ravi Shankar and others providing the ethereal soundtrack. Images fly across the screen in wild abandon...not a "real" storyline, but mesmerizing. Available on DVD, seek it out and let your mind go free. Enough of the '60s blather, it's a cool movie that should be seen. Paula Pritchett isn't hard on the eyes, either. Ginsberg, Burroughs and others from the era are included. Phantasmagoria reigns supreme as Rooks plays out his drug-fueled life on celluloid. It's well worth seeing, a curiosity from the '60s, but more than that, it's a project of love from Rooks, who has disappeared from the scene, whatever that is or was. I enjoyed it in the theater, bought the DVD recently and revisited the feelings we felt back then. Beats many current offerings hands down.
Unlike most movies which try to illustrate drug and hallucinogenic experiences by using a bunch of jarringly bizarre and heavily symbolic images randomly strung together, Chappaqua struck me as having a strange emotional continuity throughout -- that is, every odd new scene and image that appears somehow feels perfectly appropriate when it occurs. It's as if Rooks not only put together visions and sounds that evoked his actual emotions and experiences, but also managed to assemble them in the order they happened, one flowing seamlessly into the next even though there is no obvious connection between them. In fact, the film strikes me as being not so much hallucinogenic as dreamlike, another state rarely captured well on film. So this is definitely not a film for those who insist that movies should explain, clearly and completely, exactly what they're all about. But if you want a chance to ride on the meandering currents of another person's mind, then you might give this film a try.
I'd heard about 'Chappaqua' for years, and had it built up in my head as something special, but finally seeing it was such a letdown! I'm a fan of psychedelic movies and music, and even I found it insufferable. If you aren't a fan of this era, then all I can say is AVOID.
If anyone is to blame for this garbage it must be Conrad Rooks, who is on the writer/director/star trip. Orson Welles he ain't! His acting in the first third of the movie is laughably bad. He plays "drunk" like he's auditioning for 'The Benny Hill Show'! After he sobers up things improve slightly, but then we hit the torturous psychedelic freak outs and hallucinations which go on and on and on until you either scream or fall asleep.
The only reason to watch this is to catch glimpses of Burroughs, Ginsberg, The Fugs, Moondog and other legendary cult figures. Unfortunately none of them do much to speak of. One decent thing about 'Chappaqua' - the soundtrack. Some tasty jazz (presumably Ornette) and lotsa Shankar.
Isn't it weird how all these years later "real" psychedelic movies like this bore you stupid, but "fake" ones like 'Psych-Out', 'Head' and 'Cult Of The Damned' get better and better?
If anyone is to blame for this garbage it must be Conrad Rooks, who is on the writer/director/star trip. Orson Welles he ain't! His acting in the first third of the movie is laughably bad. He plays "drunk" like he's auditioning for 'The Benny Hill Show'! After he sobers up things improve slightly, but then we hit the torturous psychedelic freak outs and hallucinations which go on and on and on until you either scream or fall asleep.
The only reason to watch this is to catch glimpses of Burroughs, Ginsberg, The Fugs, Moondog and other legendary cult figures. Unfortunately none of them do much to speak of. One decent thing about 'Chappaqua' - the soundtrack. Some tasty jazz (presumably Ornette) and lotsa Shankar.
Isn't it weird how all these years later "real" psychedelic movies like this bore you stupid, but "fake" ones like 'Psych-Out', 'Head' and 'Cult Of The Damned' get better and better?
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesWilliam Burroughs' novel The Naked Lunch was at this time, in the early 60's, one of the most scandalous and debated books around. Since Conrad Rooks had money to spend he was actually the first one to buy the movie rights for the book. Initially it was that book he wanted to make a movie of, in order to illustrate the state he'd been in during his years of drug abuse. But at that time, no film studio would touch it. But Chappaqua was as close as Rooks could get to Naked Lunch.
- Citações
Dr. Benoit: More investigate, less I know,More investigate, less we know
- ConexõesFeatured in 42nd Street Forever, Volume 1 (2005)
- Trilhas sonorasSt. Matthew Passion
Written by Johann Sebastian Bach
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- Чаппакуа
- Locações de filme
- Empresa de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
- Tempo de duração1 hora 22 minutos
- Cor
- Mixagem de som
- Proporção
- 1.37 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente