Kate Plays Christine

It was a strange coincidence this past Sundance when two movies about the same subject - Christine Chubbuck - played in competition. Christine, the other movie, is a conventional biopic, one that I found to be the best movie I've seen so far this year; this take on Christine Chubbuck is a documentary approach. Kind of.

Kate Plays Christine centers around Kate Lynn Sheil preparing for the role of Christine Chubbuck in a low-budget biopic. We follow her through the preparation period, which consists of research, getting a tan, getting fitted for a wig, calling Chubbuck's former news station in order to gain access to archive footage of Christine, and interviews with locals from Sarasota Florida about Christine. This all is interspersed with footage from this biopic in-the-making.

This is where the film's premise is going to confuse an average viewer, this biopic that's being filmed isn't actually "real". There is no movie actually being made within this 'documentary' to be seen, though what little is seen, looks terrible.

Kate Lynn Sheil also, I was surprised, by how bad her performance is in these scenes. Yet, as I continued to watch the movie, I began to realize, that was the point.

In Christine, we see Rebecca Hall's take on Chubbuck as someone who wants to be a reporter in a bigger market, but her actual aptitude for being a reporter, as portrayed by Hall, leaves you wondering why she chose this particular field in the first place. A co-worker of Christine's even says, before presenting rare footage of the actual Christine Chubbuck giving an interview says, 'she wasn't the greatest interviewer'. Which leads me to believe that Kate Lyn Sheil is playing this part badly on purpose to imitate Christine Chubbuck's failure to be a reporter the way that she wanted to be. The "movie" within the documentary is bad as a statement that a biopic about someone truly unknowable, like Christine Chubbuck, shouldn't be made.

Though the execution of this concept isn't perfect, it has enough to admire within it to give it a watch. Though I disagree with the statement that's most likely being made about Christine, and even to some extent, itself, I respect why the filmmakers would take that stance.

Robert Greene and Kate Lyn Sheil are the reasons this movie works, with a lesser director and actress, this could've easily been a complete disaster, but somehow, this tricky material finds its way.

The idea was great in that we see an actress study her art to be transformed into the tortured soul of Christine Chubbuck who shot herself live on local TV in the 1970's. Kate Lyn Shiel gets to try on some dresses and get a bespoke wig to be transformed into a living embodiment of the late news woman.

She also delves into her past to meet some people to talk a bit about the woman they knew. This could have been insightful but instead of that it is all about Kate Lyn Shiel and what a true artist she is to do all this work for such an important role etc.

This is self indulgent and pretty insulting. After seeing this I have absolutely no intention of seeing the actual film, a complete vanity project and one could say a cynical attempt to promote the actual product and or milk this project for all it is worth. Whilst it espouses to examine the futile act of sensationalism that Christine did in order to further the 'blood and guts' aims of her TV station – this does exactly the same with the naked furtherance of the projects' own profits and notoriety – shameful.

Having just recently seen the other "Christine" movie (which was superlative), I read about this one and was interested. Had I gone by most of the reviews on this site, I never would've watched it. I am absolutely amazed at how many people thought this was pretentious etc - I found it anything but! It was, IMO, a wonderful tribute to such a sad, sick woman who needed the help that wasn't available in the 70s. What she did was, really, a brave act. She knew she would never fit in in the world she inhabited. This movie gave voice to her anguish.

This was very boring for the most part. The only thing about this i liked was her visits to the actual locations. What she says at the very end was a very interesting way of looking at the situation. My question is, whatever happened to the movie she was playing the part for? I've never heard of it or seen it available anywhere....The movie "Christine" wasnt bad. I would suggest watching that if you're interested in her case.

I want to be diplomatic and not call this garbage but…Ellie Kemper's less talented hipster cousin embarks on preparation of a role for a film that does not seem to exist (there is no record of it on IMDb and the news stories about the doc do not mention where it went. Did Greene set out to make the movie and then realize how awful all of his actors were and then change direction to salvage the footage by turning it into this "documentary"?) She looks nothing like the real Christine and any amount of spray tan and colored contacts aren't convincing enough to make us believe it. (The wig is the worst "performer" in this doc...as I'm typing this there's a scene where she TAKES IT SWIMMING. Girl, you want to be a real actress, don't be that much of a dumbass.) I'm confused why this got so much praise, I found it to be a frustrating watch.