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.

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.

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.

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.

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?