robertg-9

I really looked forward to seeing this because of all the people who worked on it. But as I watched it I kept thinking that something must have gone terribly wrong. The script - by the incredible Tom Stoppard, of all people -- was awkwardly constructed! Characters did things that were so breath-takingly stupid that I had to wonder if they were doing these things just to keep the plot moving along, or whether Stoppard was really trying to show that these brilliant characters were also complete idiots.

I can't much fault the actors because they have to follow Stoppard's script and Apted's direction. And why there should have been problems with those two men is baffling. Like this whole film. I always expect a puzzle of some kind from Stoppard, but the only puzzle for the first three-quarters of this film was how these characters could be behaving so foolishly. All the flashback scenes to Claire were infuriating in the way they undermined the main character without ever offering us any insight into WHY he was behaving in this way. I have a strange feeling the director decided to try to goose the story up and messed up more character development than he could finally correct. SOMETHING important got sacrificed.

I really liked Dougray Scott in this role because he looked a mess, giving himself over completely to expressing his character's fragile state. Kate Winslet was very solid -- and refreshing as the only character who didn't seem be (foolishly) hiding something she shouldn't be.

The last quarter of the film really picks up the pace and becomes another film entirely. Unfortunately in the process everyone steps even more out of character. Hard to believe, but at least not boring.

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.

First off let me say that Billy Crudup's performance in Waking the Dead is simply great. He's always been interesting to watch, in whatever I've seen him in, but because this film is so infuriating in so many ways I found myself more appreciative than ever of the skill of this man.

A story of undying love should be a wonderful and moving thing, but for me the great flaw of this film is that I didn't for a moment believe that these two people would want to be together longer than to share a cup of coffee -- and even then not without the direct intervention of some satanic power.

Since they have nothing in common and no shared points of view or interests, the fact that the film simply steps over this problem as if it isn't even there asks too much of the viewer.

The character of Sarah (Jennifer Connelly) is so committed to her views of political-social right and wrong that she trashes her lovers career hopes over and over without the slightest concern for the ramifications for him. Her committments are all for mankind, all intellectual, none are emotional, none personal, and emphatically not for him. This man and his happiness interest her not in the least. And he smiles thru it all.

There's lots of love-making so they must be in love. That's as much as the film-makers can provide to hang this entire premise on.

I don't buy it.

But, man, it was HUGELY interesting to watch Billy Crudup tower over everything else here.