Chelsea Walls (Ws)

Amazon.com

Ethan Hawke directs this starving-artist mood piece set in a famous New York hotel. A loose collection of artists and lonely souls waft in and out of the Chelsea in what is more a slice-of-life mood piece than a drama. The film (shot entirely on digital video) is best recommended for those who still subscribe to the notion that all artists are emotional wrecks with substance-abuse problems and that this is somehow romantic. The characters speak in poetry as often as not. If you are of a poetic bent, you may find this quirk beautiful, but more prosaic souls will find it embarrassing at best. The cast, however, is excellent. Kris Kristofferson, Vincent D'Onofrio, Rosario Dawson, Robert Sean Leonard, and Steve Zahn all do fine work, especially given the difficult dialogue and frequently inadequate natural lighting. Natasha Richardson gives a particularly memorable performance--sadly, her role is all too abbreviated. --Ali Davis

Customer Reviews:

Ethan builds Hotel on Baltic Avenue..........2007-07-27

There stands a hotel. Not just your typical hotel, and definitely not a hotel that is run by the parent of the "Heiress of Fashion", but one where human culture was created. That may sound philosophical, but there was a hotel where some of the greatest minds connected together, only to witness the lost power of modern day destroy and transform this hotel into a mess. Before I give away the name, of which you probably are already aware, I must say that somebody decided it was up to themselves to cheat others of their namesakes while attempting to create a unique and creative voice. All right, I you have had enough guesses - the hotel is Chelsea in NYC and the director is the Oscar-nominated Ethan Hawke. Did these two combine well? Were they like Kool-Aid and water, or gasoline and orange juice? Each will have their own opinion depending on the level of graduate work done in the field of cinema, but for this film nerd, it was more the gasoline and orange juice option without the allowance of a chaser.

The Chelsea Hotel is a landmark in American culture, alas, due to modern advances in low-income housing; it has become nothing more than a demolished idea coupled with a forgotten past. Hawke, using nearly every technique patented by Richard Linklater, attempts to revitalize the forgotten hotel with non-sequitur stories and impossible characters, yet incredible actors. Using now-cliché camera style (a.k.a. The grain of pure film school) and a powerful score by Wilco, Hawke pulls every grunge independent filmmaker technique known to man, mashes them together like potatoes, and hopes - actually prays - that it will be a big "hurrah" at the cinematic Thanksgiving. Enough references for now, but truthfully, Hawke creates an eyesore of a film with "Chelsea Walls'. Beginning with characters that never develop AT ALL, coupling with a story that is never existent, Hawke horribly displays whatever talent he may have thought he had by employing friends to carry the burden. "Chelsea Walls" was a smear on cinema, not because of the subject (of which I do believe an honest film needs to be made of the events leading to the demise of this building), but because of the surroundings. Hawke borrows, as mentioned before, unsuccessfully from Linklater's work, attempting to bring a "Waking Life"-esque story to the surface sans the animation. Where Hawke failed was that he brought unexcited characters into a place that really needed an introduction. He needed to guide this audience through his train of thought - not just assume we were all as intellectual as he portrayed himself to be.

What upped me about this film was that we had intelligent, powerful actors giving us nothing. From the beginning of the scene until the end, there was nothing solid for us to stand. Kris Kristofferson is a phenomenal actor, but he couldn't bring me to the surface in "Chelsea Walls". He cried, he drank, he womanized, but for what purpose - this critic has absolutely no idea why. The same can be said for Natasha Richardson, whom in my eyes, cannot do wrong, was misguided from the beginning thanks to Mr. Hawke. Rosario Dawson gave the only comprehensible portrayal throughout the film, but she was flanked by horrid direction and choppy "anti-independent" cliché surroundings. She tried, but Hawke wouldn't allow her to prosper. The only one that went the distance, albeit horribly, was Robert Sean Leonard who only was given screen time because of his friendship with director Hawke. He did have a moving story, and if we were left with just the central focus of Leonard's character as he interacted with the others of this building, I think we could have had a keeper of a film, but we didn't. We jumped. We jumped from one actor to another hoping that we could see the chaos surrounding these talented artists. Alas, all we witnessed was Jell-o slipping down a wall -- nothing was sticking.

I hate to be pessimistic because I had high hopes for this film. Look at the billing for "Chelsea Walls", who wouldn't get excited. What did happen is that Hawke went to the Linklater school of direction, but abysmally failed out, possibly never quite going to the first class, but instead just copying someone's notes. This was a dark depressing tale that had elements that could work, but just like any first year filmmaker, it all depends on how you put those ideas together. Hawke had some great ideas, but he could not assemble them. He tried to bring music into the scene, and the use of Wilco was genuine, but overbearing - not to mention overused - throughout the film. This seemed to be the common theme or pedestal that Hawke used for "Chelsea Walls" - overuse, until it becomes painful to the viewer. You can obviously see that with the extra lack-tastic features attached to this disc. There are some additional scenes, which only continue the abrasive, unknown of the film. There are some interviews, but done many years after the film. Hawke tries his best, but the funniest is Robert Sean Leonard who forgets everything and attempts to change the subject. My favorite, "What was your favorite scene Mr. Leonard", answered with a long pause and the phrase, "...anything with Rosario". That sums this film up in a nutshell.

Overall, I cannot suggest this film. I love the actor Ethan Hawke, and I like this style of filmmaking, but for "Chelsea Walls" it just didn't seem put together. Linklater would have been upset with the results - just as we were as we watched it. Do not be fooled by the big names associated here, they accomplish nothing and in the end, make you want this hotel to be torn down. This was a sad attempt at filmmaking, and I can only suggest watching a better combination film with these actors called "Tape". I have mentioned this in a couple of other reviews and truly believe this is the best Hawkes/Leonard/Linklater combo platter you will ever get.

Grade: * ½ out of *****

Compellingly masterful rendering of A Day (or two) in the Life.......2007-02-10

Read Alex Grayson's articulate and thoughtful review (Jan. 3, 2007) which nails it.
Apparently Chelsea Walls is not for everyone, but if you watch this movie with an open heart and mind, I promise it will provide a compelling and realistic portrait of actions, interactions and reactions so common among my fellow artists it breaks my heart. The one element I find lacking is the artist (writer) who is truly grounded --- that absence detracts only a little though from an otherwise truthful portrayal of the life of many artists, at all stages of life, love and the pursuit of creativity.
Despite the tawdry details of life among the creative, with its erratic narrated background of Dylan Thomas' masterful Under Milkwood, an edgy musical score and the realism of the indie lighting style to set the tone, the visual and actual poetry of Ethan Hawkes directorial debut sing with beauty, truth and love.

fading, fading, gone.......2007-02-06

This movie is great if you want to go to sleep and you ran out of boring books. Ethan Hawke leans to heavily on Kris Kristofferson's performances not to mention Jeff Tweedy's music. As a matter of fact the only gleaming light in the movie is the music. It is written interestingly enough, but the visuals look like there wasn't enough money in the budget to clean up the cheap video that it was shot on. The best way to watch this movie is in the background. You don't need the visuals, and if you dare watch them you will get dreary eyed and fade away.

Mesmerizing...but not for everyone, it seems.......2007-01-04

I'm often shocked at how far afield I seem to have drifted from my fellow man (or woman), but the reviews on Netflix and here that tear this remarkable piece of work to shreds are just baffling. But when I think about it all in the context of my own love and appreciation for this film and how much it reminds me of listening to really raw, emotional improvisational jazz (for which even I have to be in the right mood) it occurs to me that this is just an acquired taste, like any expression of creativity. All art is subjective, and I found this to be the kind of visual interpretation of a series of fascinating moments and stories that had me completely spellbound. I rented this (which I ordered the next day so I can watch it over and over again) and popped it in late one night before bed, intending only to watch a few minutes but I could not bring myself to stop an watched the entire thing. All I could say afterwards was "wow". This is NOT conventional storytelling with standard story arcs or any discernable traditional flow, and that's exactly why I love it! To see something really unique, spontaneous, rich, unpredictable and almost voyeuristic is so refreshing. I honestly didn't know that Ethan Hawke directed this until the credits were rolling, and judging from the reviews I've seen of this film and his books, he evokes either great loyalty and recognition in people or pushes buttons that result in scathing comments. Interesting. And I think it's a good thing. We have enough cute and fuzzy filmmakers out there. I love how the constraints of the situation forced everyone to be more creative and present because that comes through loud and clear. The scenes between Kristofferson and Weld are stunning. Absolutely stunning. All of the actors are fantastic. The film is random, beautiful, confusing, interesting and poetic without being preachy. I'd love to see more films like this, but for now I'll be happy with my DVD and sharing it with kindred spirits. Beautiful work from everyone involved. Thank you.

People need to know a bit about the film before trashing it........2005-11-12

Like most positive reviews, I'm a bit surprised at the bile being spent on this film when I think it's one of the finest films I've seen all year. When I was in NYC I had to go see the Hotel and someday I plan to spend some time there myself.

The movie is a bit of an experiement - some project group was giving 100K I think for a budget to shoot films on digital video - and so of course, it has some issues, but they work well for this movie - They give the environment some additional character - These people who bitch about lighting are the same ones who bitch about the lighting in Russian Ark and totally miss what is in many ways, a breakthrough in indepenedent Cinema. No longer are filmmakers required to budget for film (which is a major expense) - it can all be saved and edited digitally.

And that's not even going into the story - I fell in love with Rosario Dawson's Character, and totally understood Robert Sean Leonard's character as well (being a part time guitar player from MN myself who feels he's spinning his wheels) - And of course, this is an adaptation of a play, so you're not gonna have the grand sweeping car chases or explosions -

It's a terrible film for those who need their drama served up in portions of sex and violence, but as a study of the artistic condition, it blows me away.

And the music and poetry in the film rock too -

RB

DVD:

DVD

DVD