Chelsea Walls (2001)

Ethan builds Hotel on Baltic Avenue...
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
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.

Compellingly masterful rendering of A Day (or two) in the Life
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.