I think I try too hard...
My recent viewing of Chelsea Walls inspired me to post the following commentary on IMDB.com's message board:
my thoughts on chelsea walls (and/or reasons why it angered me) are as follows:
1) my favorite characters were the lounge singer who did the [awesome] lennon cover, natasha richardson, and vincent dinofrio, all of which were hardly in the movie.
2) to kris kristofferson's character: the "I'm afraid of love horse" is dead. now go sit in a corner and think about what you've done.
3) I'm sure (at least, I hope) I missed this fact because it was 3am and I hadn't slept in 21 hours, but WHO DIED????? please don't tell me it was the stevie nix hooker. I'd rather hear, "you don't know who died b/c the point is they're all headed that way, so it doesn't matter."
4) [aka addendum to #2: ] I caught that some of the poetry voice overs were taken from works of the authors whose plaques were shown in what Im dubbing the, "this artist wuz here" montages (ex.: dylan thomas). now, were the characters reciting these quotes representative of the respective author? if that's the case, I should be able to tolerate kristofferson's character a bit more in the next viewing. if not, you might find ME in a bathroom next to a guitar and a pile of vomit.
5) I noticed a lot of lynch influence. I might be the only one...
6) the word "existential" comes up a lot when people refer to this movie. here's where I see chelsea walls' connection to existentialism: characters possessing a strange resemblance to the cast of reality bites (uma, for example)using freedom of choice as a cop-out for not taking responsibility, and then complaining about the hostile and/or indifferent environment they created. take rosario dawson's character: you can be a starving artist without literally starving, honey. it's ok. and let the sam rockwell/giovanni ribisi/patrick fugit hybrid GO. you know he refused your money so he wouldn't have to come back! it was written all over your face (good job dawson, by the way). on one hand, I understand that people make mistakes, that everyone is alone, and that beauty often lies in the unexplained, and I appreciate chelsea walls for bringing that up in an interesting fashion. however, it also promoted existentialism as a scapegoat for struggling artists.
7) it's anti-feminist (sorry, I tried not to bring it up...) all the female characters are portrayed as cold, needy dead weights who sleep around for their inspiration while holding back and/or destroying those closest to them. not to mention the implication that a woman is most fascinating- that is, if I'm correct in my stevie nix hooker hunch(see number 3)- when discovered lying in her own vomit on the floor of a stranger's bathroom.
please keep in mind that I have only seen this movie once and have admitted I could be wrong about a number of things. I intend to see chelsea walls again, and might very well change my views the second time around. that is, assuming I don't swallow my tongue during one of kristofferson's monologues.
my thoughts on chelsea walls (and/or reasons why it angered me) are as follows:
1) my favorite characters were the lounge singer who did the [awesome] lennon cover, natasha richardson, and vincent dinofrio, all of which were hardly in the movie.
2) to kris kristofferson's character: the "I'm afraid of love horse" is dead. now go sit in a corner and think about what you've done.
3) I'm sure (at least, I hope) I missed this fact because it was 3am and I hadn't slept in 21 hours, but WHO DIED????? please don't tell me it was the stevie nix hooker. I'd rather hear, "you don't know who died b/c the point is they're all headed that way, so it doesn't matter."
4) [aka addendum to #2: ] I caught that some of the poetry voice overs were taken from works of the authors whose plaques were shown in what Im dubbing the, "this artist wuz here" montages (ex.: dylan thomas). now, were the characters reciting these quotes representative of the respective author? if that's the case, I should be able to tolerate kristofferson's character a bit more in the next viewing. if not, you might find ME in a bathroom next to a guitar and a pile of vomit.
5) I noticed a lot of lynch influence. I might be the only one...
6) the word "existential" comes up a lot when people refer to this movie. here's where I see chelsea walls' connection to existentialism: characters possessing a strange resemblance to the cast of reality bites (uma, for example)using freedom of choice as a cop-out for not taking responsibility, and then complaining about the hostile and/or indifferent environment they created. take rosario dawson's character: you can be a starving artist without literally starving, honey. it's ok. and let the sam rockwell/giovanni ribisi/patrick fugit hybrid GO. you know he refused your money so he wouldn't have to come back! it was written all over your face (good job dawson, by the way). on one hand, I understand that people make mistakes, that everyone is alone, and that beauty often lies in the unexplained, and I appreciate chelsea walls for bringing that up in an interesting fashion. however, it also promoted existentialism as a scapegoat for struggling artists.
7) it's anti-feminist (sorry, I tried not to bring it up...) all the female characters are portrayed as cold, needy dead weights who sleep around for their inspiration while holding back and/or destroying those closest to them. not to mention the implication that a woman is most fascinating- that is, if I'm correct in my stevie nix hooker hunch(see number 3)- when discovered lying in her own vomit on the floor of a stranger's bathroom.
please keep in mind that I have only seen this movie once and have admitted I could be wrong about a number of things. I intend to see chelsea walls again, and might very well change my views the second time around. that is, assuming I don't swallow my tongue during one of kristofferson's monologues.