The MoFo Movie Club Discussion: Chinatown

Tools    





Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
It seems as if we are NOT getting any more discussion here even if we had a lot of people vote. What else is new?

How about all the fun clues and foreshadowing spread throughout the movie which lead you to the identity of the murderer and the chief baddie in the flick?

In the very first scene where Curly (Burt Young) looks at the photos which Gittes (Nicholson) got of his wife cheating, Curly says, "They don't pay you as much for skipjack as they do for albacore."

Later when Gittes looks at the photos of Mulwray arguing with who turns ouit to be Noah Cross, Walsh says he could only make out one phrase due to all the noisy traffic, "apple core".

In Yelbertson's office, there are several photographs of big fish on the walls. Later on, in Yelberton's secretary's room, Gittes sees lots of photos of Mulwray and Cross and learns who Cross is.

Just for fun, the "midget" (Polanski) who slices up Gittes' nose tells him that next time he'll cut the rest of it off and feed it to his goldfish.

Later on, Gittes speaks the line, "What do you think of them apples?" just in case you forgot about "apple core".

Gittes finally meets Cross and has lunch with him on Catalina Island at the Albacore Club. His lunch is a fish served with the head on. Cross says he prefers them that way and Gittes says that it's fine "as long as you don't serve the chicken that way."

Of course, later on we learn that the Old Age Home is "sponsored" and does some work for the Albacore Club. Then we also learn that Mrs. Mulwray is Noah Cross's daughter.

As a side note, in the restaurant where the pianist plays "The Way You Look Tonight" the arrangement seems to highlight how much the melody resembles that of "As Time Goes By" (Casablanca).

Oh, I want to apologize for misrepresenting something earlier concerning another Bogie flick. In The Maltese Falcon, Sam Spade's partner's wife was named Iva and not Ida. It still could be a reference but not quite as blatant if that's true.

Did anybody else notice any of this stuff?
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Hmm, have to disagree here. The story and plot are what make this film unforgettable. Gittes being the central figure, the viewer knows his as a cynic detective that - granted - has some slick tricks up his sleeve, but comes up short in terms of actual detective skills.
Interesting. Certainly there's no wrong opinion here, but I wasn't terribly impressed by the story itself. I think this comes, as I suggested earlier, from the unfortunate fact that classics are always imitated, to the point at which they themselves look cliche if you see them after being exposed to the tropes they helped create. To a more modern, skeptical audience, the twists and turns of Chinatown (at least insofar as the real estate scheme is concerned) are a lot easier to see coming.

As the story develops, we learn that Gittes was once a polic officer who was fired for getting too personally involved in a case. When Gittes talks to Mrs. Mulwray in bed, he speaks of this past of his. How he tried to save a woman in Chinatown when he was still with the police, but this actually made matters worse for the woman, and eventually Gittes was laid off. So, Jake was then inable to do anything, just like he is today (except he does not know this at the time when he tells Mrs. Mulwray). In this sense, this is a foreshadowing of Gittes' inability to make a difference.
Yeah, I forgot to mention that scene. It's another way in which Chinatown flaunts conventions. Most movies (tons of them, really) are about the protagonist making up for exactly this sort of failing in a similar situation...not repeating it!



It seems as if we are NOT getting any more discussion here even if we had a lot of people vote. What else is new?
The Citizen Kane discussion was pretty awesome, and quite busy, so it seems to be a very fine line for whatever reason.

How about all the fun clues and foreshadowing spread throughout the movie which lead you to the identity of the murderer and the chief baddie in the flick?

In the very first scene where Curly (Burt Young) looks at the photos which Gittes (Nicholson) got of his wife cheating, Curly says, "They don't pay you as much for skipjack as they do for albacore."

Later when Gittes looks at the photos of Mulwray arguing with who turns ouit to be Noah Cross, Walsh says he could only make out one phrase due to all the noisy traffic, "apple core".
I didn't pick up on that.

In Yelbertson's office, there are several photographs of big fish on the walls. Later on, in Yelberton's secretary's room, Gittes sees lots of photos of Mulwray and Cross and learns who Cross is.
I did think it was kind of funny that he didn't know who Cross was, yeah. But I'm so used to assuming that every hero detective is smart-as-a-tack that it didn't occur to me until afterwards that he really ought to have.

Just for fun, the "midget" (Polanski) who slices up Gittes' nose tells him that next time he'll cut the rest of it off and feed it to his goldfish.
Yeah, noticed that. And Polanski's cameo was pretty solid. Didn't distract (didn't even notice it was him the first time I saw the film), and didn't linger.

Later on, Gittes speaks the line, "What do you think of them apples?" just in case you forgot about "apple core".

Gittes finally meets Cross and has lunch with him on Catalina Island at the Albacore Club. His lunch is a fish served with the head on. Cross says he prefers them that way and Gittes says that it's fine "as long as you don't serve the chicken that way."

Of course, later on we learn that the Old Age Home is "sponsored" and does some work for the Albacore Club. Then we also learn that Mrs. Mulwray is Noah Cross's daughter.

As a side note, in the restaurant where the pianist plays "The Way You Look Tonight" the arrangement seems to highlight how much the melody resembles that of "As Time Goes By" (Casablanca).

Oh, I want to apologize for misrepresenting something earlier concerning another Bogie flick. In The Maltese Falcon, Sam Spade's partner's wife was named Iva and not Ida. It still could be a reference but not quite as blatant if that's true.

Did anybody else notice any of this stuff?
I noticed about half of it. The other half is making me feel pretty stupid. Very nice observations. If I may make an observation about the observations: it's interesting how some of them are relevant clues relating to the mystery, while others are just little thematic touches. Little easter eggs of sorts.



I would have to say this is definitely a neo noir. You have the femme fatale, the private eye, and the mystery element. When finding out that Faye Dunaway's character was in an incestuous relationship with her father, was so surprising.



I loved this movie! Faye Dunaway and Jack were amazing!



Was looking around at some essays about Chinatown and found one with some interesting tidbits; one new (I think), and one expanded on. My apologies if I missed someone mentioning any of these earlier:

Chinatown (1974) is an original screenplay by Robert Towne that started out at nearly 250 pages (twice as long as the film). Director Roman Polanski worked on the script for nearly two months, eliminating many characters and forming a more linear and coherent story line. He also wrote a new ending, about which he and Towne argued furiously. The final version had to be written by Polanski after the picture was in production because Towne walked in protest. In the original, Evelyn shoots Cross and goes off with Gittes and her daughter, but Polanski wanted the darker version that was eventually made. Towne never forgave the change and hated it.
The superb detective film was actually based on a true scandal of early twentieth-century Los Angeles. Then a modest-size western city filled with farmers, Mexican day laborers, Chinese immigrants, and adventurers seeking their fortunes in the west, it was also a hot, subtropical region that relied for its existence and well-being on a plentiful supply of water. A scheme had been hatched by a group of welthy landowners to buy huge tracts on the outskirts of the sprawling city and then use their political power to have that arid, nearly useless acreage incorporated into the city of Los Angeles, giving them legal access to the water supply paid for by the taxpayers. Some of the most staggering fortunes of the time, many still in place (such as the heirs to L.A. Times-Mirror estate), were created in this manner. While the tactics employed to amass this wealth may have been corrupt, they were technically legal.
Regarding the first part, about Polanski overruling Towne and replacing the "happy" ending, I assume we all agree that Polanski wins, historically? This seems to be one of those films where the ending adds a new dimension to all that's come before it. I often admire films that point in a certain direction and keep going where it follows them, even if it's painful or unconventional to do so. The ending to Chinatown isn't nice, happy, or even really satisfying, but it feels necessary.

Anyway, anyone ever had a look at an earlier draft, or is that resigned to history's wastebasket?

I'm a little curious about the phrase "neo-noir," as well. Did it even exist before this film, or was it invented only so cinephiles could reconcile the fact that it clearly feels like noir, even if it forsakes some of the genre's conventions?



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
It isn't true Towne never forgave Polanski for changing his ending.
At what point did you come around to Polanski's way of thinking regarding the ending of Chinatown?
Well, at the time I wrote the damned thing, it was there, I just said that it wasn't any good but he shot it and that was that. The passage of time, I've come to see it as the right choice



It isn't true Towne never forgave Polanski for changing his ending.
At what point did you come around to Polanski's way of thinking regarding the ending of Chinatown?
Well, at the time I wrote the damned thing, it was there, I just said that it wasn't any good but he shot it and that was that. The passage of time, I've come to see it as the right choice
Depending on the chronology, it's possible the essay in question was written before the quote. Either way, the interesting part is that he disagreed with him at all, and that Polanski felt strongly enough to overrule him.



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
It isn't true Towne never forgave Polanski for changing his ending.
At what point did you come around to Polanski's way of thinking regarding the ending of Chinatown?
Well, at the time I wrote the damned thing, it was there, I just said that it wasn't any good but he shot it and that was that. The passage of time, I've come to see it as the right choice
I guess I didn't catch the whole conversation. What was the original ending to be? I very much enjoyed the dark Polanski style ending, which shows that yes indeed bad guys do win, especially when they have the law on their side because of money.

We are a country ran by money, and it's scary that many people in power can be absolutely evil and morally corrupt. Although I use the term evil loosely.

How many of us would abuse power if we had it? Certainly power corrupts. That's an age old theme.

One of my favorite quotes in Chinatown is by John Huston when he says something along the lines of "Most people never have to face that fact that in the right circumstances, they're capable of anything." Or something to that effect.

And yes, it's a great film, but I think it takes multiple viewings to piece it altogether as it does have a very complicated plot. At least I think so.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I guess I didn't catch the whole conversation. What was the original ending to be?
From the J.J. Gittes' webpage:

Towne's original ending had Evelyn getting off for her father's murder--he's just winged in the final movie version--and then a rain was to have fallen on the city, metaphorically relieving it of its drought. Supposedly, Towne referred to Polanski's darkening of his script as "the tunnel at the end of the light." In the end, the survivor's can only rage against it all, and go on living.



I'm not really sure what the Movie Club is or if I have to sign up or something, but Chinatown is one of my favorite movies, so I'm commenting anyway.

I have heard some talk about the ending Polanski changed, and I'm so much happier with the movie for it. In fact, I think the ending is the most memorable, iconic scene of the movie and in effect makes it the classic it has become.

First of all, the movie is at its core a film noir. Polanski kept all the necessary ingredients of those dark crime stories, including the femme fatale, seedy sexual scandal, corruption, and especially its most important feeling-pessimism. A major theme in the movie is the hopeless state of decay the world has entered. We've all seen the film here, so I'll just say-everything that can go wrong pretty much does go wrong, and it all happens right in front of Jake. No one is saved, and Jake is anything but a hero. (A hero shakes off injury and is stronger for it, Jake carries his wound right on his face throughout the film, a symbol of his impotence.) Since Jake is in every scene and we encounter new clues and uncover mysteries at the exact same time he does, (thanks to a very deliberate narrative decision by Polanski), he is essentially the viewer, and he's about as helpless as we are to improve the corruption he sees around him.

If Evelyn didn't die, or if things resolved perfectly, this entire theme would be negated. If the whole movie is supposed to be a gritty, modernized take on a classic genre that explores the seedy underside of society and the vices of man, why would one want to resolve it with hopefulness. Recall Gittes had experienced things going horribly awry in the past in Chinatown. When the same thing happens the second time around, we know that things don't change, corruption and loss will always beat honor and duty.

Plus, how could Walsh say, "Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown." if the ending was different?
__________________
"I want a film I watch to express either the joy of making cinema or the anguish of making cinema" -Francois Truffaut



I'm a little curious about the phrase "neo-noir," as well. Did it even exist before this film, or was it invented only so cinephiles could reconcile the fact that it clearly feels like noir, even if it forsakes some of the genre's conventions?
This is all information I have retained over the years from film history classes, several books on film noir I own, and hundreds of hours of movie watching. Film noir itself is subject of much debate, so defining neo-noir, a modern update on traditional film noir is almost comically impossible to do. But it is considered a real phase of movies most prevalent in the late 60's through the early 80's, though it continues to this day; Sin City, for example, which just popped in my head is a neo-noir. Or more an homage to classic noir, there's really a fine line, see what I mean?

Neo-noir was actually a legit movie genre unto itself starting right around Chinatown. Films made in this style adhered to their established 'rules' of noir with about the same consistency as movies in the film noir canon followed classic rules of noir. It's generally accepted that the end of the Golden Age of film noir was Orson Welles' Touch of Evil in 1958. So any movie which worked in a similar style after this usually wasn't strictly film noir. Once the social climate changed, instead of just targeting postwar disillusionment as motivation, directors and writers used corruption and violence that was prevalent in contemporary times. Pictures dealing with this modern subject matter, but using the same cinematic language as film noir are neo-noir works.

Robert Altman's The Long Goodbye, which came out the year before Chinatown, is a quintessential neo-noir. Other noirish precursors to Chinatown include The Manchurian Candidate and Cape Fear (1952), The Naked Kiss (1964), and Point Blank and Bonnie and Clyde (1967), and Badlands (1971). Each of these featured one or more of key the characteristics of classic noir: anti-heroes, criminal activity, low-key lighting, violence or sadism-often directed toward women, sexual deviancy and an overall pessimistic view of society as a whole. Almost all pointed out flaws in society that went up to the highest offices in government, a major theme in neo-noir. Many people do not see those 1952 films as neo noirs, but they have entered the neo-noir canon according to Alain Silver, who's pretty much the decider in all things noir.

Lesser known works from the late 1960's also followed the basic tenets of the genre, but like the original era of film noir, directors did not consciously work in this vein, as the term wasn't really used until about a decade after noir's golden age. The picture that really got neo-noir consciously off the ground, fully acknowledging its position as a neo-noir, a modern update on the classic genre-was Chinatown in 1974. Immediately following its success, the new wave of young Hollywood directors released neo-noirs left and right. Taxi Driver is very much considered a member of the neo-noir tradition. Its writer, Paul Schrader, who is considered by some (though his opinions here are polarizing), one of the foremost authorities on film noir, after Silver, often worked in this genre subtly or outright. Raging Bull, American Gigolo, Cat People, and Hardcore all fit neo-noir very much in form, and usually in content. Other films legitimately classified as neo-noirs include Thieves Like Us, Body Heat, Blade Runner, Blood Simple, Cutter's Way, Blue Velvet... the list continues to this day, with its most recent homage being Shutter Island.



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
Depending on the chronology, it's possible the essay in question was written before the quote. Either way, the interesting part is that he disagreed with him at all, and that Polanski felt strongly enough to overrule him.
Writers as a rule don't like directors changing their script. In the theater a director can suggest a playwright make changes. but he can't compel him. Ring Lardner Jr. in interviews was always complaining about directors messing up his screenplays. So it was a bit ironic Lardner won an Oscar for MASH because Robert Altman messed with it quite a bit. Lardner seemed to make an exception for Altman in his memors which includes his usual tirade against directors.



take2la's Avatar
A two-year-old what?
But remember, Curly (Burt Young) rules!
I AGREE MARK.
I've ALWAYS thought when Burt is whimpering around the office SMASHING into stuff he rivaled anything Brando did at the beginning (Streetcar-Broadway or Kazan's filmed).
GREAT IMAGE



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Hmmm... I saw this film for the first time the beginning of last year, so I'm not recalling details except that the solution to the mystery was obvious from the moment Gittes first looked into the pond. I don't know if this was intentional or not. Also, I thought the ending was pretty powerful.

I'm looking at Polanski's filmography since Rosemary's Baby and Chinatown has got to be one of his best. The Pianist completely failed to make any kind of impact with me.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
Glasses. ahhh... nevermind, I forget. I should edit my post blank, but I don't have many so whatever. And this is another pointless post about my last pointless post.