M.o.Mo. Club: "Chinatown"

[Ernest Worthing]

Ill be watching it again (i think this will be 6th or 7th time) on tuesday

It'll be interesting to discuss it here. Last time i discussed it was in a film appreciation class in 2004. 7 years since i had an in depth conversation abt it with ppl who understand film.

EDIT: I just realized, funnily enough that was the same time my new profile pic was taken.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

I just finished the rewatch. This has to be the best or at least my favourite neo-noir film ever made.

There are certain reasons why something is called noir or neo noir and most (but not all) of those reasons are the same. There is a method, theme and message to them. Chiefly, it involves a main character who is a confident person in control of his (almost always a male) environment. He is the man who has had a lot of experience, nothing jades him anymore, he knows ins and outs of life and all the despicable things that can happen in life. After the first quarter or third of the movie, he gets confused or astounded, thrown out of his element. Something is going which he is not used to and can not fully comprehend. But he tries to. A femme fatale is thrown into his world. He still thinks he can discover whatever is happening and is "above" the leading lady. But by the end, he is seduced and the lady never turns out to be what we or he though. Not only that but he comes to the realization that is just a tiny pawn in a system so big that there is no changing or overcoming it no matter how hard you fight.

Chinatown not only fulfills the requirements of the neo-noir genre but is actually one of the pioneering films which helped define the what the neo-noir genre actually entails.

Jake Gittes is a man who thinks he knows life. As he receives a new client, he puts on air of surprise just to humour her. She says her husband may be cheating on her and he pauses and then says the compulsory words to the effect of, 'no, really?' It shows his knowledge and his character being used to and experienced in all the acts that surprise regular people. However, as the film progresses, Gittes is continually thrown out of his environment and comfort zone. He beings to see things that are not usual in his cases. He ca not fully understand them but he keeps on seeking answers. And every time he (or the audience) thinks he's regaining control and has a lead or solution, it is taken away. It happens again and again, one of the examples being the last one where he (and we) believe that the bifocals are Hollis' but the conversation moves in another direction and something even larger is revealed. When they finally come to the bifocals, which after being proven wrong and misled so many times, it turns out that Gittes was wrong about them as well. They weren't Hollis' but Noah's.

Noir and neo noir have always been a comment against the system. A system where there is too much power and influence and the "little" man just leads his leaf thinking he is in control. When the rare man stumbles on the truth, nothing can be changed in the end. He loses and can not beat the larger system. Gittes has his little bag of tricks (the watch underneath the tire, knocking out the light to follow Evelyn) but he is unaware that the "powers that be" have a larger bag of tricks. Fitting this message, at the end of Chinatown, Gittes can not explain himself to his friend Escobar and events spiral out of his control. Evelyn dies. Katherine is in possession of Noah Cross, which is the last place anybody wanted her to be. And Gittes just has to forget about it and disappear into the dark.

The above is just a basic overview of neo-noir and Chinatown only according to my own personal thoughts.

I loved watching it again and am now ready to discuss in detail with everyone here. It's a testament to Polanski that i learn something new every time i watch Chinatown. And i am sure that i will learn so much more about it by reading what you guys/gals post.

Here are some of the details that i love about the movie:

1. Polanski's cameo as the guy who cuts Gittes nose.

2. The relationship between Escobar and Gittes. It's underlying mystery. Never explained to clearly. We are just given enough to build a rough outline and fill it with our imagination. I wish 'The Two Jakes' lived up to it.

3. The scene with Dunaway and Nicholson where they are in bed. They are both naked and Dunaway's breasts are hanging lose. She trusts him right now. But as soon as she finds out that Gittes never told her that he had met her father, she crosses her arms and covers her breasts.

4. When Gittes complains about his lost shoe after he is almost washed away. Him complaining about the shoe shows that even though he thought he had moved forward from Chinatown, in a more profitable job, dressing better (as Escobar says, "You've done well for yourself." looking at his suit), his mentality is the same old one. If it had changed, he wouldn't care about the missing shoe and just get a new pair.

5. The line, "What can you buy that you already can't get?" It questions the system noir and neo noir go against. If you already have millions, why do you continue to exploit people and nature for more money? You already have all the money to buy whatever you like.

6. The nose and the band aid. Why have the the leads face covered with a huge band aid for so much of the movie? The way i see it is that after being in control of his environment, Gittes finally loses it and it is symbolized by his nose being and the huge band aid covering it. However, as he continues his investigation and discovers more and more answers, his band aid gets smaller and smaller as he is being healed little by little. It represents the progress and healing process we go. However, it was ultimately useless, we lose and get damaged beyond repair.

7. The reason it is called Chinatown. The movie does not take place in Chinatown, they only have one scene there in the end. But this is one of the things 99% of the people do not know even all the obvious clues are in the film: Why is it called Chinatown?
Three main reaons: A) Gittes inner character never changed from when he was working with Escobar in Chinatown even though he know thinks of himself as a better and different person. B) The DA used to tell him in Chinatown that he may think he knew what he was dealing with but he did not which is exactly what happens to him in the movie outside of Chinatown and most importantly C) When he was in Chinatown, he tried to keep someone from being hurt but in doing so he ended up making sure she was hurt. That is the same thing that happens to Gittes by the end of the movie as he tries ensure Evelyn escapes with Katherine but the former just dies and Gittes is worse off than he ever was... even before Chinatown.


^Long post. Tired. Will recheck it later. Please excuse any grammatical or spelling errors.

 

[Jack Lynt]

Great analysis, Earnest.

Not only that but he comes to the realization that is just a tiny pawn in a system so big that there is no changing or overcoming it no matter how hard you fight.

That reminds me of another good film. Though I haven't seen it since forever. But I've always remembered the ending which amounted to the same sort of dismal outcome (if my recall is accurate enough).

Q & A

 

[Cracker Funk]

Nice analysis, Ernest! Only one thing I see differently:

6. The nose and the band aid. Why have the the leads face covered with a huge band aid for so much of the movie? The way i see it is that after being in control of his environment, Gittes finally loses it and it is symbolized by his nose being and the huge band aid covering it. However, as he continues his investigation and discovers more and more answers, his band aid gets smaller and smaller as he is being healed little by little. It represents the progress and healing process we go. However, it was ultimately useless, we lose and get damaged beyond repair.

Your analysis definitely makes sense, in more ways then one. And me seeing it differently isn't to say that I think one viewpoint is right or wrong, but that of course one's perception of a movie is highly personal, and I just saw it in a different way.

Personally, I don't get too heavily into symbolism; I like it, but I like it best when it's very clear and obvious to all members of the audience (like the leaves blowing in the wind, at the start and finish of "Forrest Gump"). Anyway, I think sometimes a cut nose is just a cut nose. In this film, it serves it's purpose by being plain-and-simply hardcore, and by bringing our heroes ego down a notch or two (which is pretty much the same thing you said, except without the symbolism).

I wish this movie had been in B/W. Maybe that's cuz I'm an idiot and that's what I expect of noir. Maybe it's because I had recently watched "Good Night and Good Luck", and fell further in love with B/W. I dunno, I just felt like the color actually left the film lacking.

I loved the writing, particularly the dialogue. Although this is really a fantastical genre, and the film takes place in a different era, all of the characters felt real to me, and of course the actors get credit for that as well.

I will say this, though -- when it comes to the writing, I think the strength is in the characters and the dialogue. Plot-wise, to be honest, I think this story is a dime-a-dozen.

One thing about the editing that really jumped-out at me was how long a single shot would be held. I kept asking myself - is that how they did it back in the old days? I'm so used to seeing the camera switch angles every few seconds, or whenever someone else speaks, that I found it odd for the camera to just stand still, no cuts, for very long periods of time.

Of course pacing comes into question, when talking about an issue like this, but I was actually quite happy with the pacing of the movie. What bothered me about these really long shots was that I often times didn't have an optimal viewpoint to catch an actor's performance. I want to see their face.

I definitely enjoyed watching it. For me, personally, it gave me an opportunity to reflect on the matter of pacing. My movies and this one are pretty much at polar opposites from each other. I like to keep my movies moving fast. But here is one that takes it's time, deliberately, and it works. I enjoyed examining it from that perspective, to see how I could broaden my own palette.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

Great analysis, Earnest.

That reminds me of another good film. Though I haven't seen it since forever. But I've always remembered the ending which amounted to the same sort of dismal outcome (if my recall is accurate enough).

Q & A

Thanks! I haven't seen this one by Lumet but i will soon. Looks good.
Btw, i remember you opted out of MoMo so im glad to see u participating

Nice analysis, Ernest! Only one thing I see differently:

Personally, I don't get too heavily into symbolism; I like it, but I like it best when it's very clear and obvious to all members of the audience (like the leaves blowing in the wind, at the start and finish of "Forrest Gump"). Anyway, I think sometimes a cut nose is just a cut nose. In this film, it serves it's purpose by being plain-and-simply hardcore, and by bringing our heroes ego down a notch or two (which is pretty much the same thing you said, except without the symbolism).

Thanks! Your analysis is interesting and thoughtful and the notes about pacing and shot length are important to think about. What does it say about film? What does it say about todays audience? What does it say about directors?

As for the nose thing, you're absolutely fair there. It could just be a cut nose. But i keep asking myself, why the nose? Why not the arm, ear, cheek, body, leg, forehead etc? Why the most prominent feature on the face? Why have your lead actors face covered up like that for such a long time? I think there are other ways to take the character down a peg or two which dont involve having to make the bandage smaller scene by scene and having the face disfigured.

Personally, I think there has to be thought behind it which i mentioned in my last post. Im really interested to read what other ppl think about the nose so i know whether im overthinking it or not.

I will say this, though -- when it comes to the writing, I think the strength is in the characters and the dialogue. Plot-wise, to be honest, I think this story is a dime-a-dozen.

I don't know the details on this and dont remember too much of what i did know but i think this story was based on an actual conspiracy. Maybe somebody else has more info or can do the research.

Polanski seems to do a little more with his work than just tell an old plot in a good way. The Ghost Writer has all his usual elements but it comments on torturing prisoners illegally which is a real issue to think about in our days.

I wish this movie had been in B/W. Maybe that's cuz I'm an idiot and that's what I expect of noir. Maybe it's because I had recently watched "Good Night and Good Luck", and fell further in love with B/W. I dunno, I just felt like the color actually left the film lacking.

You're definitely not an idiot there. Noir and neo noir are debated all the time. There are no hard definitions, just concepts and examples. Some critics argue whether its a genre or just a style. Others argue whether colour separates the two genres/styles/categories. The thing is it actually tends to in most of the cases. Noir movies are older when movies were shot in bw and the "new black" movies are newer and ppl were shooting in colour then. So that is what you can expect most of the time.
However, colour can not clearly separate noir and neo noir since the new noir movies which are shot in black and white are still neo noir, they dont become noir just because they were shot in bw. See the problem?

 

[Chicken Joe]

I don't know the details on this and dont remember too much of what i did know but i think this story was based on an actual conspiracy. Maybe somebody else has more info or can do the research.

There seem to be some analogies to real events. Quote from Wikipedia:

The story, set in Los Angeles in 1937, was inspired by the California Water Wars, the historical disputes over land and water rights that had raged in southern California during the 1910s and 1920s, in which William Mulholland acted on behalf of Los Angeles interests to secure water rights in the Owens Valley.
[...]
The characters Hollis Mulwray and Noah Cross are both references to the chief engineer for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, William Mulholland (1855–1935)—the name Hollis Mulwray is partially an anagram for Mulholland. The name Noah is a reference to a flood—to suggest the conflict between good and evil in Mulholland. Mulholland was the designer and engineer for the Los Angeles Aqueduct, which brought water from the Owens Valley to Los Angeles. For reasons of engineering and safety, Mulwray opposes the dam that Cross and the city want to build. Mulwray says he will not make the same mistake as when he built a previous dam, which broke, resulting in the deaths of hundreds. This is a direct reference to the St. Francis Dam disaster. The dam was personally inspected by Mulholland before it catastrophically failed the next morning on March 12, 1928. More than 450 people, 42 of them schoolchildren, died that day and the town of Santa Paula was inundated with flood water.

I can imagine there is more hidden in the story.

One thing about the editing that really jumped-out at me was how long a single shot would be held. I kept asking myself - is that how they did it back in the old days? I'm so used to seeing the camera switch angles every few seconds, or whenever someone else speaks, that I found it odd for the camera to just stand still, no cuts, for very long periods of time.

Of course pacing comes into question, when talking about an issue like this, but I was actually quite happy with the pacing of the movie. What bothered me about these really long shots was that I often times didn't have an optimal viewpoint to catch an actor's performance. I want to see their face.

Long shots were more common back then, but maybe they are really even longer in "Chinatown". I enjoyed the calm style and long shots, but believe the camera should have been near the actors sometimes.

Really liked the "noir style", everything seems to be so dark with only actors and parts of the set lighted. It is never explained why e.g. an office is so dark, that you believe there is no window. The whole world is just dark.
I also liked that they decided to take the film in the 30s, because of all those little details. The cars, the vintage camera, the pocket watch that Nicholson puts under the tire (cool trick btw) etc. All those things perfectly fit into the atmosphere.
Besides the watch-under-the-car scene I remember how Nicholson tears a piece out of the land register. Today, he would just take a picture with his iphone or whatever, but asking for a ruler and using it to tear out what he needs is just presuming

What I did not like was the nose bandage . I just thought "why the hell did they do that? It's so big, that looks ridiculous." So, yeah, there must be a reason for it. As I don't recognise 90% of all symbolism in a film, it never came to my mind.

Sorry, this isn't nearly some kind of analysis, but I was tired when watching it. Should repeat it when my senses and brains are all present. Just did not want Cracker Funk to believe no one cares about his M.o.Mo. idea.

 

[Cracker Funk]

ChickenJoe, I agree with you about the lighting -- even if it wasn't in B/W, they still lit it like noir, and I also appreciated that aspect of it. Also, don't worry about me worrying about whether or not anyone cares about this discussion. Even if it ends with the discussion we've already had, that was well worth my time.

Ernest, you do make some very good points about the nose. Surely, the selection of that particular location for an injury was not random, but very thought-out. The symbolism could very-well be intentional.

Also, that's pretty cool that it was based, at least a little bit, on real events and/or people.

 

[Michael Allen]

So good watching this film again
What fantastic movie making. I love the cinematography and framing, it’s so wonderfully shot.

I also like the bandage on his nose. It’s a blatant bit of crudeness in amongst incredible style.

I absolutely loved the scenes with Jack Nicholson (Jake) and John Huston (Noah Cross) Two powerful actors showing their stuff.
“Of course I’m respectable, I’m old. Politicians, ugly buildings and whores all get respectable if they last long enough” – Cross

But the thing I most want to talk about is the music.

The original score for this film was rejected at the last minute and Jerry Goldsmith got the job with less than two weeks to go. It took him 10 days to write it (which is pretty amazing). The sound is so sparse which I guess may have had something to do with time restraints but I’d like to think it was a very deliberate and clever choice. He creates an arid mood to match the desert with trumpet, 4 harps, percussion, strings and 4 pianos (including prepared piano). It’s a really out there line up of instruments. The high strings not only build tension but also provide a great sense of style.

I love the main theme. When the trumpet plays it it’s just a little bit wrong and off just like the relationship between Jake and Faye Dunnaway. It’s a very unusual instrument choice for a love theme and I think he chose it because it creates the feeling that the relationship is not right. When the strings play it the theme becomes stylish with a pinch of haunting. Very clever.

The final scene is just mighty.

It’s a classic film, beautifully made with awesome acting and a killer script.

 

[2001 Productions]

that's pretty cool that it was based, at least a little bit, on real events and/or people.

PBS did a documentary series called Cadillac Desert about 15 years ago, the first episode of which was all about Mulholland's big con that basically resulted in modern Los Angeles. Great show.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkbebOhnCjA

(this is part one; the whole thing runs about an hour)

 

[JoshL]

Like Michael, I'll probably be talking about the music a lot; if we're approaching from a filmmaker's eye, well, that's what I do!

Anyway, finally sitting down to watch it now, so will be commenting as I go. Right from the opening title, the choice of music is very deliberate...even in 1974 it sounds dated. Opting for early 20th century jazz puts the viewer in mind of films from that era. Definitely a good idea (Chinatown often cited as the first neo-noir, so you want the audience to think of classic noir, right at the beginning). Opening credits add to that.

So I guess the first lesson one learns from Chinatown, is that if you want to revisit/reinvent a genre, deliberate nods and reference to the old films right from the get go is important. As I'm thinking about it, might not be a bad idea in general. Even if you're planning on a genre shift type film, ESTABLISH the genre, almost with a heavy hand in the first 5 minutes. Sort of how an overature establishes the themes and ideas for the rest of the piece.

Interesting that Goldsmith did it in 10 days as a replacement score...and on Legend his was replaced in an equally short time! (though that does happen to everyone)

Further thoughts, near the end. It's hard not to see this film as a by-the-numbers noir affair, mostly because everything that came after it was influenced to the point of ripping it off. This film DEFINED noir throughout the 70s and 80s. Also interesting looking at it in terms of Polanski's career...it's certainly one of his more accessible films. Not as out there as, say, Repulsion or The Tenant. Even more well known fare like The Pianist, which is more "his" film. Definitely a good gateway drug into Polanski's work. So maybe the next important filmmaker lesson to learn is do your thing; define your personal style...and then do a sort of mainstream film that touches upon your style, to get people to watch what you do.

 

[Dreadylocks]

Guys. I tried. I really tried. But after 45 minutes nothing had hooked me. Nothing pulled me in or intrigued me. I really wanted to like this film. No dice. But I will try to give me thoughts on what I did watch. And I should say, that I don't want to simply bash the film even though it may seem like it since I have more negative things to say than positive...

The first thing that stood out to me was the long long long shots. I'm a big fan of older films, and in older films they did hold onto shots for longer than very recent ones. But by 1974, it was hardly the norm. The films of the 30's/40's were really about the last time it was common practice (and in those days, if I'm honest, I think it was just bad filmmaking, they hadn't figured out how to do it better yet.) So I can only assume that the shot lengths in Chinatown were a direct homage to those old old noirs. But also IMO, I think it was a rotten choice. One of the things that ruined my ability to get involved with the characters and story. When you pay homage to something, I think it should be almost a caricature. Don't just literally do it the same, enhance it's defining features.

I enjoyed the little pocket watch trick. That was clever.

I said before that I couldn't find myself caring about the characters or the story. I guess the reason for that is that to me I just felt like I was watching some private eye going about his business on a slightly high-profile case where there's more than meets the eye. Ok. Maybe that's a vague reason. But there was nothing special about this Jack Nicholson character. Faye Dunaway was aloof and vapid and rich which equals no one I could relate to. It could have been her performance, but I also had no sympathy for her character when her husband's affair was revealed or when he went missing.

I guess that's about it

 

[Cracker Funk]

Fair enough, Dready. I also was not particularly a fan of the long shots.

Well, we didn't get a huge level of participation, but a small handful of people took part so if you guys are game, I'm down to continue this into next month. As per the pre-established rules, the suggestions for next month are coming from myself, Dready and JoshL. Let me know as soon as you've got your suggestion, and we'll start the voting.

 

[Ernest Worthing]

I know. What happened to everyone who signed up? Oh well.

Im in for another month. Maybe things will pick up.

 

[rayw]

Alright, I watched this show about three weeks ago and wrote down (excruciating) notes with the good intentions of actually reading one of those scripts in the links I posted - but of course never could muster up the stamina to read it.
(I kinda got into filmmaking because I don't like reading. Can you believe that?!)

Here goes...



Opening scene establishes the character of Jack Gittes (JG), his trade, demeanor, and values.

@ 5min - Chief Engineer conflict established.

@ 8min - Double loop binocular view panders to ignorant audience.

Somewhere I heard that a director can't be hamstrung by the truth, (albeit, it was in reference to history, but you get the idea).

Director ain't afraid of intelligent people.
He expects them to get over such weenie things as this - and MOOOOVE ON!

@ 9-10 min - Handheld voyeur-cam at beach.
When was this thing made... 1974. Pretty balsy for way back then.

@ 16 - Nice "reflection" in camera lens effect.

18 - Embarrassment isn't the worst event. (I have no recollection of what I'm referring to, here).

24 - Voyeur-cam for random shots.

Listen to the sound on the set.
It's very controlled.
In fact, perhaps my greatest technical takeaway from this film is that the audio throughout is clean as a whistle.
I mean I think they captured ONLY the audio+dialog within three feet of the actors or did a d@mn fine job ADRing it in later then foleyed in every other sound.
Background is clean as a dog's dinner plate.

29 - Gittes' ethical pursuit explained.
He's interested in knowing who and why he was set up even when given the opportunity to drop the whole thing.
Without this - there's no film.

Something I gotta kinda remind myself when watching and crafting characters:
Stories are rarely about "What would I do?"
Mostly, they're about "What's this idiot's decision?"
Many stories would drop dead in the water if they followed any common sense.
"F#ck this sh!t. I got better things to do with my time. I'm not so bored that blah blah blah..."

30 - Interesting that Gittes et al could follow Hollis Mulwray for three days looking at reservoirs and such but Gittes can't find him @ work, home, or previous locations.
As Chief Engineer for LA he sure has a lot of personal time and privacy available.

31 - Cute trick with the business card pick up @ the office.

"Mort" the mortician. Ah ha ha ahh-shaddap!

37 - Go see about one "death", learn about another.

40 - Voyeur-cam

41 - Not the slickest climb over a chain link fence. Polanski's call, maybe? I dunno.
Whassap with the Florsheim shoe?

46 - Mrs. Mulwray doesn't even inquire about JG's cut nostril.
(He's a private dick. Must be a routine occupational hazard in the day. Ahem).

49 - JG confronts Mrs. Mulwray about husband's murder, the drink, and his suspicions of her continued lies.

52 - Link from Mrs Cross-Mulwray to Cross/Mulwray ownership of city water supply established.

54 - Yellburton asks about his nose.
"Only when I breath". LOL! Nicholson really can own some lines, can't he?

54 Accusation to Yellburton suggesting artificial drought to get dam built.
"Someone" got Yellburton to hire chippie to pose as Mrs. Mulwray to embarrass Hollis out of his public office position.
Now JG is after the big "Someones".

59 - She's paying him to investigate what he just told her he's already investigating on his own.
Seems kinda stupid, but... whatever.

1:06 - I'm not sure what the benefit was of meeting Noah Cross, Evelyn's father.

Interesting plot device of the excessively bandaged nose cut just to create an intimate incident leading to sex.
Otherwise, there's no purpose for that ridiculous thing after about 24hrs.

1:34 - Voyeur-cam
1:46 Bifocals in pool
1:50 Smack smack smack
1:52 Big (ho-hum) "reveal".
(World musta been a different place some near-four decades ago. Oh... Wait... it was).
2:02 Where's the girl?
2:06 Head on home gag

And that's all I got.

You might could tell I got kinda bored near the end.


Well... Looks good. Nice audio. I don't care about the story.

It seems like a boring documentary with some

Spoiler

incest

just to spice up an otherwise boring as dirt story.


Does this film hurt my eyes?
"Only when I watch it"

Can't say I'd ever recommend this ol' chestnut.

 

[wheatgrinder]

Im only 1/3rd the way through it, and it was MY suggestion!

So far the only surprise was the simple brutality of the nose cut. Man, I flinched!

 

[rayw]

Im only 1/3rd the way through it, and it was MY suggestion!

In all your spare time, right?

 

[Cracker Funk]

I don't think this should be thought of as any kind of obligation. Watch it and comment on it, only if you feel like it. Skip a month if you want, come back for another month, no worries.

 

[Uranium City]

I know. What happened to everyone who signed up? Oh well.

Thanksgiving, retail job, prepping for Black Friday...

SORRY, MY ROAD WAS PAVED WITH GOOD INTENTIONS!

next month.

 

[Cracker Funk]

Wow, we've got some cool suggestions for next month. I'm not sure that I'm even going to vote for the one I'm suggesting. All three of the movies look like something that I'd like to watch.

Ink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBGeErufQdY

Kissing Jessica Stein

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DgGUew5nfM

Exit Through the Giftshop

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHJBdDSTbLw

VOTE HERE

One quick note -- it was mentioned, by a couple people, that indietalk has a polling system. Yes, I'm aware of that. In this instance, I'm choosing to outsource the polling, for two reasons: #1 -- I don't want to start a whole new thread, just for a poll; #2 -- if I put the poll towards the end of an ongoing thread, then the only people who will see the poll are those who are keeping up with the thread, i.e. the people who are participating.

Voting starts now, and continues through Sunday. Cheers!

 

[Dreadylocks]

Bump for votes.