MovieChat Forums > Chinatown (1974) Discussion > Mystery, Water Politics, Nose Violence.....

Mystery, Water Politics, Nose Violence...And a Taboo Broken


SPOILERS:

One thing to remember is: Chinatown was a SUMMER movie. The Summer of 1974.

One year later, Jaws would be the big summer movie of 1975 and -- as history has told us -- it would START the tradition of the "summer blockbuster" -- something BIG, lots of action, eventually lots of special effects(Star Wars.) Often -- something for the entire family with a teen-centered base (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark -- hell, EVERYTHING from Spielberg and Lucas til 1985), Star Trek, etc.)

But in 1974, Chinatown was the big summer attraction. R-rated, perverse, complex...not for families, certainly not for kids. Teenagers could learn a thing or two.

I recall Chinatown getting a LOT of ink in magazines and newspapers over the summer of 1974. In Los Angeles, especially (where the 1930s story is set) it was the subject of cover stories and think pieces.

On the other hand, it wasn't THAT much of a hit. Given the subject matter, it couldn't be. But it did well enough.

Chinatown turned out -- like Psycho and The Sting before it -- to be "a movie with a twist ending." But it was the KIND of twist that made a certain dark sort of movie history.

But before reaching the twist near the end, there were the distinctive and intelligent things that were set forth from the beginning:

ONE: A return to a Los Angeles private eye story in the tradition of Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlowe. While Marlowe was a forties detective(at the movies, I think), Chinatown gave us a 30s detective. Close enough, and more approprite to the period setting and Los Angeles political history. Came 1974, audiences who'd spent the 60s largely with James Bond and the superspies(less Paul Newman in a modern-day private eye movie called "Harper"), were ready for a return to the gumshoe tradtion.

TWO: Political intrigue. In the dense and detailed step-by-step screenplay of Chinatown(penned by Robert Towne for the film's only Oscar win), Nicholson's Jake "JJ" Gittes(shades of LB "Jeff" Jeffries in Rear Window) , is hired to tail a cheating husband by the man's wife and find out who "the other woman" is. Fair enough(Jake specializes in sordid divorce work, it is his "metier" he tells his workers. But the cheating husband case turns into a murder case turns into a frame case and slowly leads into a MAJOR political scandal case, with nothing less at stake that the survival and growth of Los Angeles itself at stake. Water politics.

As the story moves along, the requisite femme fatale shows up -- Faye Dunaway, looking vaguely Asian even though she isn't(though the movie IS called Chinatown) --as does the requisite "likely villain of the piece" -- John Huston's superrich Los Angeles power broker Noah Cross(the father, we learn, of Dunway's Evelyn Mulwray and the father-in-law of her husband, murder victim Hollis Mulwray.)

The movie moves satisfyingly along with Jake Gittes (who Cross keeps calling "Mr. GITTS") following the clues and the trail to solve the mystery. But there are a few surprises along the way that made Chinatown a SEVENTIES movie.

One twist relates to Nicholson himself. "Chinatown" producer Robert Evans(ALSO a studio chief at the time; Paramount) said that "Chinatown is Jack's first romantic lead" and he certainly is one, in many ways. Handsome(that smile). Relatively trim(not for long in Nicholson's career.) Seductive of voice. Dapper. BUT...about 1/3 of the way through, Jack's "handsome romantic lead face" is disfigured for the final 2/3 -- a henchman(Roman Polanski, creepy in a cameo role) slices Jack's nostril with a sharp knife, cutting the entire nose open -- THAT never happened to Bogart or Alan Ladd.

"Romantic lead" Nicholson goes through the rest of Chinatown with (1) a huge bandage across his entire mid-face and then(when the bandage is removed) with (2) visible stitches where the knife blade slashed up(such a simple act of great physical violence -- whoever thought THAT up was genius -- Robert Towne gets the credit.)

In a great romantic moment in the film, we are reminded how important our noses are to the fine art of kissing. We gotta plant OUR nose next the nose of our lover, the noses have to fit. Jack tries this with Faye and her nose bumps open the stitches on his nose and we get a nicely BLOODY first kiss.

As for further twists, en route to the finale, Dunaway gets three -- and one is big indeed.

The first twist: This femme fatale isn't fatale at all. She's a good person, not a bad one. She is plotting nothing. She sincerely WANTS the killer of her husband caught...until she doesn't.

The second twist: this is the BIG one, the "something special" that put Chinatown into the history books and specifically as a SEVENTIES, R-rated movie. Its a twist that could not have been filmed in the late thirties(when the Hays Code came in), the forties, or the fifties. It MIGHT have been slipped in, in the 60's. But it arrived correct and on time in 1974:

CONT

reply

Jake comes to learn that Evelyn is protecting a younger woman -- maybe early 20s, maybe teens. This young woman is somehow key to the plot and Jake needs information, NOW. Is she Hollis's mistress?

He starts interrogating Evelyn hard. Slaps her. "She's my sister." Slaps her. "She's my daughter." SLAPS her (misogyny much) "She's my sister AND my daughter!"

Murmur of the Heart be damned. Hollywood studio hard-R history is made.

And it gets worse:

Jake: (Your father) raped you?
Evelyn(Shakes her head no) You get the picture?

CONSENUAL incest.

Of all the R-rated "new Hollywood movies" of the 70's, two stand out for breaking very major specific taboos. One is Chinatown(incest) . The other is Deliverance(male-on-male rape.) These two were good-to-great(Chinatown's better) and each stands out for "that one perverse thing." Soon both movies were the subject of insecure jokes: "Boy, you got a purty mouth..squeal like a piggy(Deliverance.) "Shes my sister my daughter my sister my daughter"(Chinatown) . But jokes could not take away from the first-time power of these scenes. They are what people most remember about the movie: those scenes. NOT the mystery of Chinatown. NOT the river rapids adventure of Deliverance.

I said that Faye gets three twists. The first two are (1) not a femme fatale and (2) the BIG one(historic incest.)

CONT

reply

The third was maybe not so much a twist as a decision: to go for the unhappy ending-- Evelyn dies -- and right after a HAPPY ending seemed to be on the menu(much as with Vertigo, which shares themes with Chinatown.)

Famously, Robert Towne wrote it so Evelyn shoots and kills her father, rescues her daughter and(apparantly) finds happiness with Jake.

Just as famously, director Roman Polanski re-wrote it so that Evelyn shoots and only WOUNDS her father and is in turn shot by a cop(through her eye, in which Jake had noticed a small imperfection earlier.) In turn, the wounded, rich, evil father takes the daughter into his clutches and Jake Gitts ends the story in failed catatonia ("Forget it Jake, its Chinatown.")

That unhappy ending stolen from a happy one rather "marked" Chinatown as the Downer of 1974, a year in which a LOT of movies had downer endings -- Godfather II, Lenny, Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, The Parellax View and on and on.

1974 was kind of a "last straw" for downer endings. Jaws would course correct for triumph(with some innocents killed along the way) and then the one-two punches of Rocky and Star Wars brought back happy endings almost for good.

...leaving Chinatown to shine in its perfectly written, perfectly acted, perfectly MODERN way. (And the movie LOOKED great too -- rich Panavision images of Los Angeles in sun, sunset and sunrise -- a "movie movie" in the age of TV movies and cheapjack gritty looking theatricals.

Add all the elements above up and --- that's how you get a classic, 1974-style.

reply

I think Dunaway has a fourth twist - she’s Dunaway. We initially think Mrs Mulwray is the old bat who visits Jake, claiming to be so. Then the twist is that she isn’t - Dunaway is the real Mulwray.

reply

This is a great overview and analysis of the film. It's also a great (or tragic) lament of the way movies wouldn't be as daring or challenging with their mainstream releases. In '74, Chinatown went up against The Godfather Part II and The Conversation for Best Picture. Now we're getting more and more clamour for the Academy to recognise superhero films. Not that I don't have fun watching the occasional superhero flick, of course, but Best Picture? Most of them do not qualify.

Chinatown's complexity is the major point here. It isn't easy to sift exactly who's good and bad and why. Jake becomes more likeable as the movie goes on - in my opinion - but at the start, he's a flithmonger and a snob. You brought up "metier," and he even refers to snooping on adulterers as "matrimonial work." But I also think about the snobbish way he speaks to the other P.I. and his Florsheim shoes he's so upset about losing. This guy wants to be classy, but he isn't. He's rotten inside.

The thematic symbolism of Chinatown is where I'm going. Ugliness comes up. Water goes away and reveals drought. Noses are ripped open. Secrets are revealed - those uncomfortable twists you talk about. Great stuff. Every inch of Chinatown drips (more water) with its themes and ideas.

We did see another film of the '70s engage with disquieting sexual taboos, albeit in a more symbolic way. Alien does this right before the decade changes over. Of course, other films to this day still "go there," but rarely as a major release of this calibre. And, of course, Alien doesn't have quite the horrifying ending; it's more like Jaws where the good guy gets away, even if there was a catastrophic lead-in.

As to the misogyny, I'm not sure the slaps equate to that. I'm not saying the movie is "PC" or that Jake is a nice guy to the ladies, but I think if he was pumping a man for information, the slaps wouldn't even be where he'd start. In other words, he's a street-level, shades-of-grey PI looking for information and he's almost going easy on her.

Chinatown is an all-time great film. Great write-up, man. Really good overview.

reply

Thank you for your kind response. I'm guessing I posted this because this is 50th Anniversary of Chinatown(indeed, I'm
posting this in June of 2024 and the movie opened in June of 1974 so this is the 50th anniversary MONTH of Chinatown, too.

It is also a good time to review not only how many great movies came out in the entirety of 1974 -- but how many of them were DOWNERS. It got downright oppressive that year -- and Chinatown seemed to be the most classic explication of the "downer mood" -- even as its actually quite a fascinating and exciting movie to experience getting to its sad end. Its not ONLY a downer...its a great story , with great visuals and great dialogue and great acting.

That same 1974 summer, Paramount put out two "downers": Jack Nicholson in Chinatown and Warren Beatty in The Parallax View. Though Warren was Jack's "pal"(sort of) Warren was reportedly angry with Paramount brass for putting more PR into Chinatown(the clear classic)...but Warren's movie was MORE of a downer than Chinatown,much less complex, and less of a hit.

Meanwhile, here in 2024, the great Steven Spielberg himself in the last two weeks attended a Tribeca screening of HIS 1974 downer -- The Sugarland Express, with Goldie Hawn in a dramatic role -- which came out in the spring ahead of Chinatown Summer and was QUITE a grim watch. I'm sure Spielberg will have more fun and get more press next year when he promotes the 50th Anniversary of Jaws -- but he rather dutifully came out to introduce his "very first film" (Sugarland Express) and that reminded ME that in the beginning, Spielberg TRIED to join the downer crowd.

CONT

reply

It's also a great (or tragic) lament of the way movies wouldn't be as daring or challenging with their mainstream releases. In '74, Chinatown went up against The Godfather Part II and The Conversation for Best Picture. Now we're getting more and more clamour for the Academy to recognise superhero films. Not that I don't have fun watching the occasional superhero flick, of course, but Best Picture? Most of them do not qualify.

---

Most of them don't. Some of them DO, but its pretty hard to find them -- The Dark Knight seems to have the most "gravitas" -- the Burton and Nolan Batman movies are generally "the class of the bunch," and the biggest grossers this side of MCU. Of course, TWO actors who played the Joker WON the Oscar -- Heath Ledger(posthumously, and I think he deserved it) for The Dark Knight and Joaquin Phoenix , Best Actor for "Joker."(I didn't think he deserved it.)

As I recall, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight drew favorable comparisons to both Chinatown and LA Confidential in terms of the "urban crime corruption" angles of the films , but that proved the Batman films LESSER than those more famous prestige titles. They couldn't hit the same depths. They were...ahem..in the comic book universe.

Oh, well. Human societies move on, history changes , movie history changes. We are in the comic book era and it will keep re-inventing itself. We still have Sherlock Holmes, James Bond and (sometimes) Tarzan pictures. We will always have Batman and Superman and Iron Man and Spiderman. ...but Jake Gittes was a "one time wonder" of a character(his revival in The Two Jakes just lacked the classic power of the original film.)

CONT



reply

Chinatown's complexity is the major point here. It isn't easy to sift exactly who's good and bad and why.

---

Indeed. We keep waiting for Faye Dunaway to BECOME an evil femme fatale -- maybe she ordered her husband's murder? -- but she isn't. Is John Hillerman's efficient smiling bureaucrat at the LA Water and Power department as possibly corrupt as Jake thinks he is? And John Huston's deep-voiced old Horned Toad of a rich guy maintains a calm, amiable manner no matter how much evil starts to emerge in his psychological make-up. He's rather calm about everything right up to the end when a bullet MAKES him react.

CONT

reply

Jake becomes more likeable as the movie goes on - in my opinion - but at the start, he's a flithmonger and a snob.

---

Yes. Nicholson was willing to play the dark side -- the mean side, the FAKE side --of his character and let the story bring heroism and caring TO him.

--

You brought up "metier," and he even refers to snooping on adulterers as "matrimonial work."

--

Ha. Yes. There is also that (surprising to me) early scene where he chews out his older assistant(Joe Mantell) for taking "useless" photographs of possible adulterers and he again uses a big word to decribe their snooping trade: "This work requires a little FINESSE." (Finesse, metier...boy this guy is desperate to sound respectable.) And I will again note that I thought Jake was being " a bad boss" in that scene. Hard to work for.

---

But I also think about the snobbish way he speaks to the other P.I. and his Florsheim shoes he's so upset about losing. This guy wants to be classy, but he isn't. He's rotten inside.

---

Well, this ties into your "filthmonger" statement. No fault divorce in California(and elsewhere) ended the need to prove adultery in some cases(though adultery is STILL investigated for use in alimony and settlement schemes), but this movie is telling us: ALL THAT JAKE DOES (or that we see him hired to do) is divorce work. Invading the private, sexual, intimate lives of people, taking photographs for some sort of hurtful use.

CONT



reply

In fact' that's ANOTHER way Chinatown announces that it is "a 70's movie." The very first images on the giant Panavision screen after the credits are grainy black and white photographs of a man and a woman -- fully clothed and between a sandwich break -- having sex in various positions in some OUTDOOR location(oops -- easier to be photographed.) I can still remember the shocked quiet shouts of the audience and their giggles -- as the camera turned to the cuckolded husband(stumpy Burt "Rocky" Young) having to view such brutal evidence of his wife's infidelity. (I'll say the photos are fairly erotic, too -- another mark of 70's filmmaking for an adult audience.)

Comedy softens the blow -- "Alright Curly, enough's enough -- you can't eat the Venetian blinds, I had 'em installed on Wednesday" -- but one feels the low down and dirty nature of Jake's "metier" and how human beings are always hurt by what he does.

I love how no sooner than has Jake shown the heartbroken Curly out through one door, he goes through another door to find his next client -- "Mrs. Mulwray" (Diane Ladd) and we get this exchange:

Mrs. Mulwray: I think my husband is seeing another woman.
Gittes: No...reallly?(the seen it all falsity of his line reading is great.)
And then Gittes says something he probably says at the BEGINNING of EVERY case: "Mrs. Mulwray, have you ever heard the expression "Let sleeping does lie?" Of course she has, of course she won't. Of course, they never do.

Gittes takes verbal hits about his lowdown profession as the film goes along: the banker who insults him to his face in the barber shop(trivia: the banker was played by non-actor CO "Doc" Erickson, a creative worker on this film who worked with Hitchocck on Vertigo and other movies.) Later, the cop asks Jake if he got that damaged nose when a window closed on it while he was peeping -- Jake's answer is 1974 R-rated, about the cop's WIFE.

CONT

reply

So many private detectives in OTHER movies had less "dirty" jobs -- find the missing person, find the Maltese Falcon, locate the missing cash, catch the embezzler, etc. But Jake's realm is sexual and this makes for a sexual movie -- not much is shown, but it is always in the air (rather as in The Apartment of Hays Code 1960.)

---

The thematic symbolism of Chinatown is where I'm going. Ugliness comes up. Water goes away and reveals drought. Noses are ripped open. Secrets are revealed - those uncomfortable twists you talk about. Great stuff. Every inch of Chinatown drips (more water) with its themes and ideas.

---

Its funny. "Chinatown" about water politics -- and with many scenes involving water(Jake at sunset watching water flow from a pipe into the ocean, Jake getting swept along in the current of a water diversion channel) also was released when the political "Watergate" crisis in DC reached its climax. This movie came out in June and was still playing in August when President Nixon resigned. Watergate had nothing to do with Chinatown but "water" was in the title so it got pulled into the summer OpEds: both the movie and the real life event were about political corruption.

There is also -- in the great mystery tradition -- Jake's early visit to the ALMOST dry outdoor "Los Angeles River" area where he watches from afar(through Rear Window binoculars, natch) Hollis Mulwray speak to a Mexican boy on a swaybacked white horse -- typical mystery stuff: WHAT are those two talking about? Does it have to do with water flow? Jake has to later visit the same boy , sitting on the same horse, to find out more.

CONT

reply

We did see another film of the '70s engage with disquieting sexual taboos, albeit in a more symbolic way. Alien does this right before the decade changes over.

---

I will note that when I saw Chinatown in the summer of 1974, I could FEEL its weight as a "seventies movie" with R-rated adult material and some real shock value. But I didn't know that I was actually seeing a classic EARLY 70s movie.

A mere three years later, in the summer of 1977, I saw Star Wars and experience THAT huge mass of humanity lined up to watch it and again FELT the movies...starting to change back. SciFi fantasy. Family entertainment(but very unique and creative family entertainment.) The "Chinatown" period proved brief.

Alien was two summers after Star Wars, indeed at the end of the decade, but cannily "hijacked" the family entertainment of Star Wars for a horror movie with a DECIDED sexual symbolism, start to finish. Here was a movie that said, "yes, a MAN can get pregnant"(in a horrifying sacrifical way) and proceeded to give us a monster with a head in the shape of a penis and a heroine stripped down to her panties...the "chest burster" scene was as classic in its way as Jake getting his nose slashed -- we had never seen EITHER of those things before.

---

CONT

reply

Of course, other films to this day still "go there,"

---

Yes, while family stuff like MCU and Pixar and the new Star Wars vehicles dominate the cinemas, the hard R world of 1974 never truly went away -- the indies in the 90s picked up the sword, and Quentin Tarantino has led a charge of folks who make "rough trade" movies (you can add in that director who made "Poor Things")

---

but rarely as a major release of this calibre.

---

For many years, I thought that there were three -- and only three -- "Superthrillers" in American movies. By this I mean thrillers that commanded long lines, huge box office and made movie history with giant audiences, before thrillers got so gory that mainstream audiences fell away.

The three are: Psycho (1960), The Exorcist(1973) and Jaws(1975.) For all of the above reasons.

But over time, I have added a fourth: Alien(1979.) As I recall from previous research, Alien actually didn't earn at the high levels of The Big Three -- but it just seems too famous and influential now NOT to join them. (Movies like The Shining and Silence of the Lambs are perhaps too "deep think" and, in the latter's case, procedural to quaify as "superthrillers.")

"Chinatown" is too serious and sedate a film to be one of the "Superthrillers," its classic powers lie elsewhere.

CONT

reply

And, of course, Alien doesn't have quite the horrifying ending; it's more like Jaws where the good guy gets away, even if there was a catastrophic lead-in.

---

Yes...is not a downer at the end, though a lot of people die horribly getting there.

I might add that neither Psycho nor The Exorcist nor Jaws are downers, either. Horrible things happen in all three(and GROSS things in The Exorcist) but at the end, the bad guy(or demon, or shark) is conclusively defeated.

Chinatown belongs to the "tragedy" class. Some stories HAVE to end badly. I link Chinatown to Vertigo in that regard. They HAD to end badly. They HAD to be profound. (And in both movies, our hero is responsible for an early tragedy -- Jake's was in Chinatown -- and ends up getting someone ELSE killed later on.)

CONT

reply

I wanted to mention "one new thing" in this thread I forgot about Chinatown earlier:

Growing up, i watched a TV whodunnit show called Burke's Law, where the "miilionaire cop hero" (Gene Barry) would question famous suspects (Cesar Romero, Paul Lynde, The Smothers Brothers, Gloria Grahame) about that week's murder.

At the end, Burke would find the killer and tell them all about THEIR crime: "I figured that you had been the silent partner in that oil well business, and you wanted your partner's wife, so you killed two birds with one stone by killing the partner off."

Well, in Chinatown, ALL THROUGH THE MOVIE, Jake Gittes keeps confronting people with his version of their plot "You wanted to kill your husband's girlfriend but you decided it was better to kill him" or to Hillerman "I don't want you, I want the bigger fish, I know you did this and you did that," and even he even confronts Noah Cross for the wrong reasons and...and...and...Gittes is ALWAYS WRONG in his surmises. He's like the "anti Amos Burke." You've got Hillerman responding "That's an outrageous accusation" -- and Hillerman's RIGHT. You've got Faye Dunaway(who knows the REAL truth about things) trying to tell Jake "you've got it all wrong." Its downright fun how WRONG Jake is...which makes it more devastating when he's finally RIGHT.

CONT

reply

As to the misogyny, I'm not sure the slaps equate to that. I'm not saying the movie is "PC" or that Jake is a nice guy to the ladies, but I think if he was pumping a man for information, the slaps wouldn't even be where he'd start. In other words, he's a street-level, shades-of-grey PI looking for information and he's almost going easy on her.

---

I can take those points. By this point in the story, a man's been murdered, and Jake has had his nose slit, and been shot at, and the cops are coming down hard on him(to take his license, to JAIL him) and he wants ANSWERS. The sound effect on Dunaway's final fall actually sounds like a huge CRASH into a table, by the way. Too much sound. Minor quibble.

"Side bar misogyny, but not necessarily": Burt Young seeing the photos of his wife screwing another man at the beginning of the movie pays off WAY NEAR THE END of movie when Jake goes to Curly's house to recruit him for the rescue of Evelyn and her daughter/sister. We see (1) Curly's wife has a black eye(yep, the audience LAUGHS) and (2) Curly's wife has been allowed to stay married to Curly (a blessing or a curse?) and cook dinner for her husband and kids.

Its a rough joke, but then she DID cheat on him and the audience buys this as the reality of 1930s working class married life with a cheater on the premises. "Another adult scene" in Chinatown.

reply

Okay, I'm going to reply thoughtfully to what you've written here in this thread, but that'll be a bit later when I have more time to get to it all.

But really fast, I want to say that a big lament I have with modern cinema is that they hold our hands. In the '70s, cinema verite and "fly-on-the-wall" was the de rigeur, and it's so much more mature storytelling.

That last scene you describe - the black eye - these days, filmmakers would want to make a big commentary about spousal abuse and domestic violence. They'd be afraid that audiences would laugh or side with the husband, and they'd make it soapboxy. They'd push a big, fat PSA in our faces and grind the whole movie to a halt.

What we got in the '70s (or, what we got more often) was a filmmaker unafraid to say, "Here's the reality: husband got cheated on, he hit the wife, they're still together," and lets us decide what we think about it. Is it healthier to divorce? Is violence justified? Was the cheating actually a response to an already violent, abusive marriage? How do we feel about this? We get to see "real life situations" and make up our own minds and actually think about life and get a deep, rich experience.

All in a small moment that isn't "important" to the overall Chinatown story.

reply

Okay, I'm going to reply thoughtfully to what you've written here in this thread, but that'll be a bit later when I have more time to get to it all.

---

Ace spade, I must apologize here. You do not have to reply to all my points. This happens with me, and I do feel a bit badly:

I wrote an OP, you responded to it in a favorable way, made your own good points. "The end." As Jake Gittes says, perhaps I should have let sleeping dogs lie and stopped there.

But, as I am wont to do , I elected to break down your response and turn the thread into something longer than it needed to be. I "stretched out" a perfectly good two or three post dialogue.

On the other hand, I think that's what makes these discussions meaningful ONCE one accepts that the thread gets longer. (And in this 50th anniversary year/summer of Chinatown, why NOT give it an in-depth look here?)

But again: you do not have to respond to everything I wrote once I kept going.

Sorry.

---

CONT

reply

But really fast, I want to say that a big lament I have with modern cinema is that they hold our hands. In the '70s, cinema verite and "fly-on-the-wall" was the de rigeur, and it's so much more mature storytelling.

---

Yes, it was. On the one hand, I try to avoid the trap of "movies were better in my day than now" -- I KNOW that triggers pushback from new generations. I WILL say that movies were DIFFERENT then than now, and something like Chinatown(which was a near Best Picture Oscar winner AND a big deal THEN) reflects a complexity and nuance that we don't always get in MAINSTREAM works today. Remember: Chinatown was made as a SUMMER ENTERTAINMENT film -- a mystery with all sorts of landmark content.

Also: Luckily, Chinatown looks like a lush, plush studio production but a LOT of other seventies movies look like ...independent films today. So we still have THAT element in our films.

CONT



reply

That last scene you describe - the black eye - these days, filmmakers would want to make a big commentary about spousal abuse and domestic violence. They'd be afraid that audiences would laugh or side with the husband, and they'd make it soapboxy. They'd push a big, fat PSA in our faces and grind the whole movie to a halt.

---

Yes, I'm afraid so. Or the studio would "give notes" to the filmmakers and demand the scene be removed (just have Jake and Curly walk out of the house while Jake pitches his rescue proposal) or re-written (no black eye for the wife, maybe no wife in the scene AT all.)

Part of what is going on here is an old and GOOD screenwriting technique: planting an idea early in the movie that pays off much later.

Here's an example:

The 1968 movie Hot Millions opens with white collar crook Peter Ustinov getting out of prison and awarding his warden with "all his taxes done for the year." The warden thanks Ustinov and wishes him luck "going straight" on the outside.

Of course Ustinov doesn't go straight(in the movies they never do), but much later in the film, Ustinov buys a paper on the street and looks at the headline: "Prison Warden Charged with Tax Fraud and Embezzlement of Prison Funds." Ustinov did that. "The pay off on an earlier scene."

So we see Curly's wife with the black eye and yeah -- it got LAUGHS in the theater. Human nature.

And of course Jake is embarrassed to see the handiwork of his snooping(again, perhaps he should be a little ashamed of his job) and there are added jokes that got MORE laughs -- the wife scowling at Jake and this exchange:

Curly: Honey, this is the guy who --
Wife: (Curtly) I know who he is!

And of course, the presence of the children in the room adding THAT element.

CONT

reply

What we got in the '70s (or, what we got more often) was a filmmaker unafraid to say, "Here's the reality: husband got cheated on, he hit the wife, they're still together," and lets us decide what we think about it. Is it healthier to divorce? Is violence justified? Was the cheating actually a response to an already violent, abusive marriage? How do we feel about this? We get to see "real life situations" and make up our own minds and actually think about life and get a deep, rich experience.

---

All true -- and I hadn't thought of "Was the cheating actually a response to an already violent abusive marriage -- AND -- ALL those thoughts course through our minds very quickly and we realize that we are suddenly being asked to really THINK about Curly and his wife as "real human beings with real problems" ASIDE from the "main event"(the murder and water politics investigations.)

All in a small moment that isn't "important" to the overall Chinatown story.

--

Its another reason Chinatown won that Best Original Screenplay Oscar -- the detail. "LA Confidential" -- a Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar winner -- had that kind of detail, too.

CONT

reply

As long as I'm "adding response topics" about Chinatown to this thread, I'll here salute Jerry Goldsmith's score. As with so many great movies, the movie LAUNCHES emotionally with its score...there is a "shock chord" opening under the Paramount mountain and then the suave 30's credits fill the screen and Goldsmith's rich period music fills our ears with its mystery and -- above everything -- its sadness. We' are clued on early that Chinatown will be a sad story.

(The music first under the Paramount mountain and then differently under the credits reminds me of Bernard Herrmann's opening credit music for the Paramount movie Vertigo.)

The famous story is that Chinatown had a DIFFERENT score that was criticized in "preview cards"(too many in the audience hated it) and so producer Robert Evans ordered up a new score from Jerry Goldsmith "superfast" and he gave us this GREAT one.

23 years later, an older Jerry Goldsmith near the end of his career andhis life delivered ANOTHER evocative "LA period mystery score" for...LA Confidential..further connecting THAT great movie to Chinatown.

reply

Nah, long threads are good. Just sometimes it takes me 2+ months to get back to them. But I like the in-depth discussions.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that movies weren't "better" or "worse," but were "different." I think one of the things that makes me a cinephile - as opposed to somebody who just enjoys movies - is that I appreciate all the different flavours. I like the '70s films just as much as the '40s or 2010s. It's just a different vibe. The only critique I have over modern cinema is that mainstream seems to be much more pedestrian/samey, whereas we got more (as we're pointing out here) arthouse-as-blockbuster cinema in the '70s. The intersection of European artistry and American marquees.

I'm also on-board with your evaluation of just letting the scene play out. Curly's domestic troubles (and troublemaking) are just presented as facts. We can laugh or cry. I've had the pleasure of seeing the same live theatre show multiple nights in a row, and I loved seeing audience reactions change from night to night. The same moment, played (more or less) in the same manner results in laughter or revulsion. I think there's tremendous value in letting moments breathe and just "be" on-screen or stage.

Yes, the score is magnificent. It's a throwback to old movie scores, but it's also filled with ache - that sadness you're talking about. This is evocative of the sombre themes of Chinatown, but in a way, of the nostalgia we all feel for the Old Hollywood and the film noirs that Polanski is bringing to the screen. It's a wonderful score about a place we sorta miss and maybe shouldn't go back to.

It's Chinatown.

reply

I agree wholeheartedly with you that movies weren't "better" or "worse," but were "different." I think one of the things that makes me a cinephile - as opposed to somebody who just enjoys movies - is that I appreciate all the different flavours. I like the '70s films just as much as the '40s or 2010s. It's just a different vibe.

---

Me too. I'm old enought to have actually GONE to many of these movies IN the 60s, the 70s, the 80s til today ...and the funny thing is: you don't quite feel things changing until suddenly...they do. Like all the comic book movies today.

Consider, the number of years between the first major "Superman"(1978 with Marlon Brando) to the first major "Batman"(1989 with Jack Nicholson) was ELEVEN YEARS. The studios were in no real rush to "explore the comic world."
It took many more years to get the flood we got. (A friend told me he felt it was a combination of having to settle a bunch of ownership rights lawsuits AND special effects improvements to get Marvel going full speed...which started in Hiccups -- SpiderMan in 2002 and then Iron Man in 2008 to set up The Avengers.

Meanwhile, one could CERTAINLY feel the arrival of the 70's once the R and X rating hit. It was INCREDIBLE at the time. The cussing. The nudity. The sex. The violence getting more violent(The Wild Bunch in the lead, MASH and Dirty Harry following up.)

A large part of "70's cinema" was the R-rated stuff that has generally subsided over the years. But Eurofilm was influential and you had a lot of Robert Altman's "shaggy improv movies"(with overlapping dialogue of a new sort) and his acolytes to work things out.

CONT

reply

Frankly, Chinatown hit big with critics and adults because it was NOT "shaggy improv" -- the script was well-researched, precise, ADULT in the right way. And Polanski -- before everything happened -- show a real for "traditional classic filmmaking" -- gorgeous shots(yes DP John Alonzo made them, but Polanski WANTED them), great compositions, a REAL mood to a lot of scenes(like one of Jack and Faye driving in a convertible together in a wide open area...at sunset.)

I'd like to offer this one thing about the 70's being a bit WORSE than today:

Special effects. I was teenage-plus in the 70's and myself and my friends KNEW we were getting subpar special effects and sets in futuristic movies like The Omega Man and Soylent Green(both starring Chuck Heston) and Westworld and Logan's Run. But it was ALL WE HAD, so we put our imaginations to work. Only 2001 had REALLY great futuristic effects and...it was art from an auteur.

And then came Star Wars. And the very first thing we knew -- when that little spaceship ran across the screen and tha GIANT spaceship kept coming into the frame...more..and more...and more...and more..we KNEW the effects situation had been solved. This was big budget, perfectly photographed, very new in many ways: hyperspace? It got HUGE applause. The video-game like shootdown of space fighters from the Milennial Falcon? Same. The WII vintage air dives into the Death Star canyons?

I saw Star Wars at a special "invite for youth" showing at a Fox screening room. Wall to wall youth ..all seats taken, all steps sat upon. And when that opening image of the spaceshit that just kept coming...more and more and more...well, standing ovation, cheers, ROARS, whistles.

I'll never forget that. Nor the explosion of cheers at the end when "Directed by George Lucas" came up after our Magnificent Seven took their bow.

THAT night, I knew the movies had changed.

And here we are.

CONT

reply

Though Paul Newman opined on all this in 1980: "Its tough to keep working in movies when the two main stars are a shark and a robot.


The 80's didn't throw out the 70s immediately and folks can always name serious films for adults (Amadeus, The Killing Fields.)

But Tarantino claims there was a LOT of middle-brow stuff(he named The Big Chill and OUt of Africa) and a recent documentary about the Brat Pack(the kids who starred in The Breakfast Club and St. Elmo's Fire) claims that they led a major "move to youth movies" that pretty much took over comedy, horror(Nightmare on Elm Street) AND drama(The Breakfast Club.)

The 80's is also when we started to get more "boy" male superstars, with Tom Cruise AND the Brat Pack leading to Pitt, Matt, and Leo in the 90s.

CONT

reply

I'm also on-board with your evaluation of just letting the scene play out. Curly's domestic troubles (and troublemaking) are just presented as facts. We can laugh or cry.

---

Yes. And the scene was ALLOWED in the movie. Modernly, I don't think that old controversial movies will be banned, but I DO think that greenlights won't be given to much of this stuff unless its indie(QT prides himself on NEVER backing down -- thus we had The Hateful Eight with Kurt Russell smacking Jennifer Jason Leigh around -- the "coming soon" p oster of him chained to her with her black eye visible -- my local theater removed that after a week.)

--

I've had the pleasure of seeing the same live theatre show multiple nights in a row, and I loved seeing audience reactions change from night to night. The same moment, played (more or less) in the same manner results in laughter or revulsion.

---

Hmm. Its been a long time, but I remember laughter...perhaps "leavened by" some groans or "vocal tut-tutting." Revulsion would be alright too.

---

I think there's tremendous value in letting moments breathe and just "be" on-screen or stage.

---

Me, too. I will add that I much prefer a scene like THIS one(Curly's home; wife with black eye) that GIVES us the facts to scenes that don't go anywhere or tell us anything. There is more "human work to do" in trying to evaluate the "Curly and his wife" scene...to let it breathe, to decide just WHAT we are seeing here.

There are still movies like that made today. I can't say I'm keeping up with all of them.

CONT

reply

Except one: Against some(but hardly all) others, I very much liked "Licorice Pizza" a few years ago, and talk about letting a movie BREATHE: its about an entirely platonic(but yearning) romance between a stunted 25-year old woman(she acts like a girl) and a sophisticated 15-16 year old boy(he acts like a man.)

There were some real attacks on the age difference thing but I say -- "let it breathe" and you could see that these two were RIGHT for each other -- and OTHER girls(for him) and boys(for her) were NOT right.) It was a perfect love story.

You could solve the legalities -- "Make him wait til he's 18 or move to Nevada where consent is 16' -- or just "go with it": these two were a MATCH.

At least that's how I felt about it -- every time a potential other lover arrived I'd think "No, not HIM...go with the guy who's RIGHT for you."

Ha.

reply

I still haven't seen Licorice Pizza, but I will. I think I've enjoyed everything Anderson has ever directed - certainly all of the films that come to mind. Magnolia is Tom Cruise's best role, too.

A lot of the stuff in The Green Knight was "let it breathe," too. It gave you that crazy fantasy/horror stuff and let you figure it out. It was nice to be treated like an adult.

The way movies changed is funny. You're right - '70s F/X weren't at peak most of the time. I never mind letting my imagination play, too, though. Maybe it's all that live theatre (or audio drama!) that I've been to over the years. But I don't find The Day the Earth Stood Still suffers greatly from its lack of Star Wars-level effects.

But Star Wars changed everything, set the bar high, and everybody kept chasing it. I believe Star Wars was the progenitor of that move towards teen movies and teen stars you talked about. It's culminated in the superhero craze (combined with the increasing reliance on the global box office - which calls for movies that translate easily (not comedy!)) but Star Wars started it. It's weird, because as much as I love Star Wars as a work of art and entertainment, I kinda resent the path it set mainstream movies down: the pursuit of the blockbuster, and aimed at the 12-16 demographic. I'd like a little more variety.

Still, I love plenty of blockbusters and superhero movies. And, as we've agreed, there still are movies for adults; they're just a little harder to find.

reply

I still haven't seen Licorice Pizza, but I will.

--

Its an acquired taste. One critic called it "The Best Movie of the Year." I read that review and I was "prejudiced" but I REALLY liked the movie literally from the first minutes on.

However, over time that season, there seemed to be a critical split: a lot of critics liked it(I was with them), a few felt it wasn't at Paul Thomas Anderson's best level of work, and a few just didn't like it at all.

You see, I can accept ALL of those viewpoints and yet know that for ME(only)...I just connected so emotionally and throughly and deeply to those characters and their story and their fate..few movies have spoken to me so directly. Probably because its a period piece and those kids are young when I WAS young. The film is set in 1973. Can't beat nostalgia. (Even BAD nostalgia: I remember "gas lines" at gas stations that could last for blocks and require a wait of two hours for gas.)

Aside from the critical debate on Licorice Pizza, what I would call the "internet political debate" kicked in hard. Mainly about the age difference issue -- which I found important to the story(its THE obstacle to their love) but not fatal to it (they are VERY innocent young people.) Also the movie took critical hits for a couple of scenes making a certain amount of fun at Japanese people. PTA said the couple was based on a real couple, but...it didn't calm his critics.

Still, Licorice Pizza got Oscar noms for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay...and THAT kept PTA potent in Hollywood. He's now working on movie with Leo DiCaprio.

CONT

reply

I think I've enjoyed everything Anderson has ever directed - certainly all of the films that come to mind.

--

Its funny. I've seen all of PTA's stuff and liked it in varying degrees. Love his San Fernando Valley films (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, Licorice Pizza.) Love his coastal Los Angeles film(Inherent Vice.) I have a bit more troulbe with his "prestige art" films: There Will Be Blood (despite DDL's great John Huston-like lead), The Master, Phantom Thread.

But it took "Licorice Pizza" for me to find a PTA film I REALLY loved -- and its like his entire run of earlier films suddenly felt BETTER. I became a bigger fan.

CONT

reply

Magnolia is Tom Cruise's best role, too.

---

Pretty much. Given the intensity of his performing style, he was perhaps most impressive as two VILLAINS: the hitman in Collateral and this misogynist woman-hater in Magnolia. Though the Magnolia character had room for redemption.

Some corollaries:

Alexander Payne hits big with Election. So he can get a big star(Jack Nicholson) for his next film (About Schmidt.)

Quentin Tarantino hits big with Reservoir Dogs. So he can get a big star(Bruce Willis) for his next film(Pulp Fiction.) And revive John Travolta back to superstardom.

PTA hits big with Boogie Nights(with FORMER big star Burt Reynolds). So he can get a BIGGER star(Tom Cruise) for his next film(Magnolia.)

That's how it goes with "how to get a superstar" in Hollywood.

CONT

reply

A lot of the stuff in The Green Knight was "let it breathe," too. It gave you that crazy fantasy/horror stuff and let you figure it out. It was nice to be treated like an adult.

---

I have not seen The Green Knight but now I think I should . I always take recommendations!

CONT

reply

The way movies changed is funny. You're right - '70s F/X weren't at peak most of the time. I never mind letting my imagination play, too, though.

---

Yes...I think we understood that at the time.
We KNEW the movie was giving us a kind of "cheapjack" vision of the future, or other worlds. But it was more like "suggested" effects -- we filled in the rest in our minds.

---
Maybe it's all that live theatre (or audio drama!) that I've been to over the years.

---

That's right. Entire centuries of audiences had to "use their minds" to fill in the blanks. And I am NOT old enough to remember a world without TV and only "radio drama" -- but IMAGINE those generations before us who HAD to use their imaginations while listening to radio plays.

--

But I don't find The Day the Earth Stood Still suffers greatly from its lack of Star Wars-level effects.

--

Nope. That 1951 movie was pretty smart -- it LED with the flyer saucer landing near the White House and some effects stuff. But for the rest of it much of the movie is just homes and living rooms and offices just like any OTHER modern 1951 story.

CONT

reply

But Star Wars changed everything, set the bar high, and everybody kept chasing it.

---

It did ALL those things. It changed everything AND created a goal for others to pursue.

For instance, George Lucas made Star Wars, but his pal Spielberg was already working on Close Encounters(for release the same year) and I'm willing to be that Steve made some changes to Close Encounters once Star Wars was released before it.

I remember seeing William Shatner being interviewed on TV about the Star Wars phenomenon. "Star Trek movies" weren't being contemplated yet. Shater said of Star Wars "Oh, c'mon...WE can do better than THAT." Not immediately!

And let's include Alien -- released by the same studio(Fox) two years to the May day after Star Wars...and turning space into horror movie territory...

Hollywood seemed to be astonished by the blocks-long lines that IMMEDIATELY hit when Star Wars opened, but the clues had been there: Star Trek, indeed! Rather a flop on network TV (only 3 seasons) in the 60s, in re-runs, TEENS went nuts for the show in the 70's. They were READY for Star WARS when it turned up. But again, everyone was shocked by the great effects and Lucas had surely created a whole new world.

CONT

reply

I believe Star Wars was the progenitor of that move towards teen movies and teen stars you talked about.

---

Yes. Funny thing though: it seems that there was ALWAYS a 'teenager-based" movie audience out there over the decades but evidently it took the 80's for them to take over the leads in A pictures.

Some years ago, I was watching 55-year old Cary Grant running from the bi-lane in North by Northwest, and a teenager came into the room and said "How is that old guy able to run like that?" That old guy. This teen also thought John Wayne was "a real old guy."

Well, HE was brought up on the "boy man stars" of the 80's and 90s: Tom Cruise, Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon. Suddenly Cary Grant and John Wayne(when over 40) were "old."

CONT

reply

It's culminated in the superhero craze (combined with the increasing reliance on the global box office - which calls for movies that translate easily (not comedy!)) but Star Wars started it. It's weird, because as much as I love Star Wars as a work of art and entertainment, I kinda resent the path it set mainstream movies down: the pursuit of the blockbuster, and aimed at the 12-16 demographic. I'd like a little more variety.

---

Well, we are where we are, I guess.

You know Chinatown(this board) WAS relevant to Star Wars in some ways. Lucas said one reason he wrote and made Star Wars was because he was "tired of movies where you came out of the theater feeling worse than when you went in." Which is certainly Chinatown.

Your points are all well taken -- and the ascent of the "worldwide audience with a worldwide gross" has made some people fabulously rich while indeed cutting down on the variety of films available.

Still, indiefilm and Tarantino(for the films we've had) and PTA and the Coens(if they ever get bank together) are examples of how SOME variety is still available.

reply

I think the assumption for years was that the teens were just going to watch the same movies that adults would watch. If it's a good story, it's a good story. They'd either make kid films, family films, or fully adult films, and I think the fully adult films were more "niche," anyway. The seedy B-movies that were challenged by morality police (a lot of them are considered film noirs now).

And, yeah, Cary Grant was right. At some point, we got boy-man stars.

I don't want to just complain. I don't think all of this is bad. Movies that look to specific demographics to provide them with stories are a great plan. There's a lot of room for a lot of films to thrive. Likewise, I don't need every hero to be 35-40 years old and brawny. I think some of the appeal of anime is that the heroes are all very young, so kids and teens can really get hooked (and then they're hooked for life).

I just wish there'd be more variety. It's easy to chase a new demographic and forget to "dance with the one who brought you." I don't resent the existence of teen-oriented action films or superhero franchises, I just wish the studios would still throw out a Chinatown or two as well.

reply

That's the key to science-fiction, too, is that it's not about the effects. SFX are cool, they help, and they contribute to the experience, but I don't love the film Arrival because the aliens are made exquisitely, it's because of how the film made me feel and that it made me think about time, perception, fate, and human relationships to our loved ones. But they are cool.

They also contribute to an atmosphere, and that is important in film. An aesthetic and a feel can be achieved without it, of course, but some films just never feel finished with slipshod or subpar effects (I commend your use of the word "cheapjack" - good word!)

Star Wars certainly changed the game. Blockbuster, yes; and you're right that Close Encounters, Star Trek, Alien, etc. would all have been influenced by Star Wars - not to mention Moonraker. Bond made one of its dumbest decisions ever because they suddenly thought "I know what everybody wants! Lasers! Regardless of what the movie is!"

Shatner was probably thinking in terms of story. He saw a pretty basic fairy tale on screen and recalled Trek's humanist philosophy and boundary-pushing (Bradbury, Ellison type) sci-fi. He wasn't thinking in terms of phenomenon.

As for ST's popularity, I read somewhere that the network was basically measuring the wrong demographic. It wasn't flopping on TV, they just weren't polling younger audiences who LOVED Trek. If they'd polled better, original Trek could have kept going.

reply

Star Wars certainly changed the game. Blockbuster, yes;

---

And though the consequence may be my age TODAY, I was allowed to live THROUGH that sudden impact of Star Wars and it is truly a memory of CHANGE -- for the worse thought the critics and filmmakers of the 60s/70s but...it was unavoidably HERE.

---

and you're right that Close Encounters, Star Trek, Alien, etc. would all have been influenced by Star Wars

---

A Star Trek movie was evidently tossed around as a POSSIBILITY (never made) UNTIL Star Wars hit -- and then came the greenlight for the first one and the start of a NEW Star Trek series -- on movie screens.

Close Encounters is intriguing however. It came out too close to Star Wars to have REALLY been INFLUENCED by it..rather it seems that both Lucas and Spielberg were SciFi oriented guys who used their hits(American Graffiti and Jaws) to get to make some "quality SciFi" at the movies. In the same year yet -- Star Wars in summer, CE at Christmas.

CONT

reply

ot to mention Moonraker. Bond made one of its dumbest decisions ever because they suddenly thought "I know what everybody wants! Lasers! Regardless of what the movie is!"

---

Ha. Well, there was a little something else going on with Moonraker:

The Bond producers spent the 70's with Roger Moore pretty much turning the Bond series into "copycats of other hits," to wit:

Live and Let Die. Shaft/Blaxploitation.
Man with the Golden Gun: Enter the Dragon/Kung Fu.
The Spy Who Loved Me: Jaws(even with a villain NAMED Jaws; oceangoing story.)
Moonraker(Star Wars.)

CONT

reply

Yeah, they were going to do "Star Trek: Phase II," which they basically pulled apart and turned into Star Trek: TNG and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, with some of their plans going to each.

I actually watched a very, very interesting video that said James Bond (as a series) basically died with On Her Majesty's Secret Service. The thesis was that, pre-OHMSS, Bond was inventing its own brand and leading the way. It had imitators. After OHMSS, Bond was the imitator. Connery came back for Diamonds Are Forever, but that wasn't even more originality, it was almost mimicking the original Connery films. After that, as you point out, Moore's films were all following other films or trends.

reply

I imagine Licorice Pizza would be an acquired taste.

I'm pretty sure I'll dig it. PTA's other work has all be really good, from what I've seen. You've seen more than I have, but I think I liked Phantom Thread a lot more than you did. I thought it was interesting and like a subtle poison. The two leads mesmerised me, charmed me, and horrified me. I thought it was like a duel between toxic masculinity and toxic femininity, and the whole was shot exquisitely. I think Magnolia is my favourite that I've seen, although I also really like Punch Drunk Love.

Nostalgia can be very powerful, yes. But, not as powerful as the internet political debate. Man, I am so sick of it. It's not like there aren't a lot of decisions being made in Hollywood for political reasons, but there always have been. I'd like it if the shrill, screaming morons stopped making movies their battlegrounds, for like, a month or something. It seems like everything is a battlefield for these ultra-tribal whack-jobs.

reply

I think the assumption for years was that the teens were just going to watch the same movies that adults would watch.

---

BINGO! I say to this take. Yes!

Or at least -- teens would watch movies with leads older than 40...especially MALE leads over 40.

But we ended up with this weird movement towards "Teens will only watch movies with teens as leads, or ABOUT teens("dead teenager" slasher films, teen vampire films, teen highschool romance films.)

Or with "boy-men" miscast in roles that were older than them.

As one critic wrote about Tom Cruise in the original Top Gun: "Tom Cruise plays a flyboy. He can play a fly, or he can play a boy, but he can't play a flyboy."

To me this led to the miscasting of Leo DiCaprio as a cop in "Shutter Island." Wearing a big hat and overcoat, Leo looked like a boy wearing his father's "big clothes."

Interesting, pretty much ALL of the boy stars have aged into more manly men -- Pitt, Leo, even Damon. But those early roles?

By comparison, I use the 1966 action Western The Professionals as a guide.

I was a kid when I saw it, and I enjoyed relating to these "older men" in the story.

Moreover, once I saw the film again AS an older person(a grown man) I came to appreciate that the leads -- in their forties and fifties -- HAD to be those ages to play "men with personal history" -- having fought with the Rough Riders, in the Mexican revolution, one having been married and lost their wife to murderous soldiers.

These four were played by Burt Lancaster, Lee Marvin, Robert Ryan and Woody Strode. It is IMPOSSIBLE to image Leo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Brad Pitt or Tom Cruise in those roles. Oh, Pitt maybe -- but only older Pitt.

CONT

reply

I imagine Licorice Pizza would be an acquired taste.

---

Intriguingly, as one critic wrote "this isn't much different from the usual teen high school romance movie" -- and since its very first scene is a "romantic pick-up" (he insists, she resists) set AT a high school...well, of course.

Except --PTA makes the girl 25 (and working on a class photo shoot team) and the boy 15. This veers the story AWAY from the typical "teenage romance" and into more dangerous territory. But its all still very sweet and innocent, a perfect capture of "young love" between people who have not yet matured enough to deal with their emotions -- they just HAVE them. (And PTA brings older male stars Sean Penn and Bradley Cooper in to anchor "adult oriented" scenes.)

---

I'm pretty sure I'll dig it.

--

Well I did. Its INSANE how much I dig it. I have analyzed WHY I dig it. I also understsand why others CANT dig it. Ha.

CONT

reply

PTA's other work has all be really good, from what I've seen. You've seen more than I have, but I think I liked Phantom Thread a lot more than you did.

---

Probably. See I think that's what's fascinating about PTA. He could have STUCK to "LA Stories of the 60s and 70s" but he went for these "prestige pictures" -- There Will Be Blood, Phantom Thread, The Master. I'm simply not the best audience for those.

---

I thought it was interesting and like a subtle poison.

--

And a NOT so subtle poison. Ha.

--

The two leads mesmerised me, charmed me, and horrified me. I thought it was like a duel between toxic masculinity and toxic femininity,

---

Great description!

---

and the whole was shot exquisitely. I think

--

Yes. Someone wrote that in its visual precision and detail (and close-ups)-- with a touch of the murderous macabre -- Phantom Thread is rather PTA's Hitchocck movie. Which would make it more thoughtful than OTHER Hitchcock homages.

--

Magnolia is my favourite that I've seen,

--

Number two for me...after Licorice Pizza.

---

although I also really like Punch Drunk Love.

---

In which somehow, "Adam Sandler works serious" while still remainaing TOTALLY Adam Sandler.

What a fascinating movie star Adam Sandler is. He powers his superstardom with rather juvenile comedies and romances -- and then steps over to do "serious work" from time to time -- respected by Hollywood BECAUSE of the big bucks from his silly hits They never gave Jerry Lewis that kind of respect!

CONT

reply

Yeah. For me, the "too young to be X" is actually best embodied by Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. Now, I don't know how young she was when she made the film, but when she says, "I'm a Gotham City District Attorney," she sounds like she's about to call her daddy and have him open the bridge because he's rich. She comes across as too young for the role. Gyllenhaal was such an improvement in TDK.

But, generally, yeah, a lot of actors are too young to have that experienced-the-world vibe. We have to pretend 25-year old actors are multiple-PhD CEOs. Or, ironically, still playing 16 and being too old for that.

Hollywood has the youth fever - everybody has to be 22-27.

In music, I think about Mick Jagger. I think the Stones still rock, but set aside their rock-appropriateness (or lack thereof) and listen to Blue & Lonesome. Can't tell me that 70+ year-old doesn't sing the blues better than he did at 21.

With the "acquired taste" line, I was more joking that an actual licorice pizza would be hard to like at first try.

Film sounds great; I'll watch it.

Yes, the poison in PT was not always very subtle - great joke. Yes, it is also kinda Hitchcockian. Well-observed.

As to Punch Drunk Love, I agree 100%. The fact that PTA made an Adam Sandler comedy and also made it an art film, without really betraying many of the tropes of Adam Sandler comedies, is astounding. It's almost a joke on art cinema. It's almost him saying, "You know, if you'd give dumb comedy a chance, it can be smart." I often say that Adam Sandler's character in PDL is the same as in his other movies (temper, man-child, kind of a romantic, etc.) just portrayed in a more realistic, if quirky, way.

As for Sandler, the guy has what it takes to do great work. Just sometimes he feels like doing bum jokes. PDL is just one of many. Uncut Gems, Spanglish, etc. Sandler's a very talented artist when he has great material.

reply

Yeah. For me, the "too young to be X" is actually best embodied by Katie Holmes in Batman Begins. Now, I don't know how young she was when she made the film, but when she says, "I'm a Gotham City District Attorney," she sounds like she's about to call her daddy and have him open the bridge because he's rich. She comes across as too young for the role.

---

I must admit that I am rather "male actor biased" both in terms of enjoying their work and being able to opine on their work. Women are just..different. But I CAN see how Katie Holmes rather girlish look didn't work for Batman Begins.

---
Gyllenhaal was such an improvement in TDK.

---

Well, she had more gravitas, but I'm afraid I didn't buy her as a beauty who could captivate two handsome and powerful men as those played by Christian Bale and Aaron Eckhardt.

I have gotten pushback on that -- "I think Maggie Gyellenhaal IS beautiful" and beauty IS in the eye of the beholder.

But versus such Batman "eye candy with talent" Kim Basinger, Michelle Pfeiifer and especially Nicole Kidman in Batman Forever, Maggie ain't got it. No matter. The Dark Knight was a huge hit and Maggie still gets cast AND directs and stuff.

CONT

reply

I agree, Maggie G is the slutty mid that you might snog at the office Christmas party at the end of the night if she really put the effort in, but no way would Gotham’s most powerful men be vying over her 🤣

Nolan completely fails to make Rachel’s death in TDK register at all, and it’s absurd that Harvey would blame the man who failed to save Rachel over… the man who fucking killed her? Who he then teams up with??

That film is dumb, I much prefer Dark Knight Rises. Great villain and, finally, some sexy bitches - Catwoman and Cotillard.

reply

I agree, Maggie G is the slutty mid that you might snog at the office Christmas party at the end of the night if she really put the effort in, but no way would Gotham’s most powerful men be vying over her 🤣

---

Ha. Well, I will agree back with you -- which will win me some enemies I guess but with those two male leads you can just SEE where the casting of a Basinger/Pfeiffer/Kidman type would have instantly "fit" but you have to WORK on Maggie fitting.

I'll grant her a great voice and a certain intelligence but..no.

As for the slutty thing, note that Gyllenhaal(I still blame her brother and her for spellcheck horror) decided to "put it all out there" playing a hooker turned porn star in HBO's "The Deuce." Nudity, simulated sex and in CRUDDY locales. I think she realized that if she added a direct sexual dimension to her work, she would BECOME a sexy star(and Secretary helped, too.)



CONT

reply

Nolan completely fails to make Rachel’s death in TDK register at all, and it’s absurd that Harvey would blame the man who failed to save Rachel over… the man who fucking killed her? Who he then teams up with??

---

Heh. Yeah. Well, I liked the movie for one reason almost only: Heath Ledger's Joker, the performance AND the concept. JUST as with Nicholson as the Joker in Batman, the movie comes to life when the Joker's on screen and goes flat when he is not.

---

That film is dumb, I much prefer Dark Knight Rises. Great villain and, finally, some sexy bitches - Catwoman and Cotillard.

---

I liked Rises better too. And indeed -- simplicity itself -- either Hathaway OR Cotillard have the traditional beauty thing(well, UNtraditional beauty with Hathaway) that Maggie G does not. I guess Cotillard couldn't have played Rachel though, not with that accent...

CONT

reply

Nolan completely fails to make Rachel’s death in TDK register at all, and it’s absurd that Harvey would blame the man who failed to save Rachel over… the man who fucking killed her? Who he then teams up with??

---

Heh. Yeah. Well, I liked the movie for one reason almost only: Heath Ledger's Joker, the performance AND the concept. JUST as with Nicholson as the Joker in Batman, the movie comes to life when the Joker's on screen and goes flat when he is not.

---

That film is dumb, I much prefer Dark Knight Rises. Great villain and, finally, some sexy bitches - Catwoman and Cotillard.

---

I liked Rises better too. And indeed -- simplicity itself -- either Hathaway OR Cotillard have the traditional beauty thing(well, UNtraditional beauty with Hathaway) that Maggie G does not. I guess Cotillard couldn't have played Rachel though, not with that accent...

CONT

reply

Nolan completely fails to make Rachel’s death in TDK register at all, and it’s absurd that Harvey would blame the man who failed to save Rachel over… the man who fucking killed her? Who he then teams up with??

---

Heh. Yeah. Well, I liked the movie for one reason almost only: Heath Ledger's Joker, the performance AND the concept. JUST as with Nicholson as the Joker in Batman, the movie comes to life when the Joker's on screen and goes flat when he is not.

---

That film is dumb, I much prefer Dark Knight Rises. Great villain and, finally, some sexy bitches - Catwoman and Cotillard.

---

I liked Rises better too. And indeed -- simplicity itself -- either Hathaway OR Cotillard have the traditional beauty thing(well, UNtraditional beauty with Hathaway) that Maggie G does not. I guess Cotillard couldn't have played Rachel though, not with that accent...

CONT

reply

Nolan completely fails to make Rachel’s death in TDK register at all, and it’s absurd that Harvey would blame the man who failed to save Rachel over… the man who fucking killed her? Who he then teams up with??

---

Heh. Yeah. Well, I liked the movie for one reason almost only: Heath Ledger's Joker, the performance AND the concept. JUST as with Nicholson as the Joker in Batman, the movie comes to life when the Joker's on screen and goes flat when he is not.

---

That film is dumb, I much prefer Dark Knight Rises. Great villain and, finally, some sexy bitches - Catwoman and Cotillard.

---

I liked Rises better too. And indeed -- simplicity itself -- either Hathaway OR Cotillard have the traditional beauty thing(well, UNtraditional beauty with Hathaway) that Maggie G does not. I guess Cotillard couldn't have played Rachel though, not with that accent...

CONT

reply

I understand why Maggie Gyllenhaal isn't the "it girl," but she's not unattractive, and both men have a reason outside of that physical desirability. With Bruce, she's his "girl next door," and always has that nostalgic, comforting charm. In the Nolan trilogy, Rachel is the only link he has to a life that he can't get back to. She is, to him, not only a close friend, she's symbolic of a world of love where his parents still live.

I know, I know: Alfred. But I feel like, no matter how paternal and kind Alfred was, there was always the master/servant relationship. Also, because Alfred was also servant to Thomas and Martha, he is never quite the same thing for Bruce. And while Alfred was fatherly, he could never be Bruce's father, while Rachel could maintain that friendship.

For Harvey Dent, he loves her brain and sense of justice. She's kin to him - another passionate, law-focused, smart lawyer working for the DA's office.

So, with both of them, I buy it. They have great personal reasons to fall in love with Rachel. Maybe they didn't fall in love at first sight, but after a couple vapid model types, Harvey probably came into the office and went, "Hey, what about her?"

Now, you'll get no argument from me that Basinger, Pfeiffer, and Kidman are sexier than Gyllenhaal, but I think Gyllenhaal nailed the role, was far more convincing than Holmes,. and was not unattractive, even if she wasn't the hottest thing in the room.

reply

I understand why Maggie Gyllenhaal isn't the "it girl,"

---

Oh, she sort of IS. She gets a lot of press -- she's directing something major right now -- and I didn't realize until recently that she is married to the ever-working Peter Sarsgaard.

---

but she's not unattractive,

---

She has her strengths. Look, I know the accusation can come out my way(to the writer) -- what do YOU look like? (older now) -- but then I don't put myself forward for movie roles, let alone handsome guy movie roles. I know my limitations. So I'm always a little wondrous when others put their looks "out there" and its part of their high pay to "take the hit." (And then to take the support in backlash.)

and both men have a reason outside of that physical desirability.

--

You made a very good case for both men wanting Rachel -- especially Bruce Wayne and I recall giving Maggie G. the benefit of the doubt for plot reasons. But all Nolan had to do to avoid the issue entirely was to hire one of those more effortlessly attractive women.

reply

So, with both of them, I buy it. They have great personal reasons to fall in love with Rachel. Maybe they didn't fall in love at first sight, but after a couple vapid model types, Harvey probably came into the office and went, "Hey, what about her?"

--

A note that I suppose a lot of men of a certain power would find "vapid model types" well...vapid. Nothing to them. And fickle.

I was thinking that in real life , Michelle Pfeiffer has been married for years to TV showrunner David Kelley, and Kidman seems to be on a happyish second marriage to Keith Urban. They aren't fickle beauties zipping from man to man. I'm not sure what Basinger's up to, love wise.

reply

So, with both of them, I buy it. They have great personal reasons to fall in love with Rachel. Maybe they didn't fall in love at first sight, but after a couple vapid model types, Harvey probably came into the office and went, "Hey, what about her?"

--

A note that I suppose a lot of men of a certain power would find "vapid model types" well...vapid. Nothing to them. And fickle.

I was thinking that in real life , Michelle Pfeiffer has been married for years to TV showrunner David Kelley, and Kidman seems to be on a happyish second marriage to Keith Urban. They aren't fickle beauties zipping from man to man. I'm not sure what Basinger's up to, love wise.

reply

So, with both of them, I buy it. They have great personal reasons to fall in love with Rachel. Maybe they didn't fall in love at first sight, but after a couple vapid model types, Harvey probably came into the office and went, "Hey, what about her?"

--

A note that I suppose a lot of men of a certain power would find "vapid model types" well...vapid. Nothing to them. And fickle.

I was thinking that in real life , Michelle Pfeiffer has been married for years to TV showrunner David Kelley, and Kidman seems to be on a happyish second marriage to Keith Urban. They aren't fickle beauties zipping from man to man. I'm not sure what Basinger's up to, love wise.

reply

But, generally, yeah, a lot of actors are too young to have that experienced-the-world vibe. We have to pretend 25-year old actors are multiple-PhD CEOs.

---

Yep. Once "boy-man" or "girl-woman" actors started to be required, we were just supposed to suspend out disbelief.

But: its dangerous in the OTHER direction. AS the years went on "aging male stars" like Jame Stewart, Gary Cooper, and Tyrone Power suddenly looked too OLD for their parts. And yet Hollywood producers kept trying to cast them becuse there were FEW younger male stars(this is why Paul Newman worked all the time.)

I think Cary Grant was pitched James Bond when he was past his prime -- good looking but a bit gray and a bit heavy of build. He was good to sa no.

---

Or, ironically, still playing 16 and being too old for that.

--

Well, that one's constant too, I suppose. I suppose if 22-27 is THE age range for new stars, they will have to play too old AND too young.

--

Hollywood has the youth fever - everybody has to be 22-27.

---

For commerical movies I guess. Streaming TV can still keep old folks starry -- I see that Billy Bob Thornton and Jon Hamm are getting a show soon from the Yellowstone guy.

CONT

reply

One of the best "old guy romantic leads" was Cary Grant in Charade. Apparently, he recognized he was "too old" to be the romantic lead opposite Audrey Hepburn, so Grant insisted that the script be re-written: make the girl pursue the more reluctant guy. That dynamic makes the relationship feel less creepy and the whole movie feels more refreshing and off-beat for that. Grant was right, and turned a negative into a positive. I wish they'd do that more: not ignore the young or old, but at least write the darn part to suit the actor. Tweak it if it doesn't work. It doesn't have to be tailor made or massive re-writes, but just enough changes to make it work, if we must have it.

Grant was right to turn down Bond. Not just age, but his vibe was too gentlemanly, too affable. We'd have had a much more Roger Moore-type Bond set the tone, and I'm much happier that it's Connery with his blend of thug and sophisticate.

I'm glad Thornton and Hamm are still working. Hamm, I think, is underrated. He's got a tonne of range. He was lauded for Mad Men, but I think he can do a lot of other stuff, play a lot of different roles. Goodness knows, he's really, really funny.

reply

One of the best "old guy romantic leads" was Cary Grant in Charade. Apparently, he recognized he was "too old" to be the romantic lead opposite Audrey Hepburn, so Grant insisted that the script be re-written: make the girl pursue the more reluctant guy. That dynamic makes the relationship feel less creepy and the whole movie feels more refreshing and off-beat for that. Grant was right, and turned a negative into a positive.

---

Grant retired -- on purpose -- at age 62. He only made two more films after Charade. Father Goose was a love story with Leslie Caron in a role turned down by Audrey Hepburn. Grant undercut his age in THAT one by playing an unshaven grouchy drunken beach bum on a WWII lookout island beset by a female teacher and her schoolgirls. It is a good romance with great lines: Peter Stone(screenwriter of Charade) won the Oscar for Father Goose and said "I want to thank Cary Grant for winning these things for other people." Perfect.

And then in his final film (Walk Don't Run) Grant played a matchmaker of a younger couple. Critics noted: Grant had better chemistry with young co-star Samantha Eggar than Tim Hutton did as her intended(I disagree; Hutton had GREAT sex appeal.)

Anyway, Grant seems to have used Charade as the template for a final "glide out" as a romantic star. And he never worked again as an "old man"(ala Eastwood and DeNiro today.)

CONT

reply

I rewatched Chinatown last night. Noah Cross is clearly bad. Idk if Jake was as scummy in the beginning as you implied with "filthmonger and a snob." *EDIT I realized you were replying to Ace_Spade so you did not say this roger1. He's cynical. He instigates situations where he doesn't need to like when he's in the orange orchard surrounded by 5 men and calls one a "dumb Okie" (or something like that) and gets himself knocked out

But in the beginning Jake tells Curly (a fisherman) not to worry about the rest of the money he owes him for getting proof of infidelity saying he doesn't want to clean him out. Granted, Jake ends up asking Curly to transport Evelyn & Katherine later in the film, offering him $75 at first then $100 and the rest of what Curly owes to settle his debt. Did Jake not demand full payment from Curly in the beginning bc he thought maybe I'll use him for a favor later? I don't know. It seems like he wouldn't have involved Curly if the police weren't after him (an emergency).

The prostitute hired to impersonate Evelyn in the beginning, Jake tries to tell her to forget about finding proof, let sleeping dogs lie, basically unhiring himself, kind of a decent move to me.

Then at the barbers when reading the 'Hollis Mulray Affair' headline in the paper he doesn't know how the press got involved so quickly it wasn't his doing, it was a setup from the beginning. And the other guy in the barber shop called Jake out and Jake got offended saying he makes an honest living.

I never thought Jake was out to screw over the little guy and even offered fake Evelyn a chance to save her money and avoid a potential mess. I thought Jake was a standup guy for the most part. As a cop he got caught up in that mess which lead to tragedy he unintentionally initiated. As a PI Jake was free to be the good guy.

reply

I rewatched Chinatown last night. Noah Cross is clearly bad.

---

Yes he is. But I think that I (roger1, sometimes ecarle) am the one who suggested that he maintained a "cool and calm and friendly" manner thorugh most of the film. Some bad guys just don't let you know it til its too late.

--

Idk if Jake was as scummy in the beginning as you implied with "filthmonger and a snob." *EDIT I realized you were replying to Ace_Spade so you did not say this roger1.

---

Yes. Well...weclome to the conversation! I think it is a nod to the complexity of Chinatown -- and Jack's character as written -- and his performance -- that he has a little bit of "gray" in the character. HE's not scummy..he has just rather accidentally backed himself into a scummy TYPE of private eye work. And it probably bugs him. Going in the other direction: I'll bet that Jake is really EXCITED to realize he's onto a "really big case" with murder and major players like Noah Cross in it. FINALLY he has a shot at escaping his "catch the cheating people having sex" job.

---

He's cynical.

---

Yes...and...as the story goes on, TOO caring about Mrs. Mulwray, her daughter, and the case. Roger Ebert (who I don't ALWAYS agree with, of course, he's dead now) wrote of Nicholson as Jake Gittes: "He's a nice, sad man." Yeah, at the END , he is.

Jake is truly too cynical for his own good in his confrontations with John Hillerman's "Yellburton"(this movie has GREAT charactger names) and with Noah Cross himself. I like his response when Cross asks him if Jake's friend the Hispanic cop is honest: "As far as it goes. Of course, he has to swim in the same water as the rest of us." Water, again.

---
CONT

reply

He instigates situations where he doesn't need to like when he's in the orange orchard surrounded by 5 men and calls one a "dumb Okie" (or something like that) and gets himself knocked out

--

Another great bit of characterization. Of course, the young ones have been beating him up and hurting his sore nose(a sore point at all times.) But that "dumb Okie" explosion didn't help matters. And in a great bit, he wakes up to find..Evelyn Mulwray there. We start to see her as ...OK, after all.

--

But in the beginning Jake tells Curly (a fisherman) not to worry about the rest of the money he owes him for getting proof of infidelity saying he doesn't want to clean him out.

--

Yes..Jake gauges his customers. "I don't want to take your last dime, Curly." The lines are throwaway but Curly reveals he is a part of a fishing crew down in San Pedro(where Chinatown screenwriter Robert Towne grew up) and the details about tuna and albacore pay off later.

Note that Jake is handling a poor man's case with Curly, but ready to handle a RICH woman's case with Mrs. Mulwray. Different clients, different costs.

--

Granted, Jake ends up asking Curly to transport Evelyn & Katherine later in the film, offering him $75 at first then $100 and the rest of what Curly owes to settle his debt. Did Jake not demand full payment from Curly in the beginning bc he thought maybe I'll use him for a favor later? I don't know.

---

Maybe. He didn't mention a favor THEN, but the whole thing reminds me how Don Vito(Marlon Brando) in The Godfather tells the undertaker that "some day, and it may never come" he will ask a favor of HIM. (And he DOES.)

--

CONT

reply

It seems like he wouldn't have involved Curly if the police weren't after him (an emergency).

--

Agreed. Jake's a smart guy, as the noose closed in on him, he had to think fast. Moreover, he sees in Curly's fishing boat the means to rescue Evelyn and the girl...sail them down to safety in Mexico. Its a nice happy ending to contemplate and its nice to think that Curly "would have been part of the rescue team."

CONT

reply

The prostitute hired to impersonate Evelyn in the beginning, Jake tries to tell her to forget about finding proof, let sleeping dogs lie, basically unhiring himself, kind of a decent move to me.

--

Yes..I realize that I'm not the one who started this angle, but I think that Jake is, yes, a decent man. But he has chosen a profession(divorce/adultery revelations) that stains his reputation. That's one reason the banker feels confident enough to insult him to his face -- but then Jake comes back at the banker("How many poor people did you foreclose on today?") and challenges him to a fight. (Good thing it doesn't happen, Jake proves quite a brutal scrapper when he beats up the thug who held him to get his nose clipped.)

You know, it wasn't a very good movie, but the Chinatown sequel "The Two Jakes" opens with a scene in which Jake has set up audio to tape an adulterous couple having sex in a motel room. It all goes wrong(murder) but ...damn its now the postwar 1940s and Jake is STILL "peeping at people having sex." (I'm reminded of the comical version of such a private eye in the Coens' Intolerable Cruelty, played by Cedric the Entertainer, who always says of HIS adulterous exposes "I"m gonna nail their ass!" So no fault divorce didn't stop private eyes from exposing sex.)

CONT

Then at the barbers when reading the 'Hollis Mulray Affair' headline in the paper he doesn't know how the press got involved so quickly it wasn't his doing, it was a setup from the beginning. And the other guy in the barber shop called Jake out and Jake got offended saying he makes an honest living.

I never thought Jake was out to screw over the little guy and even offered fake Evelyn a chance to save her money and avoid a potential mess. I thought Jake was a standup guy for the most part. As a cop he got caught up in that mess which lead to tragedy he unintentionally initiated. As a PI Jake was free to be the good guy.

reply share

reply

Then at the barbers when reading the 'Hollis Mulray Affair' headline in the paper he doesn't know how the press got involved so quickly it wasn't his doing, it was a setup from the beginning.

--

Yes, I mentioned earlier that this turns into a "frame" case, but Jake isn't being framed for murder, he's being framed to take the fall for exposing the "affair"(which isn't one.)

--

And the other guy in the barber shop called Jake out and Jake got offended saying he makes an honest living.

--

Well, Jake DOES make an honest living -- as he says "I"m trying to help people out" -- but he can't escape the sleazy side of it. That banker made a mistake callig him out though -- just escaped a beatin'. Great script work: the barber defuses the fight by telling the "screwing like a Chinaman joke,' which Jake then tells his partners, which leads to his meeting Mrs. Mulwray...

--
I never thought Jake was out to screw over the little guy

--

Me neither. This is one of three movies -- not in a row - in which NIcholson plays a good guy who tries to help "the little guy" and only makes it worse. The other two are The Last Detail and One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest.

--

and even offered fake Evelyn a chance to save her money and avoid a potential mess.

--

Yes, but I think that was "standard procedure" on Jake's part. Give the client a chance to back out -- hurtful revelations could lie ahad(as we just saw with Curly.)

--

I thought Jake was a standup guy for the most part. As a cop he got caught up in that mess which lead to tragedy he unintentionally initiated. As a PI Jake was free to be the good guy.

--

Jake's past as a cop probably gave him the grounding to be OK with being a divorce case private eye. Better to deal with all that "family sleaze" than to get involved in a life or death situation again. But he ends up in a life or death situation anyway.

CONT

reply

Jake tells Evelyn that in Chinatown "I tried to stop someone from getting hurt and I made sure that she GOT hurt." We're not told if she got DEAD, but he sure gets EVELYN hurt.

I call this "The Failed Redemption of the Double Death." Pretentious eh? Well, it is what also happens in Hitchcock's Vertigo from 1958 and another movie called Blow Out (from Hitchcock disciple Brian DePalma)from 1981.

Watch Vertigo, Chinatown, and Blow Out in that order and you will see what I mean. Of course..you don't have to! Hah.

reply

I haven't seen Blow Out or the sequel to Chinatown but I'd like to see both. I've seen Vertigo a bunch of times and never made the connection to Chinatown in the parallels you laid out.

One thing I'd push back on is your #2:

"Jake: (Your father) raped you?
Evelyn(Shakes her head no) You get the picture?

CONSENUAL incest."

Although it was not a clear "yes my father raped me" I do not necessarily think her gesture was a definitive affirmation. It could have been her body checking out of the conversation like to say "no more, I'm done." Even if it was a clear yes I don't think a 15 yr old is capable of making that decision due to the power imbalance. It's rape no matter what even if she did not resist. She was scared, feared losing her primary caregiver & financial supporter. She could also have survivor guilt and partially blame herself. I just think there's no such thing as consensual incest of a 15 yr old.

reply

I haven't seen Blow Out or the sequel to Chinatown but I'd like to see both. I've seen Vertigo a bunch of times and never made the connection to Chinatown in the parallels you laid out.

---

Well, I suppose my seeing the parallels to Vertigo(and then to Blow Out) is my own interpretation. Its not like I've read or been TOLD of those parallels as a conscious effort by writer Robert Towne(on Chinatown) or writer-director Brian DePalma(on Blow Out.) I'm guessing that DePalma(famously a Hitchcock buff and copycat) WANTED the Vertigo angle in Blow Out; I'm not so sure about Towne on Chinatown.

But this(SPOILERS for Vertigo and Chinatown which you have seen)

Vertigo: James Stewart's failure to make a jump properly during a rooftop chase leads to the death of a uniformed cop who falls from his death trying to save Stewart. Stewart is haunted by guilt over that death(Death Number One.) Stewart then gets involved with a woman(Kim Novak as Madeleine), falls in love with her -- and AGAIN, his vertigo stops him from stopping her from taking a fatal leap off a church bell tower. (Death Number Two.) Stewart's guilt over THAT death(acclerated by a brutal city officials accusations against Stewart) leads to a nervous breakdown. Stewart "recovers" and meets ANOTHER woman (Kim Novak as Judy) , and in the course of obsessively remaking Judy AS Madeleine, learns the truth about Madeleine's death ...and sets up the circumstances by which Judy falls from the SAME bell tower to her death(Death Number Three.) Stewart looks pretty close to broken down when this THIRD death(the SECOND of a woman) becomes his inadvertent responsibility. "The failed redemption of the double death."

----

CONT

reply

In Chinatown, the set up is more cryptic. In a moment of post coital revelation about his past, Nicholson tells Dunaway that in Chinatown as a cop "I tried to stop a woman from being hurt, and I made sure that she WAS hurt." He doesn't say "killed," but maybe. And of course at the end of this movie, Nicholson tries to stop Dunaway from being hurt, but he "makes sure"(accidentally, just the circumstances" that she IS hurt(killed.) And Nicholson ends HIS movie as emotionally destroyed as Stewart ends HIS movie.

Another connection between Vertigo and Chinatown: in each film the protagonist(Stewart, Nicholson) is a cop who quits the force over a tragedy and starts over as a private detective (though Stewart is rather PRESSED into doing a detective job, it IS a job for Nicholson.)

If one watches DePalma's Blow Out, the pattern repeats. John Travolta is a sound/recording expert who once wired a Mafia informer for sound...but the audio wires malfunctioned do to sweat, and burned the man's skin, causing him to yell and reveal the wire to the Mob...who then killed him. That's the FIRST death. Travolta will wire another person late in Blow Out...does it end up like Vertigo or Chinatown? I'm not telling..

The simplest connection between Vertigo and Chinatown is: each film ends in tragedy.

reply

One thing I'd push back on is your #2:

--

Fair enough. I welcome the pushback. My theories -- or understanding of a scene -- are my own. Frankly, in discussions here I've sometimes learned I flat out misunderstood a scene until someone explains it to me. Critic Pauline Kael wrote that it was amazing that all the people in a movie audience could even come CLOSE to understanding the same plot the same way at the same time.

--



"Jake: (Your father) raped you?
Evelyn(Shakes her head no) You get the picture?

CONSENUAL incest."

Although it was not a clear "yes my father raped me" I do not necessarily think her gesture was a definitive affirmation.

--

Hmm. i haven't rewatched the scene since my post(I DO own the DVD), but that's my memory of what she said and that "get the picture?" seemed to have some edge to it, like "Now, that you know, do you REALLY want to know the circumstances?"

---

It could have been her body checking out of the conversation like to say "no more, I'm done."

--

That's true -- "Get the picture?" could be her decisive move to drop the subject now that he knows. BUT her brief answer sets up our own decidedly stomach-churning thoughts about just how Noah Cross approached his daughter, what happened between them -- I've lost track of what happened to Evelyn's mother.
Dead? Long gone? Was it just Noah and Evelyn alone in their house? Like many great scripts, Chinatown leaves a lot to our "informed imagination."

---

CONT

reply

Even if it was a clear yes I don't think a 15 yr old is capable of making that decision due to the power imbalance. It's rape no matter what even if she did not resist. She was scared, feared losing her primary caregiver & financial supporter. She could also have survivor guilt and partially blame herself. I just think there's no such thing as consensual incest of a 15 yr old.

---

OK, I DEFINITELY accept all of that and my phrase "consensual incest" (posted quickly) must take on ALL of those elements -- to suggest NOT consensual. Of course, I'd say that Evelyn is AT LEAST saying that her father didn't force himself on her like a brute or something; something more subtle and seductive was done(just like -- as many critics have noted -- Noah is "subtly" raping Southern California itself to get that water.)

reply

R/ Blow Out thanks for not telling! I'm definitely more interested in seeing it after reading your brief synopsis.

I like your 'Double Death' theory and don't think it's pretentious.

In Vertigo I love that final shot of Jimmy looking down from the bell tower (I interpreted as his Vertigo now gone or cured). So in that one way he was better off. it just cost the life of new Madeline to get there. I'd rather have vertigo with Kim Novak than no vertigo without Kim Novak.

reply

R/ Blow Out thanks for not telling! I'm definitely more interested in seeing it after reading your brief synopsis.

----

I think it is worth a look. Brian DePalma's career has a lot of "copycat Hitchcock stories" in it(in the beginning at least.) Sisters, Dressed to Kill, Obsession(especially, since its from Vertigo, which is a very unique story) and Body Double are all "overt." But Blow Out is more low key in the copycatting, and it also suggested a NON-Hitchcock picture -- Blow Up -- an "art thriller"(without a satisfying thriller structure) by Michaelangelo Antonioni.

Blow Up was about a photographer(David Hemmings) possibly discovering a murder in his photographs(a bit of Rear Window there; everything connects)
Blow Out is about a "movie sound recording artist"(John Travola) DEFINITELY finding a murder in his tapes of a car crash into a river. The Vertigo thing is more "hidden" in Blow Out, you have to look for it. The film also features direct references to Psycho and Frenzy(Hitchcock's OTHER, forgotten psycho movie.)



---

CONT

reply

I like your 'Double Death' theory and don't think it's pretentious.

---

Thank you. The way I figure it, screenwriters Robert Towne(Chinatown) and Brian DePalma(Blow Out) were well familiar with Vertigo and I think the them e continues on.

SPOILERS:

I'd say that Vertigo actually has TRIPLE deaths:

The cop at the beginning
The real Madeleine
The fake Madeleine (Judy)

and only the deaths of the cop and Judy are truly the "double deaths" -- the ones that Scottie can feel guilty about causing. Guilt for the real Madeleine's death lay with someone else.

CONT

reply

In Vertigo I love that final shot of Jimmy looking down from the bell tower (I interpreted as his Vertigo now gone or cured).

--

Yes....its a big, tragic takeaway with "Hitchcockian irony" -- he can not only look straight down...he can do so from the dangerous position of the edge of a tile rooftop. And some think -- maybe he's going to jump.

--- So in that one way he was better off. it just cost the life of new Madeline to get there.

--

His platonic girlfriend Midge said "the doctors say only another big shock can cure it." We wait the whole movie for that shock. Its NOT the real Madeleine's fall. Its Judy's fall.

--

rather have vertigo with Kim Novak than no vertigo without Kim Novak.

--

A delightful observation! Ha. Of all the Hitchcock blondes from Grace Kelly on, I found Kim Novak to be the most sexual, soft, curvy, carnal. Too bad she's in matronly clothes for half of Vertigo, and a weird outfit and hair for the other half. Oh what she could have done with Janet Leigh's underwear outfits in Psycho...

reply

Not much to add to all this but….

It’s kinda criminal to me to mention Blow Up in relation to Blow Out but then not bring The Conversation into the discussion.
I point this out because Conversation is on my short list of greatest, favorite films
(Chinatown too)

And Coppola had the idea first to take Blow Up and translate it to sound instead of a visual image

reply

I point this out because Conversation is on my short list of greatest, favorite films
(Chinatown too)

---

Both from that glorious grim and downbeat movie year of 1974.

My date memory from that year is that those two were the ONLY two of which, when I took my girlfriend to each of them , she had to be returned home in a state of great, trembling fear and upset -- with tears -- and I had to stay with her to calm her down. No fun on those two date nights! Neither film affected me THAT badly but I didn't account for her sensitivity. From then on, I made sure not to take her to films of too dramatic a nature(I never took her to slasher films; I just misjudged Chinatown and The Conversation as "dramas". )This isn't really meant to be a light or funny comment on my part -- those two films really HURT her emotionally, and I felt really bad.

The power of film. She took these films dead seriously.

CONT

reply


And Coppola had the idea first to take Blow Up and translate it to sound instead of a visual image

---

Ha...I never thought of that. That's true!

DePalma had, at the time, a reputation as a Hitchcock copycat. Little did we know he was a Coppola copycat too. And then a Howard Hawks copycat -- Hawks directed the original "Scarface."

reply

That’s why I brought it up, wasn’t sure if you’d thought of that before.
I have a thick skin as far as movies go but Chinatown is pretty frickin dark and quite a downer ending so I can see how it would bother her.
The Conversation though doesn’t seem that bad but I guess it could freak some people out…..especially if she was Catholic!
But it speaks to how great those films are that they effected her so much.

I just rewatched “Cuckoo’s Nest” for the first time in forever and I hope you didn’t take her to that lol

reply

The Conversation is being shown in theaters right now because of its restoration. I saw it a long time ago but seeing it recently - the light went on. In the hotel room next door - Hackman tapes the horrible scream. Of course, he thinks it’s Cindy Williams’ character being murdered. And then Hackman using his surveillance techniques to dissect a potential murder is similar to David Hemming’s character blowing up parts of a photo to realize a murderer. It just came together - the scream, the murder, and the creation of a sound effects man for a movie drawn on the two previous movies. Of course, the similarities in titles, Blow-Up and Blow-Out, are there too. But it is The Conversation that is so special. And Antonioni’s Blow-Up. These two movies I think are masterpieces and helped in the conception of Blow-Out.

Chinatown is a classic. So is Repulsion. Both Polanski masterpieces.

reply

I just love The Conversation and there’s so much more there….throughout the film there’s a lot of religious iconography that symbolizes Hackman’s guilt over how he failed in his infamous previous job that gets discussed, and I have a (old!) post there about looking at this movie as a study of guilt vs. the usual focus on paranoia that the ending prompts.

It truly is a movie that requires multiple viewings to appreciate!
And it’s discussion board here is at a really high level and one of the best from the good old days

reply

TL;DR

reply

OK

reply