MovieChat Forums > The Two Jakes (1990) Discussion > Info on Cloverleaf (third film in the tr...

Info on Cloverleaf (third film in the trilogy)

posted 19 years ago by Michael_Cronin
43 replies | jump to latest

It's listed here & there (IMDB, Wikipedia, few other sites) that the third film of the JJ Gittes trilogy was to be set in the 1950's, & to centre around a conspiracy involving the freeway system. Supposedly the film was to be called 'Cloverleaf', after a type of freeway interchange configuration.

Most likely this would have been based on the real-life case involving General Motors, Firestone Tyres & Standard Oil of California buying up the old street car systems & dismantling them. (Interestingly enough, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" used this as part of its plot & also called the company involved 'Cloverleaf').

I've also heard a couple of very minor tidbits about the third Jake Gittes film - it was to involve air pollution due to the freeway system, also that it would have something to do with the introduction of no-fault divorce in Los Angeles.

What I'm curious about is where all this comes from. I can't find a single bit of information regarding the film from what could be considered an original source - no actual quotes from Robert Towne, Robert Evans or Jack Nicholson, just very minor throwaway references (by the author, not the subject) in biographies & so on when discussing "The Two Jakes", or statements on discussion forums. I don't doubt that the information is correct, I'd just like to know when Robert Towne actually stated that there were to be three films, that the third was to be called Cloverleaf, what it was about & so on.

The only solid piece of info I've been able to find so far is in David Thomson's 'The Whole Equation', in which it's stated that at a talk Towne was giving, his only response to a question about whether the third film would ever be made was an emphatic "No". That's the closest thing I've seen to an acknowledgement by any of the filmmakers that it was ever considered as a possible project.

Does anyone have any further information?

[–] frank56 19 years ago

I was present at the 30th anniversary showing of "Chinatown" at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and Jack Nicholson spoke at length about the original plan to do a trilogy of films.

[–] citizenchris 19 years ago

Personally i would loved to see this film made. Towne would obviously have to write the script (duh). Is Jack too old to be Jake in the 50’s?…who cares Jack is Jake period. Now the question of who should direct…ideally I would say Polanski but for obvious legal reasons this idea is prolly out…so my dream director for such a project would have to be Chris Nolan.
Anyhoo this is all pie in the sky b.s. cus the film will most likely be one of those great might have beens (or to some perhaps a “thank god it never was”)
What do you guys think?

[–] frank56 19 years ago

Never say never in Hollywood...if there's a possible profit margin, someone will eventually produce it (can you say Brokeback Mountain?)

I would love to see Curtis Hansen direct it, and I still think that Matthew McConaughy would make a great Jake....

[–] drunkirishpotato 19 years ago

No way would Matthew McConaughey be a good J.J. Gittes.

I agree with citizenchris that Christopher Nolan would be a great director for the movie, but I think a good J.J. would be Christian Bale. He's a good actor, he can look the part (Bruce Wayne, anyone?), plus it would continute the Bale/Nolan relationship, which I have high hopes for in the new Batman movie.

[–] roadogg31 18 years ago

No sooner was I finished reading the passage before drunkirishpotato's response that I was thinking "Christian Bale would make a way better Jake than Matthew McConaughey." And it's true; Christian Bale has the face, the attitude, the expressive eyebrows, even the sinister smile that Jack has made famous. Nicholson himself is way too old to play J.J. Gittes again...there would have to be a hell of a back story telling what he was up to the past 11 years. Good call on Christopher Nolan to direct too.

Still, I don't know how good it would be, considering it has already been 16 years since The Two Jakes, and would be at least a few more years before pre-production on such a project would begin. I feel like The Two Jakes should have been made no later than 1980 if, for any reason, to make it appear as if 11 years had passed since Chinatown in terms of the quality of the print and technical production. Remember Star Wars: Episodes 1-3? Does anyone really believe the sequence of events considering the advancements in special effects? I don't even consider them prequels; it's like re-creating a cartoon for a new generation of audience and trying to pass them off as a continuation of the original (He-man, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles anyone?).

[–] egg-n-chips 18 years ago

Hey boys pass me some of that sweet crack you're smoking. Matthew Magillicudy as Jake!?!? Christian Bale!?!?!? And Christopher Nolan to direct!?!?!

Thas jes crazy talk talking crazy jib jab jibba jaw jaw, etc. Etc. ad nauseum.

This Mathew MacNmara fella is no good at all and Chris Nolan is a gimmick director who needs a silly costume or some other shiny bit of gimcrack codswallop to hang a narrative on (Nolan idea factory: "I will make a whole movie upside down! I willl make a whole movie about people in nothing but their underpants! I will make a movie with Robin Williams as a a villain! I will make a movie filmed entirely in smell-o-vision..."). Without Jack Nicholson there is no point, and there are better directors than Chris Nolan for something like this. Look, there go ten of them!

I really would love to see Cloverleaf though.

[–] lescamer 18 years ago

you obviously dont know nolan. Hast thou seen Mememto?

Need I say more?

[–] TCharlesBrowne 18 years ago

I'm pretty certain that, of all films, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" is as close to "Cloverleaf" (it even references the name several times) as we're likely to get.

[–] Director-21 18 years ago

I believe that Cloverlief is the name of a famous highway interchange in LA, hence the name.

[–] RidleyFan 18 years ago

If you get an aerial view of a highway interchange it looks like a cloverleaf that where the name comes from.

[–] thegailo 14 years ago

I had just started a thread in the chinatown forum
thanks for the info

[–] andrew-757 13 years ago

Any chance now?

[–] pnayballer10 13 years ago

There is still a good chance. Jack can still act and Towne can still write.

If I had to choose Directors. I would go with Paul Thomas Anderson or the Coen Brothers.

[–] sticksstoneswwiv 12 years ago

If the third film is set about 1968 and the Two Jakes was set in 1949 then 20 year have pasted since the film was released (1990-2012), so Jack's aging is fine for the role.

I'd watch it.
I'd hope the film addresses Jack's / Jake's aging.

[–] egg-n-chips 18 years ago

lescamer said:

you obviously dont know nolan. Hast thou seen Mememto?

_____________________________________________________________

Aye, and avast, indeed I hath seen Memento, it was all backwards and that was very tricky and everything, but it's a gimmick, not really very similar to the Jake Gittes movies at all.

Polanski had this to say about the changes he made to the ending of Chinatown, and I quoth: "I thought we were making a serious movie, not an adventure story for boys."

Nolan makes adventure stories for boys. Which is fine for boys, but I'm all grown up.

(Now, please tell me why you write like the Submariner?)

[–] lescamer 17 years ago

Mememto is so much more than that. it's a completely original revenge thriller. a boy who likes adventure films would never watch memeto. there is some action in it but you don't watch it for that, and the prestige is an igenuous film that you can watch a million times and feel like it's another movie.

as for thy question, i spoketh like the submariner because 'tis to mine liking.

[–] ckn8 17 years ago

"Mememto is so much more than that. it's a completely original revenge thriller."

I totally disagree. Granted, I really hate gimmick movies...

[–] inuki_ookami 17 years ago

I agree 100% that Nolan is a Gimmick-director.

I consider "Gimmick movies" movies which are only more interesting than their counterparts because of some particular film trick based on the plot or context of the story.

Memento is a perfect example of a "gimmick movie" because it employs a film technique where the timeline is irregular. Rather than acting as a simple murder mystery, where the murder occurs without us knowing who the murderer is, and then murderer is revealed toward the end after gathering clues, we instead get a movie where everything more or less is shown to us backwards, with the murder which in terms of timeline occurred at the beginning, is shown to us at the end.

The reasons this is a "gimmick" is because the timeline is based on a mental condition the protagonist suffers from, and the inverted film's timeline replicates his mental state to some extent. What makes this gimmicky is that it does nothing except distract us from the fact that this is otherwise a regular, uninteresting murder mystery. The "greatness of the film" cannot rest on the fact that it employs this technique- nor does this make for a great director.

This is similar to the movie "Fight Club", another gimmicky movie, where due to the film technique of having two separate actors playing different "people" who are in fact both the same person who has mulitple personality disorder, people have hailed the movie as one of the greatest of all time, and it has cult following.

Two major problems with both of these movies- as well as other gimmicky movies- is rewatchability and replication. Rewatchability is an issue because, like a typical murder mystery, once the murderer is revealed, there is frequently little interest left in rewatching the film. For example, if we realize that the protagonist has this disorder in Memento or Fight Club, it ruins the suspense that would've built up throughout the movie.

The second major problem is replication. One cannot replicate such a film technique the way one could with other techniques, because it is a technique which relies upon something very central to the plotline: the protagonist's state of mind/perspective. Unless your protagonist is faced with these conditions, you cannot reuse such a technique.

These particular film techniques, in fact, draw attention away from the acting, away from the plots (which would otherwise be standard and boring), away from everything else in the film- so central are they to the themes and plot. The viewer focuses their attention only on the gimmick, and away from the rest of the film.

The Prestige is a decent film, but not a great film. The plot line of the dueling magicians is interesting, but the sci-fi ending feels like a complete and total cop-out. We're supposed to believe that one can clone oneself completely? Given a movie that did not even give a hint of sci-fi at all, it seems absurd. It's like having a movie where the victims are all horribly burned, yet the movie is set in harsh realism- but suddenly it is revealed that the killer is a massive dragon that's been burning bodies to a crisp and flying away. It's absurd and ridiculous: of course we wouldn't suspect a dragon of being the murderer- as much as we would expect Santa Claus or aliens to be the murderer given the context of the movie. I felt cheated when I walked out of theatres...

The Illusionist is a far superior movie- certainly it's easy enough to guess what will happen, and it was a slower-paced movie, but at least it followed through with the same tone of the rest of the film, instead of pulling some nonsense out and heralding it as a finale.

Nolan is clearly a gimmicky director- and I don't think he's the right guy to make a third Chinatown film.

[–] husky088 16 years ago

nicholson is gittes

there should not be another actor playing him - it was written specifically for him, and as talented as other actors are, nobody should be playing jj gittes. this isn't james bond or jack ryan.

[–] -501 16 years ago

I'd like to see a third film. It would have been fine keeping it at one but since they made the second one I think that the third would be helpful to bring an end to the development of Los Angeles, let alone some sort of closure to the Jake Gittes story.

I'm NOT at all hung up on someone else penning the script. It's well known that Towne left Nicholson hanging by not finishing/reworking the script and going off to work other projects. Some pal.

Nolan? The Prestige was the biggest load of crap I've seen in some years only fit for clueless folks that can't follow a train of thought let alone a story.

Living Is Easy With Eyes Closed

[–] nutsberryfarm 14 years ago

cloverleaf sounds cool. also way agree about the prestige, it was ridiculous! especially david bowie's impersonation of count chocula.

Golf clap? Golf clap.

[–] Degree7 12 years ago

The reasons this is a "gimmick" is because the timeline is based on a mental condition the protagonist suffers from, and the inverted film's timeline replicates his mental state to some extent. What makes this gimmicky is that it does nothing except distract us from the fact that this is otherwise a regular, uninteresting murder mystery. The "greatness of the film" cannot rest on the fact that it employs this technique- nor does this make for a great director.

I know you wrote that comment 5 years ago, but I just feel inclined to defend 'Memento', because I think it's one of the best films of the past 20 years. That said, I absolutely loathe everything else Christoper Nolan has ever touched, from Insomnia to the Dark Knight, it is all garbage. But I think Memento is a wholly superior piece of filmmaking.

Now the reason I disagree with the 'gimmick' angle of the film is that while the plot itself is relatively straight forward if you take it chronologically, it is the unique way it is presented and the order in which both the audience and the protagonist discovers the secrets that gives depth to the story. For a start, the film being told backwards is just beyond ingenious, as it was never really demonstrated to this extent as a storytelling technique. It is meant to mimick the state of mind of the character, as well as provide insight into the unconcious mind and how he is blocking out memories and reshaping both his past and his future in an attempt to save himself, but he is also cursed. So right away, your criticism that it is a gimmick that adds nothing to character developement or the story, and is merely used to cover up a poor plot, is wholly false!

In effect, I could take your criticisms and apply them to Chinatown if I wanted. Chinatown is a pretty straightforward tale of incest and corruption, and if you took away the 1930s decor and costumes as a gimmick, you'd be left with a straight forward murder mystery with two plot lines that really have nothing to do with each other.

Who am I kidding, I actually think Memento is twice as good a film as Chinatown.

Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to it's awesomeness.

[–] rogerscorpion 10 years ago

Christian Slater was once accused of Nicholson knockoffs. I think he's a good actor & Jack can do some Nimoy-esque cameos.

Seriously, Jack could continue the role--depending on the time period.

Carpe Noctem!

[–] terry2070-1 18 years ago

I have to weigh in on this and agree that Nolan is a gimmick director and that the Prestige was the most absurd garbage I have seen in a long time. As a huge Batman fan, I wasn't impressed with yet another re-telling of the origin of Batman and though I normally love Bale (He did an amazing job in The Machinist,) I HATED his performance in The Prestige.

As for any other actor playing Jake, NO, NO, NO, NEVER!!!

Chinatown was the perfect noir film and one of the last great classics. The Two Jakes was equally compelling and Nicholson could still nail the role of Jake and could probably direct as well. (Nicholson showed us in The Departed that even at 70 years old he isn't slowing down.)

The new generation has yet to prove they can make a great film and though many very good films are released every year, none compare to Chinatown or the great, great Out of the Past with Robert Mitchum.

Despite what is sensible, I am sure it won't be long before the idiots in Hollywood just re-make Chinatown with some young actor who has zero character or life experience. I hope I never see the day but I am sure it is coming.

[–] LFel84 17 years ago

A lot can happen in a year and a half including you eating your own words b/c The Dark Knight was hands down brilliant and I'm not even the blockbuster movie type of person and I thought it was incredible along with every single other critic and audience member so far.

[–] worldm765-579-340178 12 years ago

Christian Bale would be PERFECT for J.J. He's got the talent, and the look to be absolutely nail it. It's shame they never did go with the third film. Chinatown is one of the best films I have ever seen in my life, and The Two Jakes was a pretty good sequel, couldn't quite capture the magic that Chinatown had but it was good nonetheless. Maybe these films could be revisted with a remake. I'm normaly against remakes because the quality of the remakes are usually terrible. But with a good director, and use the original Chinatown script from 70's film, and it could be done very well. Christopher Nolan in my mind WOULD be the man to tap to direct this film. He's proven time and time again over 15 years with his films that he can direct and direct very well. But this gets me thinking, if Bale couldn't do, what would everyone think about Leonardo DiCaprio, or Joseph Gordon Levitt as J.J. Damn, my mind is going now haha.

[–] the-truth-isoutthere 11 years ago

^ Ridiculous. Somebody must have been incredibly high when they thought of the ludicrous ideas posted above. Remaking Chinatown? Christopher Nolan directing? Leo DiCaprio or Joseph Gordon Levitt to play Gittes?

Terrible. Absurd.

-I like Leo and Joseph as actors and Christian Bale too for that matter. I also like Christopher Nolan as a director and have seen almost all of his films. Having said that, I don't think any of these people should be involved in a third 'Chinatown' film.

-The ONLY person that should play Jake Gittes is Jack Nicholson. Gittes is an iconic character from a classic film, therefore the actor portraying the character is NOT interchangeable.

-Christopher Nolan has spent the last however many years catering to the masses, churning out special-effects laden blockbusters. His style has changed too much from his early years. I still watch his movies, still like him, but he would not be right for this kind of project.

-As for a 'Chinatown' remake... forget it, it's Chinatown. I think it would flop and only serve to piss off fans and film enthusiasts.

[–] Jonny_B_Lately 16 years ago

> Never say never in Hollywood...if there's a possible profit margin, someone will eventually produce it (can you say Brokeback Mountain?)

I completely disagree with this. The profit margin is why crap is made and movies like Chinatown are barely considered. To illustrate, if it had not been for Bob Evan's and the free hand he was given at the studio, Chinatown would never have been made. Hollywood is indeed about profit. Unfortunately those who are genius' at making money have no head for film...or storytelling for that matter.

> I would love to see Curtis Hansen direct it, and I still think that Matthew McConaughy would make a great Jake....

I think Jack is too old to be a convincing J.J. Gittes of the 1950's. So who looks like him?

I think it's a lost cause. They should have made The Two Jakes no more than ten years after 1974. 1984 at the latest. Which would mean that Gittes vs Gittes would have to be made in 1994...no later. This is the only way Nicholson could be a convincing Jake.

Yadda yadda yadda <- this is my signature

[–] markillby 11 years ago

How right you turned out to be about McConaughy

[–] TexasGreek 17 years ago

>>who cares Jack is Jake period. Now the question of who should direct…ideally I would say Polanski but for obvious legal reasons this idea is prolly out…so my dream director for such a ...
<<

Not to nitpic, but why do people on the internet substitute "prolly" for the word "probably"? Can they not spell the word "probably", or what? I'm seeing this all the time, and it seems ridiculous.

"Affirmative action is a stain on the American soul." - Charlton Heston

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tsrts 15 years ago

I also find it goofy when people use the word prolly.

[–] andrewgage 16 years ago

I submit a vote for Clint Eastwood as director of a third Chinatown. His attention to detail matches Nicholson's and Towne's sensitivity to LA history and his cinematic directing is beautiful. I've been thoroughy impressed with Changeling as well as most of Eastwood's flicks as director, whether they be poignant dramas, period pieces, comedies, or action pics.

Nicholson COULD play Gittes again if the film was set in the late 60's as was indicated in the MTV interview. That would be a full 30 years after the time in which the original Chinatown was set. It's been about 35 years since they made Chinatown, so that's not too far a stretch. I mean, we're talking about Jake Gittes, not James Bond. Gittes has been allowed to age. It adds something to his character. And a film set in LA in the sixties!!! OMG!!! A mid-century modernist's wet dream!

Too bad Perry Lopez is gone. James Hong is still alive. And according to his IMDB bio is interested in prodicing films (hint, James!). Meg Tilly's still around to reprise her role, as is Rebecca Broussard as Gittes' secretary. It COULD be done if they got off their butts and just DID it!

Gotta say though, I like the idea of Cloverleaf better than Gittes vs Gittes. Chinatown and The Two Jakes have been about wealth and corruption in the growth of LA; water, land and oil. A story about the freeway system seems in keeping with the ongoing theme far more than a War Of The Roses story. A picture about the death of the Studio System might also be intriguing. Jeez.. there's so much in LA's history to choose from!

Eastwood for director, I say. And Nicholson as Jake Gittes!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] carbohydrates 18 years ago

So is it safe to assume that no Towne-penned script for Cloverleaf exists? If it does, there isn't much I wouldn't give to read it.

[–] Director-21 18 years ago

probably more like a scribbled treatment somewhere in Towne's files. Don't know if he would have ever started, much less completed a script.

[–] hgus98 17 years ago

MTV interview just posted:

MTV: Was the third film in the "Chinatown" trilogy ever scripted?

Nicholson: No. I would imagine Robert has some kind of outline. I can tell you it was meant to be set in 1968 when no-fault divorce went into effect in California. The title was to be "Gittes vs. Gittes." It was to be about Gittes' divorce. The secrecy of Meg Tilly's character was somehow to involve the most private person in California, Howard Hughes. That is where the air element would have come into the picture.

MTV: Would you consider doing the film still? I would think if you and Towne said, "We want to do this," Paramount would say, "Go for it."

[–] mothboy88 17 years ago

Um, so this is quite a few months later, but why the hell didn't you Nicholson's response to the second question???????

"eggs-n-chips, you make me laff!"

Yes, same here.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] uclaucb 14 years ago

Here it is:

"Nicholson: I certainly would consider it. I would imagine Bob would as well. [But the second film's behind-the-scenes problems] left a few bruises. I don't know how Paramount would be. The timing is about right."

The interview was in 2007. We can only hope.

"I liked you better before you joined the book-of-the-month club."

[–] Amills23 15 years ago

They did make a 3rd movie its called Who framed Roger Rabbit? They did plan on making a 3rd move but the plot of the movie was already covered in Roger Rabbit so they didn't do it.

[–] Alwood 15 years ago

Towne talks about this in the interview linked below. The title of the third part of the trilogy was GITTES VS. GITTES, not CLOVERLEAF, set in the late '60s. Check it out:

http://thehollywoodinterview.blogspot.com/2009/10/robert-towne-hollywo od-interview.html

[–] Tsavo 8 years ago

Here is the earlier MTV interview with Nicholson : http://www.mtv.com/news/1573487/jack-nicholson-talks-in-rare-interview-actor-reveals-details-of-never-shot-chinatown-sequel/

"From a phylogenetic perspective, we are all fish!"