Skip to main content

There’s no time to be shocked by the truth.


(SPOILERS) One of the most poured-over classics, with even a recent book (The Big Goodbye: Chinatown and the Last Years of Hollywood by Sam Wasson) devoted to its undiminished lustre. Consequently, it can be more interesting to trawl rare divergent takes on such hallowed pictures. Not that Chinatown doesn’t deserve its rep, but the chorus of approval can drown out any other consideration, yielding a wash of rather vanilla views (look at The Godfathers I & II, and III – uniform in their yay, yay, nay consensus).

Those who did offer an objection, did so on the basis of execution rather than content. Gene Siskel complained about Polanski’s direction: “The opening shot of almost every scene has been so artificially overcomposed as to make one aware of Jack Nicholson wearing '30s clothes while standing in a room decorated to look like a '30s room while talking to stereotypes plucked from an assortment of '30s movies”. It’s interesting now to consider such an anomalous position, as Chinatown’s visuals are far from the costume-box fakery of They Live By Night, Mobsters or even The Untouchables.

It’s true that Polanski’s compositions are meticulously designed, but he isn’t dealing in tableaux either; the period-modernity of Chinatown is key to its rep, taking yesteryear’s noir and reframing it in (then) contemporary terms. Not with the tilting abandon of The Long Goodbye’s Marlowe, but rather the perspective on the socio-political canvas (noir’s brightest tended to revolve around personal rather than establishment corruption) and the different insights freedom from Hayes Code strictures and anamorphic widescreen colour could yield.

The irony is that Robert Towne – aside from rightly sharing credit for the industry that produced the original screenplay with long-time collaborator and sounding-board Edward Taylor, if The Big Goodbye’s testimony is any witness – needed heavy editing and honing from the director claimed to have undermined or reduced his work. This included nixing the voice-over narration, presenting as it did godlike oversight rather than a confused detective in the middle of a sprawling mess (compare and contrast with The Two Jakes). Pauline Kael, per The Big Goodbye, issued “a singular rave for Robert Towne”, one that mostly came via her later review for Shampoo, which “got Los Angeles better than Chinatown”.

Such raves for Towne – which went to his being the sole Chinatown recipient on Oscar night – would belie his subsequent career, largely hanging slipshod on the peg of uncredited script-doctoring and later a series of unexceptional ’90s gigs for Tom Cruise. Kael felt “You can feel the conflict between the temperaments of the scriptwriter… and the director…” In each instance, this was to the detriment of the scriptwriter, producing a movie with a “beautifully structured script and draggy, overdeliberate direction”. She said of Schlesinger’s 1975 film, “If The Day of the Locust and the mauve, nightmarish Chinatown could exchange their atmospheres, they might both be better: the water-rights and real-estate swindles that formed the plot of Chinatown could have been clarified if the film had a realistic base… while Locust… should be the hysteric’s view of L.A.

Which is curious, as Polanski expressly stripped back all the water-rights and real-estate swindles material; what I’d grant Kael is that side of the film only really slots into place with subsequent viewings. Hiowever, Polanski was right not to get bogged down in it, to ensure it was – in terms of narrative weight – a means to an end (Towne notes on the commentary track that he was unsure at first which should come first, the incest plot or the water plot, even though, with hindsight, it’s obvious). Kael wants the picture to be less Polanski, basically, to be less “gothic and creepy” and “suffocating”. She considered Polanski got in Towne’s way and “never lets the story tell itself. It’s all over deliberate, mauve, nightmarish; everyone is yellow-lacquered, and evil runs rampant. You don’t care who is hurt, since everything is blighted”.

Again, Kael has something here – she’s correct to identify an impassive observer in Polanski, in terms of the fates of the characters – but the conclusions she draws are misplaced. What she’s really objecting to is that Chinatown, per Polanski’s vision, denies hope and encourages bleakness; Kael projects this – as a counter to her own good taste – on the declining standards of the audience as a whole. She delighted in Towne, a “real writer” (“a flaky classist”) whose heroes were “romantic damn fools who ask just what they can’t get”, whose original conception ended the picture “logically”, not with the attitude of a “gothic-minded absurdist” (her take is, then, that the ending is absurd, because the game surely cannot be so hopeless; the only course is to be romantic, a logical classicist). “Towne doesn’t pull everything down like that” she protested of Polanski’s baser instincts.

Kael opined that “At showings of Chinatown the audience squeals with pleasure when Faye Dunaway reveals her incest” They do? Or did? Is this Kael revealing her distaste at the exploitative subject matter? Or is she offering an insight into assumed release, that Cross is correct (“I don’t blame myself. You see, Mr Gittes most people never have to face accept that, at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of anything”), and the knowledge that they aren’t as bad as that guy is in some way cathartic (Polanski himself, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, would later embrace Cross’s self-denial and received resultant vilification and abrogation).

She further despised the way “Nostalgia (for the thirties) openly turned to rot, and the celebration of rot” and how “he shoves the rot at you, and large numbers of people seem to find it juicy”. My reaction would be that Kael confuses the takeaway with the message – which is, after all, the message of many pictures of the period – that the establishment is inherently corrupt: “Audiences now appear to accept as a view of themselves what in the movies of the past six or seven years counterculture audiences jeered at Americans for being – cynical materialists who cared for nothing but their own greed and lust. The nihilistic, coarse-grained movies are telling us that nothing matters to us, that we’re all a bad joke”.

It’s an assumption of the audience’s value system – not as moral as Kael, obviously – and an assumption of the response – that the content is titillating – when really, what Kael is objecting to is the idea that Polanski is telling the truth. Nihilistic, yes, but that doesn’t speak to how an audience reads it. Polanski and Towne shine a light on the system, and if there’s a reflection of the audience in it, it’s in its powerless incapacity (like Jake Gittes) to do anything about it. Kael wants Towne’s romantic strains (Evelyn kills her father), and has sour grapes at Polanski for turning the vision to such hopelessness. Her takeaway is “nothing matters”; more accurate would be recognition that it does, but what can one do about it? Such impotence is, after all, never more pressing and problematic than in current times, when the rot is in its plainest view ever, and the “logical” conclusion in no way forthcoming.

Gittes: Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can’t already afford?
Cross: The future, Mr Gittes! The future.

Even in her objections, Kael had to admit “And yet the nastiness has a look, and a fascination”. Chinatown’s world is of corruption for the sake of corruption, where evil incubates because it can, because its habitat is power. Right from the start, Jake is warning imposter Evelyn she might be “better off not knowing” (about a cheating husband), and in turn, receives warnings that “You may think you know what you’re dealing with, but you don’t”; Jessica Winter in Time Out suggests “he’s a hard-boiled private eye who gets everything wrong”. Not everything, but crucial details, and where it counts, he’s not cynical enough. “He owns the police!” Evelyn tells him, and Jake’s forlorn protest “He’s rich! Do you understand? He thinks he can get away with anything” is only deficient for failing to account that there’s no thinking involved; he can get away with anything.

Wasson accounts for Polanski’s poisoned worldview as a consequence of the Manson murders and the loss of Sharon Tate and his unborn child; this feeds into the burgeoning cynicism of the ’70s that Kael so objected. These “cynical materialists” would be born anew as uncynical ones in the following decade, where materialism became its own end, a bright and shining star to follow, greed being its own reward (“at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of anything”).

The mistake would be to view this course as random and unmotivated, that the machinations of the Tavistock Institute, buoying sexual freedom and rebellion, division between the generations and impossible dreams of a united world, should so brutally be dashed by a “random” psychopath who shifted the gears of society in a new direction, that it wasn’t, to a great or lesser extent, coordinated and premeditated. The ins and outs of who knew what and was or was not complicit in such actions are currently, of course, as officially murky as the plot Kael wished Polanski had taken the time to illuminate, but the point is that we’re pushed to the place where we have to forget it, because it’s Chinatown. And having forgotten it, embrace a world of microcomputers, legwarmers, Wall Street booms and yuppiedom. In that respect, Chinatown forms something of a recursive Escher print, reflecting and commenting on the very process of which it is an interwoven part.

There’s no stopping Cross (the Elite), enabled to appropriate funds from the city, to control the police, to commit the most degraded and repellent acts. And the mantra looms large, for it is less a warning than a mission statement of those who control: at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of anything. Towne suggested Chinatown shone a light on the kind of evil pre-WWII society was not used to dealing with, a man oft-quoted as raping the land and raping his daughter (Towne says that, but Kael says it too), but the only difference is the light, not the presence of the evil.

Of course, Huston looks the part, which may be down to all the persistent allegations of his having also acted it in real life too, throughout his Hollywood life (which, ironically, included directing The Bible: In the Beginning…) and via George Hodel’s daughter (Hodel was linked to the Black Dahlia case). Chinatown seems particularly relevant in that regard, almost a (sub)text book one: forget it… it’s Hollywood. The main players – Polanski, Huston, Nicholson – have all been linked with admitted or alleged depravities, Polanski’s in plain sight for decades: as noted above, his most infamous 1977 act taking place at Nicholson’s house. Nicholson’s alleged predilections have been turned into “loveable old Jack” but include (again alleged) serial domestic abuse and using up and spitting out Lara Flynn Boyle (making his documented – by Wasson – reluctance to slap Dunaway for Chinatown somewhat ironic).

Huston, by many accounts, was the most depraved of those involved in Chinatown, his character’s incestuous relationship(s) suggested to have reflected one with his own daughter (Anjelica, who has been alternatively alleged as a key Hollywood power person, a high priestess of satanic Hollywood, had an on-off thing with Nicholson for many years. She was also at the scene of the Polanski crime).

None of this, Polanski aside, is in Wasson’s book. Wasson does, however, detail the accusations and rumours that surrounded the director at the time of Sharon Tate’s murder (indeed, it’s one of the areas he draws on to present a constructive “defence” of mitigation by diminished mental responsibility for Polanski’s admitted crime). While Wasson doesn’t mention it, it has been suggested Tate’s murder represented a ritual sacrifice – one of Hollywood’s ongoing pastimes – with the understanding that her husband would benefit in (greater) fame and fortune. The guilt part, Roman wasn’t expecting so much.

Chinatown received eleven Oscar nominations, equalling The Godfather Part II. The latter won six of its, and in four of those categories (Picture, Director, Score, Art Direction) Polanski’s picture was arguably the second choice. The one that most baffles now is Art Carney’s Best Actor for Harry and Tonto, but whether it would have been Nicholson or Al Pacino (The Godfather Part II) or Dustin Hoffman (Lenny) is debatable. Beforehand, New York Daily News had it that “Not since Ray Milland guzzled his way to an Oscar in Lost Weekend has an actor been such a sure bet as Jack Nicholson”. And if he had, would he have done the double the following year for the arguably more iconic performance as Randall P Murphy? There’s the perversity of the choices too; for a third of the picture, Gittes sports the biggest bandage a lead has seen since Claude Rains in The Invisible Man. Dunaway’s behaviour may precede her performance, but on repeat visit, it’s the one that most grows in stature.

There are lots of sources to be had on Chinatown. Robert Evans’ self-aggrandising largely demerits any faith in his account. The Edward Taylor material in Sam Wasson’s The Big Goodbye is fascinating, but too much of the author’s “dramatizing” of his cast’s lives and processes is melodramatic and pulpy, in particular his insights (and thus excuses) into Polanski’s behaviour.

I revisited the Blu-ray Commentary track, which isn’t the most illuminating, since a director (David Fincher) is quizzing a writer he knows has been rewritten, commenting on the direction, and noting errors and how he would have been more meticulous (“I would have reshot that scene”). The idea of a (announced) Chinatown prequel series is entirely unappealing, with Fincher’s deadly digital and unfeeling rigour (in that sense, he’s a good fit for Polanski continuity, but icy more than ruthless). As for Batffleck writing and directing a film based on The Big Goodbye, no thanks. Forget it (unless that Big Goodbye draws in some of the many webs of allegations, and for that, we’d need to be in the territory of imminent tribunals). Chinatown could only yield more by delving further into the “rot” of the system. A less-jaded Gittes, regardless of documenting his undetailed encounter there, couldn’t possibly do Chinatown’s legacy justice.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…