I rely on the two highlighted portions when I wonder why: (1) rich people keep accumulating wealth beyond any material needs they could possibly have; and (2) people I've known fairly well, worked with, and thought very highly of, act in a highly amoral manner (from politicians resigning in disgrace to former co-workers embezzling funds entrusted to them). GITTES : How much are you worth? CROSS : I have no idea. How much do you want? GITTES : I want to know what you're worth - over ten million? CROSS : Oh, my, yes. GITTES : Then why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What can you buy that you can't already afford? CROSS: The future, Mr. Gittes -- the future. Now where's the girl? I want the only daughter I have left . . . as you found out, Evelyn was lost to me a long time ago. GITTES : Who do you blame for that? Her? CROSS : I don't blame myself. You see, Mr. Gittes, most people never have to face the fact that at the right time and right place, they're capable of anything.
Actually, I always thought that was Polanski dialoging with himself. And I don't understand people who downplay what he did. Same goes for fans of Woody Allen.
I’m trying to wrangle a Blu-ray screening in my friend’s basement. UHD Sony projector and 120” screen. Saturday night we’re watching the UHD disc of Raiders Of The Last Arc.
One of my favorite mo ies and a darn near perfect screenplay. A darn near perfect film as well. Too bad the creative team for The Two Jakes couldn’t be completely assembled. It’s a fine sequel even if it is no Chinatown (there’s only one Chinatown).
Maybe he didn't pursue a credit out of respect for the years of agony Towne had poured into the project.
Have you read "The Big Goodbye"? I don't think Polanski's contributions to the screenplay are in much dispute.
I figured all the Lou the lieutenant, Morty the Mortician stuff was Polanski. No writer would do that.
IDK, but if you're interested the script development is extensively covered here. In fact, if you're on this thread you might find the book interesting https://www.amazon.com/Big-Goodbye-Chinatown-Years-Hollywood/dp/1250301823
I wish Towne and Nicholson had asked Polanski for editorial oversight of the screenplay for The Two Jakes. He's a brilliant script doctor and a first-rate writer in his own right. He'd have tightened it up and sculpted it like he did Chinatown. As it is, The Two Jakes is a fine, literate script but it's all over the place. Nicholson's direction is a loose goose. I hear Nicholson and Polanski have remained good friends and stay in touch. I looked through The Big Goodbye at Barnes & Noble a couple of times. It's okay but there's a lot missing.
Polanski is a brilliant artist and the kind of filmmaker other filmmakers look up to and speak highly of. He has made meaningful and important films with social value. Sounds like a cliche, but it's true. His professional life is out there, but his personal life is not. His personal life is ordinary and private. People's imaginations run away with them when they talk about Polanski. His personal life is none of your business.
I can't remember who said it, but "When they started they had half a script. When they finished they had half a script." kind of sums up The Two Jakes. As for Chinatown, well, I don't think it's hyperbole to say it is one of the greatest films. I have seen it countless times, both at home and on the big screen, and each time I get something new from it. This thread also reminds me I must get my original one-sheet framed...
Offttopic: Woody Allens' faults are misdemeanors that too many people treat as crimes. He and Polanski are great filmmakers. Back to the OP: "Cinatown" is a perfect movie, imho. Polanski's best. Dialog, filming and music all work together to tell a great story.
I don't think either is a genius, but I use the term sparingly to describe only artists that have some sort of God-given or otherworldly talent. Allen and Polanski do not. They are both missing some part of themselves that can inform boundaries and respect social norms. That is what enables them to make the kinds of films they do, but it also has manifest in other ways. Woody plead down to misdemeanor but what he did is a lot more serious. As for whether their personal lives are off limits, they decided to be public figures when they became Hollywood/New York bigshots and even put themselves in their own movies and attended award ceremonies with the other glitterati in show business that everyone knows makes them tabloid fodder. And they also chose to have a thing for underage girls and act on it, which demands that we as a society stand up and say this is wrong. Movies are not real and have limited social value. Damaging young lives is absolutely real and not ok. If you direct good movies that does not make up for being a sociopath or having a thing for children.
Heard Dick Sylbert speak about production design, and he mostly focused on Chinatown and Two Jakes. IIRC Towne started directing and was too indecisive. Nicholson took over directing to save the project. But, yeah, the problem is that script need to be more streamlined, not something you can fix in the editing room. Much of Chinatown rigorous visual approach was predicated on always seeing things from Gittes perspectives, and not learning anything until he did. The camera is often following him. IIRC two shots in the film that breaks this approach were intro to Mrs. Mulwray telling the Chinamen joke, and lunch with Cross when Gittes is seated at the table and Cross is standing facing the camera. Gittes mentions he has photos of the meeting with Mulray - we see Cross disturbed expression, Gittes doesn't (but can probably guess Cross isn't happy) The Chinaman joke always seemed a bit off to me, as it is isn't really funny and Gittes is laughing way too hard at it. He otherwise seems more sophisticated, and somewhat respectful of the Chinese culture he knows he doesn't really fathom. On a big screen, the decision to shoot many scenes in twilight or dusk really reinforces the visual metaphor moral twilight they were inhabiting. Credit to not just the locations and visual approach but taking the time and care to film at those hours.
It definitely recaptures the noir style popularized a couple or three decades earlier. Specifically, I think it is trying to feel like Maltese Falcon. That goes beyond just the noir elements to the protagonist being out of his depth, and unraveling the mystery along with the audience. Nicholson is great at playing a somewhat sleazy private detective who tries his best to act sophisticated but can only rise to a notch above slimeball. The way Gittes laughs hysterically at a stupid joke, plays to the press to advertise his services and resorts to coarse language makes Nicholson perfect for the role, his best performance.
Woody Allen did not commit a misdemeanor. Nor a crime. Farrow's chargers were investigated, a hearing was held, she was dismissed for coaching her children to make things up, and Allen was exonerated. Those are the facts. The rest is persecution. Her "documentary" distorts the facts, misrepresents the investigation and hearing, and slanders Woody Allen. It's a persecution. I don't agree with your assessment of either. It's just wrong. Allen was not charged with a crime nor a misdemeanor and so it follows that he did not "plead down." Absolute rubbish. Neither director is a sociopath, neither has a "thing for children," both lead ordinary lives and both withdrew from public events a long time ago. Further, being an artist in commercial media does not automatically mean your work is about being famous nor is it an invitation to whacko fans and stalkers. Like Woody Allen says, your whole fallacy is wrong.
