Gittes has a moral compass, though. He may be an uncouth dog-eat- dog blue-collar type but he knows the difference between right and wrong and tries to do the right thing. He feels the burden of his mistakes, acts on his conscience and at the end, when he moves to push Escobar's gun down the gesture pulls Loach into position to kill Evelyn, he's feels defeated by the futility of his good intentions.
Absolutely, he's an ex-cop and he's trying to run a business and stay true to his moral compass. It all pays off the "Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown." line that is so haunting and defeating. Those are not the facts. Investigators who believed Dylan were fired by powerful public figures in Woody Allen's camp. There was a severe miscarriage of justice that favored a rich, powerful filmmaker. The Connecticut DA and a stream of child psychologists have concrete reasons to explain that Dylan was not coached. Woody's powerful PR firm and relationship with the mayor and others played a role. All this happened before the metoo movement when even predators like Larry Nasser and Weinstein were allowed to prey on females. They could always count on people like you to blame the victims. Ah yes, Woody is leading such an ordinary life married to his ex's adopted daughter. Polanski raped a child, too. At least he admits it. It's time to hold them accountable and stop giving wealthy bigshots a free pass. Isn't that, in a nutshell, what Chinatown is all about? It's redundant to call a fallacy "wrong"...the problem for both you and Woody is that Dylan's story is valid. At some point you need to stop blaming the victim and hold rich, powerful rapists accountable. A good first step might be to stop worshipping them.
Wrong. You've swallowed the bile of Mia's fake documentary. Then you come in here making outlandish accusations and inappropriate statements. Investigators concluded that Dylan was coached by Mia. That's a fact. Woody had no power over the courts and no control over the situation. He submitted to the investigation and came out exonerated, so Mia and her tribe decided to discredit the hearing. All the sympathy and biases were on her side, but she lost bigtime. PR firms have no influence over legal proceedings; it's just ridiculous to think they do. Nor did the mayor. You've bought into Mia's one-sided tirade hook line and sinker. There is no analogy between Allen, who is 100% innocent, Polanski who was a one-time offender, and serial offenders like Nasser and Weinstein. Prosecutions of such cases were successful long before the "me too" movement. You're in over your head. The adopted daughter was a grown woman who had got fed-up with Mia, moved out of the house years before, and was in college when she started a relationship with Woody. She published an article in Vanity Fair in an effort to clear up people's misconceptions and to defend her husband.Further, Woody did not live in Mia's home with the children and rarely visited it. She is not his ex. Both men were held accountable and submitted to the justice system. Polanski was to be discharged, but the judge had psychological issues. Of course it's redundant. That's part of the joke you're not getting. I don't worship celebrities. But I don't objectify them, either. I respect supreme craftsmanship and talent when I see it. Please stop derailing this thread with this nonsense. Let's return to discussing Chinatown.
I’m finding scant information regarding Belinda Palmer today, especially a recent photo and update on what she’s doing today.
You've swallowed Woody's PR firm kool aid. And it wasn't Mia's documentary. It was Amy Ziering's. She is a serious documentary producer who also focused on rape in US military, and she tried to include people from Woody's camp; wasn't her fault that they refused to talk. She did interview several child psychology experts who reviewed the video of young Dylan, who you claimed was "coached". All of them came to the opposite conclusion and cited specific reasons that you yourself can view. If you want to be impartial, I mean. We've been over this. It's not a fact. Investigators in New York's child welfare services came to the opposite conclusion and were fired, and their evidence was thrown out by a rigged court. Watch the documentary. Wealthy and powerful men throughout history have had power over the police and the system. Woody was able to hire a high powered legal a PR firm, and the best legal team money could buy. They're all movie bigshots. They all think they're above the law because they can count on people like you to hold them in high esteem while ignoring the devastating effect they have on their victims. Maybe I'm more sensitive to all this because I have a kid. Ultimately, neither of us will ever know the truth with 100% certainty. Woody is not Mia's ex? Soon Yi is not Mia's adopted child? Woody was not grooming her as a high school student? All three are true. Chinatown is about a very wealthy man above the law getting away with victimizing his own daughter and gaslighting the public. So the above exchange seems relevant.
GregM, Looks like you've succeeded in killing this thread. Your allegations aren't worth the dignity of a response. You've swallowed Mia's cool aid, just like Amy Ziering. Their documentary is essentially dishonest, preposterous and over-kill. It misrepresents facts, distorts circumstances and events, and is a pack of lies. Super-villain Woody Allen ruling the courts with a powerful PR firm. How credulous can you be. Grow up.
Looks like she quit the biz in 1979: Belinda Palmer - IMDb Didn't Nandu Hinds have a brief cameo as Sophie in The Two Jakes? She's the receptionist in Jake's office. Of course that was thirty years ago.
steering the 1938 Rambler off Woody Allen Avenue and back to 'Chinatown' .... Just watched Farewell My Lovely (1975, Dir Dick Richards) which is a very good not quite great adaptation. Some of Marlowe's voice overs are real clinkers, but the acting (especially Robert Mitchum) and production design and score are superb. The Opening Titles literally some of the most gorgeous visuals I've seen on or off screen Anyways, FML takes place in 1941: Imagine Philip Marlowe and Gittes teaming up for a case after Gittes returned from WWII in 44 or 45. They could have tried to out-cynical each other.
If I was the judge I'd tell Woody and Polanski you're both being sentenced to having to release all your films on 4K UHD with director commentaries from you and tons of bonus features you're personally involved in. For Woody that might be a tougher sentence than a few months in the slammer.
Isn't it ironic that FAREWELL MY LOVELY is photographed by the same photographer as CHINATOWN, John Alonzo and yet the two approaches could not be further apart. FAREWELL MY LOVELY drips with yellow and with nostalgia. Everything in the film looks old, from the trenchcoat to the sofas, whereas CHINATOWN looks new and utilitarian. Although a period film, CHINATOWN is not about nostalgia. On another level, FML thins out in the second act, whereas CHINATOWN keeps compounding the felonies. I really enjoy FAREWELL MY LOVELY, but Marlowe and Mrs. Grayle needed more scenes together so Mitchum and Rampling could find the right chemistry. When I watched the blu-ray recently it rekindled my response to the film when it was new -- more Charlotte, please.
I agree. The dialogue did need better adaptation -- sometimes the voiceover is just describing what we see onscreen, which is simply bad scripting/direction. On the plus side, it does look very good, and Mitchum is solid even if he's too old for the part. Look for a young Sylvester Stallone too. Unfortunately, the next Chandler adaptation Mitchum starred in -- a remake of The Big Sleep set in modern London of all places -- has no redeeming qualities at all. Badly cast, poorly directed, with all the line readings falling flat, and as boringly lit as an ad for polyester pants. Avoid at all costs (or just watch Chinatown again instead).
Another of the many reasons I like Chinatown is how it makes me feel I’m actually in the late 1930s (costumes and sets and just the overall feel). Note how Polanski/Towne intentionally (yet quietly) set the date of the film with the Seabiscuit reference early on (Gittes’ newspaper). I have heard that Wilder felt he had to remove the thought of World War II from Double Indemnity by ensuring it was known the film took place before the US was seriously thinking about the war. I wonder if Polanski/Towne felt they had to do the same.
I wonder how much of the budget was dedicated to Neon Signs. Yes, Alonzo didn't repeat himself, and everything in that movie looks either beat up or like its about to fizzle. Except the Neon.
The clothes are older than the people wearing them. The sofas and chairs and wallpaper are aged to look period instead of simply being in period. The went too far with it. It's also over-saturated with yellow, to the point of distraction. I've seen most of Alonzo's films and don't much like his work, except for Chinatown. Chinatown does not distract us with nostalgia. It's period detail is utilitarian and therefore a more believable setting.
I semi-disagree. The theatrical showing had a lot of contrast between the black and the colors. The colors seemed to emerge from the darkness, especially in the street scenes. I thought it looked incredible; however, while I wouldn't say he went too far into yellow-ochre in the Interiors, he probably was getting close. I think the Marlowe character justified some romanticism in the look. They were trying to literally make an conventional noir. And most of the movie is a flashback, so the dreamlike approach is appropriate. Gittes was a new character, and I think the more clinical look of Chinatown as a procedural brought the audience more into the movie. Even though FML has some fairly dark moments, Chinatown obviously goes deeper. I think even Marlowe would have been shaken by the machinations of Chinatown. In fact, you could say Chinatown was trying to wipe the slate clean about hazy notions of detective movies and superficial wise-guys skepticism. It made you look at and regard the things it clearly shows: The Water Commissioners Body dragged up the run off channel, a nose closed open, the impact of a bullet through a head. It's not nearly as graphic as other movies, but those events are so unexpected, and yet logical that they can't be denied. Not just as isolated incidents but as indications of profoundly deep corruption.
Chinatown continues, but in real life: Former Central California water manager stole $25 million in water over 23 years, prosecutors say Given the current drought and potential restrictions, the story has never seemed more relevant
what makes it for me is Mitchum plays him so tired and worn, hopelessly jaded PS The soundtrack is also excellent
I've been listening to some Jackie Gleason (late 1950s and early 1960s) lately, and I hear an influence on Goldsmith's Chinatown soundtrack.
Definitely one of the finest films ever to come out of Hollywood. I doubt a film like this would be made by a big commercial studio today.
check out 'Friends of Eddie Coyle' if you haven't seen it. Yeah, the soundtrack is extremely evocative. In the incredible opening credits, the traffic seems to move in with the music
Last time I saw Swing Out Sister, I told Andy I had the soundtrack cd (now long oop) and he flipped out. Made me swear I run him off a copy next time he is in the area.
Charles Mulvehill was likely the source for one pf those names. He worked with Nicholson a few times, usually on the production side, though he also played Nicholson’s stolen identity in “The Passenger.”
Here is another great feature from the 'Chinatown' DVD where accomplished filmmakers (Steven Soderbergh, Kimberly Pierce, Roger Deakins and James Newton Howard) discuss Chinatown... I find it far more interesting to hear commentary on an all-time great film from people who actually make films than film critics.
Many who were actually involved in the particular film are really bad, though. They often just wing it, and they're dreadful. Guillermo del Toro spoiled me for directors' commentaries, as he was well prepared, interesting, etc. for Pan's Labyrinth. It was the first I ever watched, and it's generally been downhill from there. I thought Roger Ebert's commentary for Citizen Kane was excellent, as well. My Chinatown Blu-ray is still on the shelf, unopened. Waiting for the right time. I of course will watch the extras.
I would say 'Chinatown' has multiple themes. One is obviously the deception of the public by public officials but another is very much Jake Gittes' flaws 'Chinatown' is very much about the futility of good intentions for Jake Gittes, but the line that is even more of a payoff is his own last words, "As little as possible", a precept that could never be espoused by Sam Spade or Phillip Marlowe. Yes, Chinatown very much demythologizes the film noir detective (and deconstructs the classic film noir detective every bit as much as Robert Altman's 'The Long Goodbye') As a resource, here is a thorough scene by scene analysis of the film, as well as additional analysis of the ending and how it is narratively (not just thematically) logical conclusion to the film: chinatown scene analysis chinatown: script to film chinatown central
