Reflections on "Chinatown"
Directed by Roman Polanski
Screenplay by Robert Towne
Starring Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway and John Huston
I first
saw "Chinatown" in the early 1980s, and I have found it is a film I
can revisit frequently and find something new to admire each time. The script
by Robert Towne is constantly engaging and brings to the fore the basic
humanity of his characters, as well as the complexities of the themes of
morality, corruption, greed, and, of course, sex.
Roman Polanski’s direction is little short of perfect as he slowly embroils Jake Gittes (and the audience) in the web of intrigue and corruption that lies beneath the surface of the film. We share Jake’s point of view as he embarks on what appears to be a relatively normal case of adultery, but is soon plunged into a mystery of far greater scope and depth.
In the
course of the film a whole variety of "film noir" themes are treated,
such as amorality ("In the right circumstances, man is capable of
anything" - Noah Cross), corruption (the abuse of power and influence to
further one’s own interests at the expense of others’), greed (Noah Cross is a
millionaire who seeks to invest in "the future"), and sex (with an
example of perhaps the ultimate indulgence in amoral sexual values).
Jake
Gittes makes his living from investigating others’ "mistakes" or
indiscretions. He runs a successful private investigations firm with a couple
of well-dressed assistants, from a well-appointed and very presentable office.
Yet beneath this veneer of respectability is a fairly sleazy and parasitic
occupation, dealing with shabby and wretched goings-on in society. Indeed,
throughout the film the "reality" of these shady goings-on
(extra-marital affairs, deprivation of water to farmers, land sale deals, murder)
is hidden beneath a façade of respectability and decorum. Noah Cross (John
Huston) holds an elevated and highly respected position in society, yet is
guilty of the most heinous crimes, unknown to the general public.
It
seems that just about every character has something to hide, with the possible
exception of Hollis Mulwray, whose honesty and integrity are the very reasons
for his death. The suggestion appears to be that principle and truth are
regarded as the exception rather than the rule, and will not be tolerated by
the network of apparently respectable "leaders" of the community who
will do anything to realise their dreams (indeed it is the pursuit of truth
that leads Jake into danger), and whose continued success is dependent on the
tacit collaboration of others in their shady schemes.
Yet
these crimes, awful though they may be, are not as shocking or wild as we might
suppose they will be. The true interest of the film lies principally in the
uncovering of the plot through the eyes of the very human, and very fallible,
Jake Gittes and his associates. Though the film is plot-driven, it works
because we share Jake’s viewpoint and share his problems in understanding what
is going on.
Jake
Gittes is above all human, and has human failings. He is worldly and perhaps
disillusioned, but he is not cynical. He still believes in truth and appears to
genuinely want to help Hollis Mulwray after the "revelations"
concerning him and his affair in the papers. He also tries to dissuade the
original "Mrs Mulwray" from initiating the investigation in order to
avoid pain for herself and her husband. When paid by the genuine Mrs Mulwray,
he wishes to continue the investigation because he wants to know the truth and
he knows a crime has been committed – he is driven, but certainly not by greed.
Yet he
is no great hero either. He is aware of his own sleazy background and tries to
rise above it by being fairly open and honest about his activities, but
(somewhat paradoxically) respecting privacy as well. As he says, he is in
business and is simply trying to make ends meet.
Human
and reasonable, Jake is stunned by Noah Cross’s greed and his willingness to
accept the inevitability of his own corruption. Clearly Jake disapproves of
Cross’s actions and schemes. He can’t comprehend Cross’s lack of scruples and
his willingness to take others’ lives, and all for money which he doesn’t need.
In a
very real sense, that is what the film is about – Jake’s slow unfurling of
clues and events to be faced with a situation he cannot fathom, triggered by
motives he neither approves of nor can fully comprehend. Men are what they are
and must live according to their cut. Noah Cross tries to impose his will on
society, while Jake must live in that society, but with his own notions of
principle and morality. Jake does not seek to impose his will, but merely to
understand what is happening and he wants to be able to help as a result of his
understanding. However, it seems the human condition cannot be fully explained
or understood. Responsibility for certain actions may be ascertained, but what
drives and motivates people cannot be adequately explained. As Noah Cross says,
"In the right circumstances, man is capable of anything".
Jake’s
is the voice of reason and humanity, failing to make itself heard above clamour
of the vagaries of human nature.
Perhaps
inevitably, comparison will be made to 1940s films noirs such as "The
Maltese Falcon" and the Philip Marlow thrillers, especially with the
involvement of John Huston as Noah Cross. There are, however, important
differences. In the 40s films the hero is seemingly omniscient and appears to
exercise a degree of control through his understanding (and perhaps even
sharing) of the amoral viewpoint, though ultimately he comes down on the side
of "morality". He manages to affect the outcome of events through
clever manipulation of these events and characters.
In Jake
Gittes’ case there is a clear lack of understanding and a dogged determination
to fight for principle. Indeed, in the end Jake’s intervention may even have
brought about dire consequences. We are clearly in the same existential world
of the 40s thrillers, in which actions bring about reactions and each character
can influence the final outcome, but here the hero’s influence can be negative
as well as positive, despite all his good intentions.
"
My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I
hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment