I have watched numerous videos of the making of "Chinatown," I have a copy of the original script, and I have seen the film about 6 times. This is the first plot analysis I have seen that goes into detail about how Cross's water-based, camouflaged land acquisition scheme works. When Gittes first visits Evelyn Mulwray at her home, he sees what we later learn to be Noah Cross's glasses in the pond. The solution to the mystery of who murdered Hollis (which Gittes and Evelyn don't yet know has happened) is right at his fingertips, but he is distracted by the appearance of Evelyn. The only possible flaw in the plot I can think of is how the fastidious Chinese gardener is so concerned about removing harmful, foreign elements from the pond, but lets those glasses stay there until the end of the movie. I know, it is necessary to the plot that they stay there awhile longer for Gittes to remember them and retrieve them several days later.
Chinatown and LA Confidential are so similar in the plot/subplots blending. It took several watchings of each to really uncover the truth. Knowing ahead of time what happened really helped you to discover the clues you missed in previous watchings. I find this factor as remarkable screenwriting, directing and acting. Thanks for the analysis.
@@elijahalbiston depends on your preference. I'd say LA is more fast-paced, action-packed and has a... more conventional resolution, so to speak. It is frankly Chinatown in a more absorbable, modern Hollywood package. Chinatown meanwhile puts more emphasis on noir elements: slowly developing plot, witty dialogue and acting, and a hopeless atmosphere.
Thank you for helping me scratch the itch. I am obsessed with this film. Still traumatised by the last scene. Why did Jake call Noah Cross ? He could have been a true hero.
Not sure I remember all the details but I recall thinking that his plan was to converge Evelyn, Cross, and the Police so that he could explain everything to the cops and justice unfold. But the police work for Cross so the power of corruption outweighed the power of justice
Wow. You've changed my whole perception of the movie. I always thought that Cross killed Mulray over the water but it makes perfect sense that Cross killed Mulray spontaneously over Katheryn.
First let me just say this was a fantastic analysis, almost perfect. I LOVED the subplot quote by Robert. But I think you've missed the essence here, which is, in my view at least, that "as little as possible" doesn't mean "you can't do anything against evil", it just means be humble and do good but be careful.... Jake was the root cause of tragedy...Little by little he created this situation by his hubris, he allowed the unfolding. He thought he was a hero, and so did we, but really he was arrogant and reckless. That's why he says right at th end - "as little as possible".
I agree that Jake's recklessness and hubris created the tragedy at the film's end. I think "as little as possible" means that when you don't understand what's going on, you do as little as possible. And yes, sometimes you can't do anything against evil. I read an interview with a retired vice cop (in a book about the William Desmond Taylor murder, "A Cast of Killers,") who joined the LAPD in 1910. The opium dens in Chinatown occasionally got raided. The police were told which one to raid and you only raided that one, not the one next door. You didn't ask questions if you wanted to keep your job.
@@1995yuda There is a short RUclips video of an interview with Bill Cahill, the cop, when he was about 100 years old, probably filmed about 30 years ago. He doesn't talk about his early days on the police force, that is only in the written one, but he does talk about the Taylor murder. This is a clip from a longer interview. I wish the whole thing was on here.
I greatly enjoyed your analysis of this brilliant film. I'd like to add what I think is also a theme: sometimes evil wins. I think this is what Polanksi was saying when he insisted on a darker ending, in contrast to the ending Townes wanted, in which Evelyn and Catherine get away.
I love how this is narrated like a cultural history as much as purely a synopsis of the film. It’s interesting how intricate it all is, because one doesn’t think of this as a super “chatty” film with tons of exposition, but obviously there is quite a lot to have all this information come across. Still, the film plays as atmospheric and mysterious rather than a didactic “issue” film.
Gittes could then give an answer which would “agree”with what the guy (director of the nursing home) said. So if instead of saying no, we don’t accept Jews (as in the film), the directors says sure, Jews are welcome, Gittes could say great, we’re Jews. That “agreement” allows him to tour the home and ask the seniors questions, whicjis the real purport of his visit.
Remarkable analysis - now please turn your attention to A Serious Man, which no reviewer I've read so far actually understood. Consider this a challenge,
Excellent research and writing but the character Jack Nicholson plays is named "Jake," not "Jack." If you meant to call Nicholson by his actual first name instead of describing the character why didn't you refer to all the other characters by the first name of the person who played them? The sloppiness leaps out at the viewer because everything else id so meticulous.
Her mother and his daughter had a very volatile relationship so he felt it better that somebody else follows her . Presumably he didn’t realise that Gittes had slept with her !
I have watched numerous videos of the making of "Chinatown," I have a copy of the original script, and I have seen the film about 6 times. This is the first plot analysis I have seen that goes into detail about how Cross's water-based, camouflaged land acquisition scheme works. When Gittes first visits Evelyn Mulwray at her home, he sees what we later learn to be Noah Cross's glasses in the pond. The solution to the mystery of who murdered Hollis (which Gittes and Evelyn don't yet know has happened) is right at his fingertips, but he is distracted by the appearance of Evelyn. The only possible flaw in the plot I can think of is how the fastidious Chinese gardener is so concerned about removing harmful, foreign elements from the pond, but lets those glasses stay there until the end of the movie. I know, it is necessary to the plot that they stay there awhile longer for Gittes to remember them and retrieve them several days later.
Maybe the Chinese gardener was pre-ocupied with replacing the grass getting ruined by the saltwater that he forgot about the glasses in the pond.
Chinatown and LA Confidential are so similar in the plot/subplots blending. It took several watchings of each to really uncover the truth. Knowing ahead of time what happened really helped you to discover the clues you missed in previous watchings. I find this factor as remarkable screenwriting, directing and acting.
Thanks for the analysis.
Yes, that's called Foreshadowing, a literary technique.
Quick question, have yet to see LA, but which is better?
@@elijahalbiston depends on your preference. I'd say LA is more fast-paced, action-packed and has a... more conventional resolution, so to speak. It is frankly Chinatown in a more absorbable, modern Hollywood package.
Chinatown meanwhile puts more emphasis on noir elements: slowly developing plot, witty dialogue and acting, and a hopeless atmosphere.
@@Diofill37 That's exactly the kind of analysis I was looking for, thank you very much. I might just watch LA Confidential tonight
Thank you for helping me scratch the itch.
I am obsessed with this film.
Still traumatised by the last scene.
Why did Jake call Noah Cross ?
He could have been a true hero.
Not sure I remember all the details but I recall thinking that his plan was to converge Evelyn, Cross, and the Police so that he could explain everything to the cops and justice unfold.
But the police work for Cross so the power of corruption outweighed the power of justice
Wow. You've changed my whole perception of the movie. I always thought that Cross killed Mulray over the water but it makes perfect sense that Cross killed Mulray spontaneously over Katheryn.
First let me just say this was a fantastic analysis, almost perfect. I LOVED the subplot quote by Robert. But I think you've missed the essence here, which is, in my view at least, that "as little as possible" doesn't mean "you can't do anything against evil", it just means be humble and do good but be careful.... Jake was the root cause of tragedy...Little by little he created this situation by his hubris, he allowed the unfolding. He thought he was a hero, and so did we, but really he was arrogant and reckless. That's why he says right at th end - "as little as possible".
I agree that Jake's recklessness and hubris created the tragedy at the film's end. I think "as little as possible" means that when you don't understand what's going on, you do as little as possible. And yes, sometimes you can't do anything against evil. I read an interview with a retired vice cop (in a book about the William Desmond Taylor murder, "A Cast of Killers,") who joined the LAPD in 1910. The opium dens in Chinatown occasionally got raided. The police were told which one to raid and you only raided that one, not the one next door. You didn't ask questions if you wanted to keep your job.
@@lemorab1 Agreed. That bit about the opium dens fits perfectly with the film's message, thank you for sharing that.
@@1995yuda There is a short RUclips video of an interview with Bill Cahill, the cop, when he was about 100 years old, probably filmed about 30 years ago. He doesn't talk about his early days on the police force, that is only in the written one, but he does talk about the Taylor murder. This is a clip from a longer interview. I wish the whole thing was on here.
@@lemorab1 I'll have to look that up. Thanks again my friend, and best wishes.
I greatly enjoyed your analysis of this brilliant film. I'd like to add what I think is also a theme: sometimes evil wins. I think this is what Polanksi was saying when he insisted on a darker ending, in contrast to the ending Townes wanted, in which Evelyn and Catherine get away.
I love how this is narrated like a cultural history as much as purely a synopsis of the film. It’s interesting how intricate it all is, because one doesn’t think of this as a super “chatty” film with tons of exposition, but obviously there is quite a lot to have all this information come across. Still, the film plays as atmospheric and mysterious rather than a didactic “issue” film.
Chinatown is my favorite movie. I can watch it over & over.
Please make more classic film analysis! you are by far the best person i have seen do them
Perfect analysis of this classic film.
Excellent. Thank you!
Good analysis. Not a fan of the AI voice though.
Very interesting presentation.
Hollis Mulwray = (William) Mulholland, who Noah Cross is based on.
hey why u removed the first upload btw luv your video's
Why did he ask the resting home director if they accept Jews?
Gittes could then give an answer which would “agree”with what the guy (director of the nursing home) said. So if instead of saying no, we don’t accept Jews (as in the film), the directors says sure, Jews are welcome, Gittes could say great, we’re Jews. That “agreement” allows him to tour the home and ask the seniors questions, whicjis the real purport of his visit.
This is the best analysis of chinatown on the internet
Great analysis.
Remarkable analysis - now please turn your attention to A Serious Man, which no reviewer I've read so far actually understood. Consider this a challenge,
Was Ida Sessions the woman that claimed to be Evelyn Mullray at the beginning of the movie?
Keep it up
Jake NOT Jack. Say it correctly.
have to laugh when a computer voice says "if you like my analysis"
Jake
Seems like Noah cross got many reasons to kill Mulwray.
Excellent research and writing but the character Jack Nicholson plays is named "Jake," not "Jack." If you meant to call Nicholson by his actual first name instead of describing the character why didn't you refer to all the other characters by the first name of the person who played them? The sloppiness leaps out at the viewer because everything else id so meticulous.
Little mistakes can happen
AI voice speaker cool
mulray does wear glasses in the movie?? And evelyn says he doesnt!!!
Evelyn said that he didn't wear bifocals which Noah Cross did.
Noah Cross hires JJ Gittes to find his daughter, but all he really needs to do is follow her mother. A plot hole wide enough to drive a truck through.
Her mother and his daughter had a very volatile relationship so he felt it better that somebody else follows her . Presumably he didn’t realise that Gittes had slept with her !