I remember watching this when it first aired. they showed The Two Jakes the week after if I remember correctly. Robert McKee was on British TV quite a lot at that time, I remember watching a season of Bergman films where he did the introductions. Back then in the UK we only had 4 terrestrial channels but I remember the two 'arty' channels BBC2 and C4 regularly showing famous films from World Cinema, seasons of films featuring Fellini, Kurosawa, Ray, Renoir the French New Wave. Now all we seem to get is standard Hollywood fare.
Huge overstatement to say that basically everything that makes Chinatown special was Polanski and not Towne. Listen to the commentary track with Towne and Fincher, most of the crucial story beats and iconic moments were in the original script. Not that the changes didn’t help but I think it’s taking it a bit too far to say that it was all Roman
McKee doesn't quite say it was all Roman. He says Roman took a good film and made it a great one. A happy ending doesn't go with this story. Also, it is definitely a film noir. Faye Dunaway brilliantly walks a tightrope right up until the end. You don't know whether or not she and her father are playing Gittes in order to keep him away from family secrets. She may very well be a femme fatale and the story pacing and her performance keep you guessing. There are dark shadows, corruption everywhere, and a morally ambiguous main character who turns out to be wrong about everything. We see the story through the eyes of an unreliable narrator. Definitely film noir.
There is a great deal here that is flat out wrong. Polanski didn't invent the whodunit or film noir where tge Detective fails and there's a tragic ending. And the theme is a far more nuanced exploration of misunderstanding, mis-hearing, mis-seeing, and believing yourself 100% right when you are tragically wrong.
In his 2004 film documentary Los Angeles Plays Itself, Thom Andersen explains the relationship between Robert Towne's screenplay and its historical background: Robert Towne took an urban myth about the founding of Los Angeles on water stolen from the Owens River Valley and made it resonate. Chinatown isn't a docudrama, it's a fiction. The water project it depicts isn't the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, engineered by William Mulholland before the First World War. Chinatown is set in 1938, not 1905. The Mullholland-like figure-"Hollis Mulwray"-isn't the chief architect of the project, but rather its strongest opponent, who must be discredited and murdered. Mulwray is against the "Alto Vallejo Dam" because it's unsafe, not because it's stealing water from somebody else.... But there are echoes of Mullholland's aqueduct project in Chinatown.... Mullholland's project enriched its promoters through insider land deals in the San Fernando Valley, just like the dam project in Chinatown. The disgruntled San Fernando Valley farmers of Chinatown, forced to sell off their land at bargain prices because of an artificial drought, seem like stand-ins for the Owens Valley settlers whose homesteads turned to dust when Los Angeles took the water that irrigated them. The "Van Der Lip Dam" disaster, which Hollis Mulwray cites to explain his opposition to the proposed dam, is an obvious reference to the collapse of the Saint Francis Dam in 1928. Mullholland built this dam after completing the aqueduct and its failure was the greatest man-made disaster in the history of California. These echoes have led many viewers to regard Chinatown, not only as docudrama, but as truth-the real secret history of how Los Angeles got its water. And it has become a ruling metaphor of the non-fictional critiques of Los Angeles development.
Robert Mckee speaks with authority. I could see how he would convincingly fashion himself as a great screenplay guru. However, he is not quite right on a number of things. The stuff with motifs is interesting, but Chinatown is definitely film noir, even if Towne also subverts the genre. You have a morally ambiguous detective, a dangerous woman, an uncovered crime/conspiracy. Temptation. Violence. The fatalist ending. Also: the idea that the film boils down a general statement on humanity, that "evil is within us all" is simplistic. Where for instance is the evil in Mrs. Mulwray? She is a pure victim. and as we see: Gittes is a man capable of change, of doing good. He could be redeemed. It's just that the game is rigged. The cynicism belongs to Noah Cross, it is he who says people, given the right circumstances, are capable of anything. It is not the thesis of the film.
Yes. I was just saying in another thread, the notion that Polanski invented the Detective failing & the tragic ending us as absurd as missing the theme of misunderstanding/mishearing/mis-seeing. It's like a freshman film student analysis.
6:12 A lot of horses? Hardly. 6:09 Castration? I can only guess that he's referring to the nose-slitting scene. If so, that's a very, *very* tenuous connection.
@@kamuelalee There were a few horses but hardly a lot of them and it certainly isn't significant enough to be worth mentioning. You don't remember seeing a castration because there wasn't one.
@@kamuelalee But that would be like saying the moment Gittes drove his car into a tree was Polanski forewarning us of 9/11. McKee is just trying to sound like an intellectual.
I think he's talking partial shite. I haven't read Towne's screenplay before Polanski began tinkering with it, so I can't speak about that. I've only read the final screenplay, most of which got filmed. Evelyn and Hollis Mulwray are the most morally uncompromised characters in the film. There is no evil within them. There is no castration scene in "Chinatown." Is McKee referring to the nose-slitting scene? The only horses we see are ridden by the irate farmers who assault Gittes. Earlier, Evelyn refers to having just gone riding. That's it. Horses are not a prominent symbol in the story. The thesis of the film is the futility of good intentions. Given enough power, the bad guys win, as they do in "Chinatown."
This is a phenomenal analysis and introduction.
He said it’s all thanks to Polanski
That’s just bs
It was a team effort
So no
One of the greatest analyses of one of the greatest films of one of the greatest screenplays!
I remember watching this when it first aired. they showed The Two Jakes the week after if I remember correctly. Robert McKee was on British TV quite a lot at that time, I remember watching a season of Bergman films where he did the introductions. Back then in the UK we only had 4 terrestrial channels but I remember the two 'arty' channels BBC2 and C4 regularly showing famous films from World Cinema, seasons of films featuring Fellini, Kurosawa, Ray, Renoir the French New Wave. Now all we seem to get is standard Hollywood fare.
This is a testament to how collaboration can better the arts.
From the era when the BBC actually cared about film
Excellent!
As was the film, exceptional. Thank you!
Oh my god this is such an incredible analysis! What! Out of nowhere!
Thank you so much for this 1994 introduction from Robert McKee about Chinatown. Fascinating. Do you have other introductions in this series?
McKee's introduction to 'The Wages of Fear': ruclips.net/video/FY8OoEwlYmQ/видео.html
I remember watching this in 1994
Huge overstatement to say that basically everything that makes Chinatown special was Polanski and not Towne. Listen to the commentary track with Towne and Fincher, most of the crucial story beats and iconic moments were in the original script. Not that the changes didn’t help but I think it’s taking it a bit too far to say that it was all Roman
McKee doesn't quite say it was all Roman. He says Roman took a good film and made it a great one. A happy ending doesn't go with this story. Also, it is definitely a film noir. Faye Dunaway brilliantly walks a tightrope right up until the end. You don't know whether or not she and her father are playing Gittes in order to keep him away from family secrets. She may very well be a femme fatale and the story pacing and her performance keep you guessing. There are dark shadows, corruption everywhere, and a morally ambiguous main character who turns out to be wrong about everything. We see the story through the eyes of an unreliable narrator. Definitely film noir.
There is a great deal here that is flat out wrong. Polanski didn't invent the whodunit or film noir where tge Detective fails and there's a tragic ending. And the theme is a far more nuanced exploration of misunderstanding, mis-hearing, mis-seeing, and believing yourself 100% right when you are tragically wrong.
@@lemorab1 Yeah, this is film noir with a hardboiled detective story.
Wow!
In his 2004 film documentary Los Angeles Plays Itself, Thom Andersen explains the relationship between Robert Towne's screenplay and its historical background:
Robert Towne took an urban myth about the founding of Los Angeles on water stolen from the Owens River Valley and made it resonate. Chinatown isn't a docudrama, it's a fiction. The water project it depicts isn't the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, engineered by William Mulholland before the First World War. Chinatown is set in 1938, not 1905. The Mullholland-like figure-"Hollis Mulwray"-isn't the chief architect of the project, but rather its strongest opponent, who must be discredited and murdered. Mulwray is against the "Alto Vallejo Dam" because it's unsafe, not because it's stealing water from somebody else.... But there are echoes of Mullholland's aqueduct project in Chinatown.... Mullholland's project enriched its promoters through insider land deals in the San Fernando Valley, just like the dam project in Chinatown. The disgruntled San Fernando Valley farmers of Chinatown, forced to sell off their land at bargain prices because of an artificial drought, seem like stand-ins for the Owens Valley settlers whose homesteads turned to dust when Los Angeles took the water that irrigated them. The "Van Der Lip Dam" disaster, which Hollis Mulwray cites to explain his opposition to the proposed dam, is an obvious reference to the collapse of the Saint Francis Dam in 1928. Mullholland built this dam after completing the aqueduct and its failure was the greatest man-made disaster in the history of California. These echoes have led many viewers to regard Chinatown, not only as docudrama, but as truth-the real secret history of how Los Angeles got its water. And it has become a ruling metaphor of the non-fictional critiques of Los Angeles development.
Robert Mckee speaks with authority. I could see how he would convincingly fashion himself as a great screenplay guru. However, he is not quite right on a number of things. The stuff with motifs is interesting, but Chinatown is definitely film noir, even if Towne also subverts the genre. You have a morally ambiguous detective, a dangerous woman, an uncovered crime/conspiracy. Temptation. Violence. The fatalist ending. Also: the idea that the film boils down a general statement on humanity, that "evil is within us all" is simplistic. Where for instance is the evil in Mrs. Mulwray? She is a pure victim. and as we see: Gittes is a man capable of change, of doing good. He could be redeemed. It's just that the game is rigged. The cynicism belongs to Noah Cross, it is he who says people, given the right circumstances, are capable of anything. It is not the thesis of the film.
Yes. I was just saying in another thread, the notion that Polanski invented the Detective failing & the tragic ending us as absurd as missing the theme of misunderstanding/mishearing/mis-seeing. It's like a freshman film student analysis.
Brilliant....eyebrows...
The scariest thing about this whole analysis is ?
(you got it)
Robert McKee's eyebrows !
Ha, excellent!
Under appreciated comment
6:12 A lot of horses? Hardly.
6:09 Castration? I can only guess that he's referring to the nose-slitting scene.
If so, that's a very, *very* tenuous connection.
I'll say there were horses in the film and Dunaway likes to ride "bareback" but the castration part I don't remember seeing at all.
@@kamuelalee There were a few horses but hardly a lot of them and it certainly isn't significant enough to be worth mentioning.
You don't remember seeing a castration because there wasn't one.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 Unless getting your nose cut for being "a nosey fellow, kitty cat" is symbolic of castration...but that's only a guess.
@@kamuelalee But that would be like saying the moment Gittes drove his car into a tree was Polanski forewarning us of 9/11.
McKee is just trying to sound like an intellectual.
Fantastic commentary and analysis
Chinatown
London...
The Triads
I think the top 3 greatest screenplays are
Chinatown
All the presidents men
Alien
Ironically all from the 70s.
70’s were a great time for movies
Taxi driver
"Casablanca" must be on any Best Script list. More iconic quotes than any film ever made.
Wrong! Of course it's film noir.
Analytical gem 🤘
I'm clearly in a minority here.
I think, on the whole, McKee is talking absolute sh!te.
I think he's talking partial shite. I haven't read Towne's screenplay before Polanski began tinkering with it, so I can't speak about that. I've only read the final screenplay, most of which got filmed. Evelyn and Hollis Mulwray are the most morally uncompromised characters in the film. There is no evil within them. There is no castration scene in "Chinatown." Is McKee referring to the nose-slitting scene? The only horses we see are ridden by the irate farmers who assault Gittes. Earlier, Evelyn refers to having just gone riding. That's it. Horses are not a prominent symbol in the story. The thesis of the film is the futility of good intentions. Given enough power, the bad guys win, as they do in "Chinatown."
I think it's McKee's take on a great film, all others may disagree.
@@kamuelalee It's a great film but he's talking sh!te.
@@ppuh6tfrz646 In other words, he's talking shite.