MovieChat Forums > Bullitt (1968) Discussion > Was Chalmers an unnecessary character?

Was Chalmers an unnecessary character?

posted 8 years ago by RynoII
18 replies | jump to latest

I didn't really see a reason for him to be in this movie per say? I mean he is relevant in the sense that he is the one who starts the plot off, by wanting a witness to testify, and all that.

But that he seems to be the only purpose he serves. The plot is a simple crime story, of a cop figuring out a case.

But then we have this political guy who keeps showing up, that Bullitt doesn't like, even though he is not necessarily as bad of a guy, as the movie makes him out to be. So he is desperate to have a witness testify. Lots of people in the prosecution/court business would be.

The same way, a cop would be desperate to not have HIS case ruined.

I think that the movie makes him out to be the true villain, but it feels very shoehorned in, since he wanted one mobster to testify against others, and testifying against the mob, is always a good thing. Bullitt says tells him that having to compromise is BS, but what world does Bullitt live in really?

I understand how Chalmers is trying to buy Bullitt off, by offering him promotions and things like that, and Bullitt would not like that, in some situations. But in this situation, all Chalmers wants is his witness. Boo hoo for Bullitt. It just comes off as shoehorned in for me, when the main plot seems to be the case at hand.

What do you think?

[–] Doghouse-6 8 years ago

The true villains - the hitmen (Mike, the shooter; Phil, the driver) - are figures rather than characters, remaining largely silent and basically anonymous. The dramatic purpose Chalmers serves is that of antagonist to Bullitt's protagonist.

Without Chalmers' presence, we'd be left with a rather dry investigative procedural generating little dramatic conflict or emotion. Because the Senate Subcommittee hearing is a political function and Chalmers an ambitious type hoping to use it as a springboard to elective office, it makes dramatic sense to involve politics, both within and outside the police department, as a central element of dramatic conflict, a part of which entails the divergent motivations of both Bullitt and Chalmers. As you suggest, each is concerned only with his personal priority: Chalmers, the hearing and his witness; Bullitt, apprehending the killers.

Bullitt's run-ins with Chalmers, occasioned by his single-minded focus on his own job and refusal to sell out for career advancement, reveal aspects of his character that would otherwise have remained obscure. And that his most frequent episodes of conflict occur with one who is supposed to be on his side, rather than with the "outlaws," makes for a richer and more complexly-layered story.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] rogueforte 8 years ago

Something that should be considered when discussing the Chalmers' character relevance is the year in which this movie was made. In 1968, there was this huge anti-establishment "don't trust anyone over 30" mentality with the youth of America that was sweeping the nation (largely due to the Vietnam war). Chalmers, along with his police department lackey, Captain Baker (played by Norman Fell) were the establishment with no morals, interested only in their own personal gain at other's expense. In past movies of this type, it was rare that a legitimate authority figure would be so morally bankrupt, yet with a veneer of respectability. In that sense, Chalmers sort of paved the way for future characters that have gotten so prevalent as to become a cliché.

So, while it's true neither Chalmers nor Baker were really necessary in the context of the movie, they definitely fit in, given the time, and go a long way to elevating Frank Bullitt to a sort of 'anti-hero' who saw through their sleazy, self-serving demeanor and which would lead in subsequent years to other, popular, anti-establishment movie characters like 'Popeye' Doyle, Harry Callahan, and Frank Serpico.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chester-copperpot-1 8 years ago

Chalmers uneccessary? He's the real villain in this movie. The villains aren't the mobsters or Ross, it's Chalmers. The entire film is about the race between Chalmers and Bullitt to find Ross MacGuffin. Didn't you notice? What film did you see?

[–] Ghetto_Defendant 8 years ago

Perfect explanation

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

I understand that Chalmer's being the main villain was the movie's intention, but you don't care about his cause at all.

Why does Bullitt find him to be such an adversary? Cause he picked a bat hotel to put Ross in, which lead to one of the cop's being shot? Although that was not his intention, is it really enough to make him the main necessary villain to be against, even more than the mobsters who are more responsible?

And as for as not trusting anyone over 30 mentality, Bulitt is over 30, so who is he to put on such a pedestal?

[–] Ghetto_Defendant 8 years ago

It seems to me that the intention of the writer and the director is misdirection. From the beginning, we the audience see Ross and the double, and we aren't sure if Chalmers is aware of this, too. (We even question ourselves: is this the same guy?)

Bullitt is well aware that he and his partner (and the other detective) are putting their lives in danger guarding Ross. Bullitt trusts his partner, the other detective, and his immediate supervisor. However, he first meets D.A. Chalmers during a party in Chalmer's VERY expensive Pacific Heights. Bullitt isn't sure whether he can trust someone do plugged into society and politics (the establishment, as another poster wrote).

Meanwhile, the double gets shot and only five men are privvy to the location. This makes Bullitt even more suspicious because he knows that Chalmers is the only person that he really doesn't know.

The audience follows Bullitt's thinking and is kept wondering through 4/5ths of the movie is Chalmers is a bad guy.

I'd say misdirection is what makes Chalmers necessary to the film. Otherwise, it might have been a very pedestrian and predictable movie.

[–] RynoII 8 years ago

Misdirection maybe, but even after the twist is found out, Chalmers is still in the movie, like in the whole airport sequence for example.

[–] MrLuthor89 7 years ago

When I was younger I fullly expected the big Keyser Soze reveal that Chalmers was masterminding the whole scenario. I was disappointed when that wasn't the case initially.

Upon revisiting the film as an adult I realized that he was Bullitt's nemesis in an ideological sense.

These men represent two sides of the law; the cop on the beat and the politician pulling the strings.

One is out to make things right. Plain and simple. The other is out for power.

Chalmers didn't need to snarl, twirl his mustache and get into a firefight with Bullitt. The two of them were opposed in a much deeper way.

As stated by one of the posters above, a great deal of mistrust began to boil in The US around the time of the films release. More and more people were learning the harsh truth truth that many aspiring politicos were more about the acquisition of power over the safety of the American people.

RIP Robert Vaughn

[–] RynoII 7 years ago

Maybe it worked better for it's time, but since Chalmers was not a real huge criminal or a murderer, like the other opponents, I just found his battle with Bullitt, to be kind of petty in comparison.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Chalmers villainy manifests in his attitude...

...how he moves quickly to have the black surgeon taken off of the surgery.

..how he keeps imposing his importance on everyone he meets.

..how he leaps into "I'll crucify him" with Bullitt and insults him almost immediately after things go wrong: "In your parlance, you blew it."

...how he corners Bullitt's boss and HIS FAMILY at CHURCH to insinuate that there's big money to be made with promotion if the boss goes his way...and a writ of habeas corpus to be served(AT CHURCH) in any event.

Chalmers spends the movie in a state of arrogant bullying, as a "default position," and to a no-nonsense good guy like Bullitt, that's almost as bad as the gun-toting mob hitmen. "You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine," Bullitt warns Chalmbers early on. Later, "Let's get something straight. I don't like you."

Neither do we!

[–] puplover (89) 7 years ago

Excellent interpretation. Thank you.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Thank you for reading!

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 7 years ago

His importance to the film aside, Chalmers in my view is simply an interesting character to watch.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

There are people in real life -- I've met them -- who, in their quest for power , or money, or both, simply take on the belief that bullying and dominating other people is "the only way to obtain and retain power." It doesn't matter to them if they are liked. They are proud of NOT being liked, and consider most other people beneath them.

Chalmers is interesting for these reasons, I think. We only really see him being "nice" once -- at his fundraiser at his mansion, where he is polite enough to Bullitt on first meeting. But even there, Chalmers moves quickly to "bribing" Bullitt -- "An investigation of this sort can elevate the careers of all who are involved in it." Bullitt understands from the get-go, what kind of man Chalmers is. He doesn't like him.

Indeed, in this first meeting of Bullitt and Chalmers, Bullitt quietly evidences his wariness of Chalmers on two occasions:

Chalmers: We're going after the Organization, once and for all.
Bullitt: I've read your speech.

Later, when Bullitt returns to his car and speaks to Delgado

Delgado: You met Chalmers?
Bullitt:(Slight grin.) Yeah...we're pals.

I did like the fact, by the way, that Bullitt read Chalmers speech. He's up to speed on why his services are needed.

[–] DracTarashV2 (4475) 6 years ago

I appreciate your response. You hit the nail on the head.

[–] ecarle (14979) 6 years ago

Thank you!

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I just saw this thread. This is a good explanation for Chalmers.

I thought similar to RynoII and thought he wasn't necessary. Chalmers seemed like a buffoon when he was a main character and Vaughn was playing him well. Actually, the story is murky and doesn't make sense that Chalmers would fold up the case if his witness is dead. This is Bullitt's explanation for why he hides the body.

A smart Chalmers would want to know what happened and listen to Bullitt explain how the hit went down. Particularly suspicious is how the hit men knew where the witness was being hidden and how did they know to use his name?

Anyway, I agree with you that Chalmers could be a bully and this is the way he treats people. I thought his character would've been better if he was smarter instead of just being self-serving.