MovieChat Forums > Bullitt (1968) Discussion > Is Chalmers really necessary in the movi...

Is Chalmers really necessary in the movie? He's not the bad guy, but why is he the bad guy Part III

posted 5 years ago by Doghouse (447)
79 replies | jump to latest

This additional thread has been started simply to respond in an area with more room to recent replies in what's become a long-running discussion.

"You're not accepting my point of what Baker said that he was just calling his girl friend."

- That's what Baker thinks, but we soon learn he's wrong, when it turns out to be much more than just "calling his girl friend." After the hit men are killed, that phone call is Bullitt's only remaining lead, and it proves to be an important one. Where there are hit men, there's someone who ordered it, and Bullitt's a smart enough cop to suspect there's more behind that call than Baker's hasty assumption suggests.

"How is what Bullitt has a hot lead when Bullitt is already in trouble for doing something stupid?"

- I'm not sure what you're referring to by "something stupid," but Bullitt being "in trouble" has nothing to do with the value of the lead. As stated above, it's the only one he's got, and as long as he hasn't been removed from the case, he's got to follow it.

"All Chalmers did at this point was hand the Captain Bennet the habeas corpus. Certainly, he's entitled to know what happened to his witness."

- And Chalmers learns exactly that, after Bullitt informs Bennett and Baker that the witness is dead and in the morgue listed as a John Doe.

"Mrs. Renick could have just stepped out of her room and gone somewhere. She may still be alive b/c Ross was still trying to make sure Renick was dead. He may have heard the hit men were dead. The whole point is Bullitt was lucky that Ross killed Mrs. Renick before he went to the hotel."

- I don't know what the point of all these hypothetical "could haves" and "may haves" is. That's not what happens in the film. Bullitt would have been "lucky" if he'd gotten to Mrs. Renick before Ross killed her. As it was, he missed her by only minutes after losing time having to explain himself to Bennett and Baker, and then having to get Cathy to drive him to San Mateo because there were no cars left in the department pool.

"If you thought this was a good movie, then I would criticize you for not noticing Bullitt doesn't do much in his investigation. Prior to this, he was lucky for find the Sunshine Cabs taxi driver so fast."

- He "doesn't do much?" He supervises the questioning of the hotel desk clerk, which leads to the cab driver, through whom he retraces the witness's steps, which leads to the phone call, Mrs. Renick, the passport application, the impersonation, the plane reservations and the real Ross himself. And questioning Eddy, the informant, reveals the theft of $2 million and explains why Ross was on the run in the first place. That's investigation, not luck. And all on one Sunday. Not a bad day's work.

"It's simply more of the plot device while Chalmers can't do anything like use other SFPD to search for the hospital report and the black doctor and his doctor."

- Why would Chalmers waste time doing that? As I've said before, the medical chart (what you call "the hospital report") is of no urgency. All Chalmers wants to know is the whereabouts of his witness, which Bullitt reveals that very day.

"All Bullitt is doing is getting a finger print check on Renick. He doesn't even know about the real Ross."

- No, he's getting a fingerprint check on the man everyone has assumed to be Ross, because he's begun to doubt that identity. At the same time, he's also ordered Renick's passport application, and both of these confirm the corpse's true identity as that of Al Renick, revealing the real Ross to be alive and on the loose. That's smart police work.

"Since Bullitt's and his detective's fingerprints are all over the evidence, he can't tie the real Ross to the murder of Mrs. Renick. Some detective. A real piece of work lol."

- All over what evidence? The items in the trunks that Bullitt and Delgetti are handling came from the airport (as Tony tells Bullitt: "Miss Simmons's luggage has just arrived from the airport"). They weren't at the hotel when she was killed, and Ross was never anywhere near them. They're being examined not for forensic evidence in her murder, but to understand her connection to the man they think is Ross. You have to pay attention to what the film tells you.

"I think all of the above shows that we do not need Chalmers in this movie."

- Okay, that's an opinion, but one I believe is misguided. Mine was stated way back at the beginning of the first thread:

"Without Chalmers' presence, we'd be left with a rather dry investigative procedural generating little dramatic conflict or emotion.

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."

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>When it comes to movies, we're all critics, and valid criticisms are fine. When they're based on misinterpretations, like that involving Bullitt and Delgetti not wearing gloves for instance, I only try to point out details in the film that clear them up (that's in the new thread).<<

I'm not misinterpreting anything, but you are. Bullitt and his detective screwed up in examining Renick's luggage as it was evidence in the murder of Mrs. Renick. Bullitt became a joke because he called for fingerprints to be done afterward.

>>You wrote in a post yesterday, "Otherwise, you would have given more reasons why this movie is very good." It's never been my mission to convince anyone that the film's better than they think it is; only to cite details in the film that clarify plot points upon which criticisms are based.<<

Well, we disagreed on the movie we saw and I already gave you my reasons what I saw. I don't think my details of the movie are wrong. For example, Renick getting facial surgery to look like Ross. I also explained what Chalmers did as Federal DA or assistant DA. The movie doesn't state, so it's open to interpretation. Also, I thought it was a mediocre movie, but a popular one due to the chase scene and cool detective and his hot gf.

Anyway, let's leave it at that and we saw different movies.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- That's what Baker thinks, but we soon learn he's wrong, when it turns out to be much more than just "calling his girl friend." After the hit men are killed, that phone call is Bullitt's only remaining lead, and it proves to be an important one. Where there are hit men, there's someone who ordered it, and Bullitt's a smart enough cop to suspect there's more behind that call than Baker's hasty assumption suggests.<<

Well, you missed my point of Bullitt getting lucky in that Ross killed Mrs. Renick before he went to her hotel.

He isn't that smart of a cop. He said Chalmers would fold up the investigation, hid a dead witness that was killed under his protection, had the doctor hide Renick's medical chart, and said he would take responsibility. He also screwed up the searching of the Renick's luggage. All of this could be used against him and his detectives as hiding why the witness they were supposed to protect was killed. This is what I mean by being stupid.

>>- Okay, that's an opinion, but one I believe is misguided. Mine was stated way back at the beginning of the first thread:<<

It may be my opinion, but it's not misguided. Chalmers isn't needed, but to use Bullitt for protection of his witness as he's highly recommended. There really isn't any reason for him to blame Bullitt for Renick's death. He would want to know why the killers knew where his witness was at and how they knew to use his name. Bullitt may tell him Renick undid the door chain. Then Chalmers would not be a dumbass who is solely interested in publicity in order to be elected for higher office as he's made out to be. Bullitt investigates to find out what happened and Chalmers allows him to investigate.

If the story wants to make Chalmers an antagonist to Bullitt's protagonist, then he could be made smarter and have his own LE besides Bullitt and SFPD. Then, Bullitt would have to be smarter and not do stupid stuff like hide a dead witness. Both Chalmers and Bullitt know the wintess was killed. They each try to find out what happened. In this case, Chalmers has vetted his witness and knows more about the deal made than Bullitt, but Bullitt has his lead.

Anyway, I'll stand by what I said.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I'm not misinterpreting anything, but you are. Bullitt and his detective screwed up in examining Renick's luggage as it was evidence in the murder of Mrs. Renick."

- There are some things that are simply matters of fact as stated by the film, and not open to interpretation. The film explicitly states, as I said above, that the police retrieved the trunks from the airport. They were never at the hotel, and thus offer no forensic evidence in Mrs. Renick's murder. That can't be interpreted away.

"Well, you missed my point of Bullitt getting lucky in that Ross killed Mrs. Renick before he went to her hotel."

- No, I got it, and answered it: Bullitt would have been lucky if he'd gotten there before she was killed. What's lucky about missing the killer by only minutes?

"There really isn't any reason for him to blame Bullitt for Renick's death."

- Again, there is simply the matter of what the film states, in Chalmers's dialogue: "In your parlance, you blew it. You knew the significance of his testimony, yet you failed to take adequate measures to protect him. So, to you, it was a job. Nothing more." That's his reason. And in that instance, he happens to be right: Bulllitt's assignment was to protect the witness, and he "blew it." He's not a stupid cop, but by no means a perfect one. He makes mistakes, as people do.

This is at the very core of narrative drama. Even the most memorable sequence of a film you rated higher (if I recall correctly), The French Connection, arises from mistakes made by both Doyle and his quarry. Most films would be terribly dull if every character made perfect decisions. Nor does anyone's life play out that way.

Con'td...

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"He would want to know why the killers knew where his witness was at and how they knew to use his name."

- And yet again, the film tells us otherwise:

BULLITT: "They knew where to look for him, and they used your name to get in."

CHALMERS: "That's hardly the issue."

Here, Bullitt has tried to enlist Chalmers's help in investigating the shooting, and Chalmers has clearly indicated he has no such intentions, and further indicates that his political interests are of greater importance: "I shall personally officiate at your public crucifixion if Ross doesn't recover during the course of the hearing so I can at least present his deposition. And I assure you I shall not suffer the consequence of your incompetence."

You may find it unsatisfactory, but it happens to be completely true to life. The biggest and most compelling news story in the country this very week has been about just that: a conflict between political interests on the one hand and investigation of criminal wrongdoing on the other. The public finds it compelling because it's so much more than simply white-hat/good-guys vs black-hat/bad-guys, and because the audacious stupidity of some of its participants staggers their imaginations.

And it's why we're talking about Bullitt and not about something like Arizona Bushwackers a half-century after their 1968 releases: its relevance still resonates after more than 50 years.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- And yet again, the film tells us otherwise:

BULLITT: "They knew where to look for him, and they used your name to get in."

CHALMERS: "That's hardly the issue."<<

You're missing my points. Chalmers acts likes an idiot, so Bullitt can look smarter than him. I'm sure Robert Vaughn complained about his lines making his character look stupid. Yet, he does admirable work making it believable. If the writers made Chalmers smart, then it would've made for a more interesting movie. He could have the FBI investigate while Bullitt has to figure out what happened, too. He also would have to be more careful if he's going to hide the body. I doubt he would do that if Chalmers had the FBI investigating, but even if he does, it puts more pressure on him to figure out the case. The way it is, Chalmers doesn't have anyone on his side of the street to work with. He still has to depend on SFPD. Getting a writ of habeas corpus on the the police is a bit stupid and a-holeish. If he has jurisdiction, then he just tells Bennett to order Bullitt to tell him like he did with Baker.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

And you're missing not only the film's point about Chalmers, but one of its central themes: politics vs justice. It's a centuries-old conflict that's affected virtually every government that's ever existed. Current news provides an excellent example, and history is full of them.

I'm afraid the rest, about Chalmers "hav[ing] the FBI investigate," or his "jurisdiction" or "tell[ing] Bennett to order Bullitt" represents a rather hopeless mix-up of the limits of authority applying to local police, legislative bodies and federal law enforcement. There simply isn't any position in existence under our system of government that would allow someone like Chalmers - or anyone else - to inject himself willy-nilly into all of them with any official authority whatsoever. He can use only the legal tools available to him (like a writ of habeas corpus to produce his witness) and the influence his money, connections and public visibility allow. In short, he can't order anyone to do anything unless, like Baker, they willingly submit.

Chalmers is merely bringing a witness to testify before a Senate committee on organized crime. It's not a prosecution or judicial proceeding of any kind, and he has only the authority the committee chair has granted him, and only within the legal limits of the Senate itself.

If you've followed recent news, you'll know that such a committee or representative thereof can't do much more than only request. They have subpoena power, but even that must be referred to the courts if resisted. In other words, when it comes to authority, Chalmers on his own has pretty much zippo.

Is he an asshole? Sure. Hundreds of real-life examples just like him can be found in American politics today. To put a finer point on it, we currently have a U.S. Attorney General, Treasury Sec'y and Director Of National Intelligence in openly defiant violation of unambiguous U.S. law, To date, they've faced no consequences. Why? The conflict between politics and justice.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>And you're missing not only the film's point about Chalmers, but one of its central themes: politics vs justice.<<

How can I be missing the point about Chalmers when he has the power to fold up the case (sarcasm)? We have a murder and it happened while Bullitt and his men were guarding Chalmers' witness. We also have a cop who was shot. Thus, how can a private attorney, according to you, just fold up a murder case that happened in San Francisco? Your explanations of the film does not make sense. If anything, SFPD would have jurisdiction. Thus, why does Bullitt move a witness who died under his custody? Wouldn't he look guilty of not doing his job of protecting his witness? Baker thought Bullitt was crazy and Bennett was starting to go that way, but gave him until Monday to come up with something. Furthermore, Bullitt doesn't seem interested in getting Ross to testify and get the organization's upper echelon. This doesn't seem to be part of his side of the street. Finally, how can Chalmers work his side of the street when all he has is the SFPD? Oh, I can fold up the case if the witness is dead, but I can't order a lower ranking lieutenant to tell me what happened with the witness. I need to file legal paperwork and wait days. It's a wonder Ross ended up dealing with private attorney Chalmers in the first place.

The movie is a sloppy and murky story, so there are mistakes throughout such as we do not know what
Chalmers' job is, what is the deal he made with Ross, why Renick is placed in a not too safe hotel, why the hit men do not make sure Renick is dead, when and what the real Ross knew what happened with Renick and then Mrs. Renick? Ross is forced to change flights because Chalmers and the police are on his tail. If we knew what deal he made with Chalmers, then maybe he could still go to Chalmers to protect him if he is going to be caught in Italy. I don't think the story had to gel was important after Chalmers is made to look foolish.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"How can I be missing the point about Chalmers when he has the power to fold up the case (sarcasm)?"

- You don't realize it, but you've illustrated that very point: politics vs justice. But I'm sorry to say it's your description of the story and the interests, functions and limits of authority of the persons and entities involved that's "sloppy and murky." I'll try to sort it out.

Chalmers, who is working with a Senate committee, is bringing a witness to testify before that committee in hearings, and requests police protection for him over the weekend. And he hopes to use those hearings, his participation in them and the publicity they generate as a springboard to political office.

Bullitt accepts the assignment of protecting the witness, and is indeed "guilty of not doing his job" when the witness is shot. He now has a criminal case on top of his protection assignment. When the witness dies, it becomes a homicide case.

That's where SFPD jurisdiction begins and ends. Bullitt isn't "interested in getting Ross to testify and get the organization's upper echelon," because both his assignment and authority were limited to guarding and delivering him safely to the hearing on Monday. If the shooting hadn't occurred, that would have been the end of Bullitt's and the SFPD's involvement. A city police officer has no function within a Senate committee or hearing, unless he's testifying before it as a witness himself.

A Senate committee is not a criminal prosecutorial entity, only a legislative and investigative one. They can write new law based on what their investigations uncover, and/or refer criminal matters to the appropriate agencies (local D.A.; state or federal prosecutors), but that's where their authority begins and ends. That's why Chalmers says, "We're going to expose the Organization." Expose. Not charge; not prosecute; not "get." All he and the committee can officially do is uncover facts in that public venue. The rest would be up to those other agencies.

Cont'd...

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Chalmers could have cooperated with Bullitt by giving him information about Ross that might aid in the shooting investigation, but he clearly states he has no such intentions ("That's hardly the issue") and is interested only in his witness ("And I've got a witness who can't talk") and his political future ("I assure you I shall not suffer the consequence of your incompetence"). And to protect it, he will use his influence and public platform to scapegoat Bullitt ("I shall personally officiate at your public crucifixion if Ross doesn't recover during the course of the hearing").

Bullitt now knows where he stands with him: Chalmers cares about politics more than about justice. That's what Bullitt means when he says, "You work your side of the street [politics], and I'll work mine [justice]." And it's why Bullitt has reason to believe Chalmers will use his political influence within the PD to get him removed after the witness dies and the investigation back-burnered, and to get a disciplinary hearing against him initiated. That's what Bullitt means when tells Dr. Willard "I want this kept open" (the witness will remain officially "alive") and "If Chalmers finds out Ross is dead, he's gonna fold this up and I want the man that killed him."

It's also why Bullitt refuses to cooperate with Chalmers at the airport. He could if he cared to, but has no official responsibility to do so. His protection assignment ended when the witness died ("You sent us to guard the wrong man, Mr. Chalmers"), and his duty now is only apprehending the man responsible for a second homicide and engineering the first.

As I said, Chalmers can't order anyone in the PD to do anything; he can only use his influence and pull with departmental higher-ups. It can be reasonably inferred from his hints of career advancement to both Bullitt and Bennett that Chalmers is friendly - and politically aligned - with departmental brass above Baker, and may even have helped them get elevated to their positions. That's how political patronage and favors work (and can explain how he's able to use Baker as his personal lapdog, following him around and using departmental authority in places like a hospital where Chalmers has no influence).

And because of that, it's also how Bullitt and Bennett find themselves in the position of having their necks stuck way out. You said much earlier that no one really gets what they need at the end of the film. That's right, and is very much a part of that central theme: the conflict between politics and justice. When that conflict takes place, it rarely leads to optimal conclusions for everyone involved.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Haha. I didn't want more of your opinion, but you're entitled to it. We just saw different movies. I think the book backs me up more as does Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB summaries, so my version of the story is more accurate. However, I will admit the Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB viewers rate the movie higher than I did of 7 out of 10 stars. I downgraded it more due to the murky story. Other parts were well done and the film shot in a realistic manner and cinema photography. The editing was top notch and won an Oscar.

Rotten Tomatoes
"Robert L. Pike's crime novel Mute Witness makes the transition to the big screen in this film from director Peter Yates. In one of his most famous roles, Steve McQueen stars as tough-guy police detective Frank Bullitt. The story begins with Bullitt assigned to a seemingly routine detail, protecting mafia informant Johnny Ross (Pat Renella), who is scheduled to testify against his Mob cronies before a Senate subcommittee in San Francisco. But when a pair of hitmen ambush their secret location, fatally wounding Ross, things don't add up for Bullitt, so he decides to investigate the case on his own. Unfortunately for him, ambitious senator Walter Chalmers (Robert Vaughn), the head of the aforementioned subcommittee, wants to shut his investigation down, hindering Bullitt's plan to not only bring the killers to justice but discover who leaked the location of the hideout. ~ Matthew Tobey, Rovi"

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062765/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

If you say so, jasonbourne. It was your questions about Chalmers, after all, that kicked this off in the first place, and I was only trying to answer those and others that came up by citing specific scenes and dialogue to explain them, and clear up related misconceptions about things like Senate committees and jurisdictional authority.

Sorry you didn't find it helpful, but I enjoyed it just the same. So, it looks like we've reached the end of our long but interesting road.

Happy viewing.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>It was your questions about Chalmers, after all, that kicked this off in the first place, and I was only trying to answer those and others that came up by citing specific scenes and dialogue to explain them, and clear up related misconceptions about things like Senate committees and jurisdictional authority.<<

My questions had to do with is Chalmers necessary because he ends up as only a setup guy for Bullitt. He is the guy who we find arranged for his witness to be protected until he can testify after the weekend. We are not told how he became involved with Ross and what kind of deal he made. We are not told who he is in regards to position which becomes important because it would explain his actions. Other movie reviewers thought he was a senator.

It wasn't just questions about Chalmers, but that of the story. This is because the story is murky as we watch it unfold and have to figure out what is happening. After watching the movie, we found out that Chalmers was just a plot device of having a protagonist detective and antagonist Federal DA, private attorney, senator, or whatever.

Another thing that set the discussion off had to do with Ross. He's the one the mob is after in the opening scenes. Then we see Renick going around San Francisco in a Sunshine cab. It was who the doorman called? He called Ross. That led to Chalmers coming in as he was the second item on the list for Renick to call after Mark Hopkins. Then the real Ross is pretty much forgotten until he ended up coming back into the movie by killing Mrs. Renick at her hotel. I think you explained what happened in the movie, but didn't explain what you thought about the movie. That was part of what I was trying to get across. I thought you were pretty much spot on as to what happened on screen, but a few scenes made what happened fit to your interpretation. However, I didn't know what you thought of the movie. I thought plot device brought it down.

Continued

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

I hesitated before replying, because I had the impression you'd grown weary and we were done, but I do try to be courteous.

Most of your reply above treads ground we've already covered, including your pointed inquiry about what I thought of the film. I've praised its intelligence, and the way it respects that of viewers by providing just enough information for them to connect the dots, rather than weighing the narrative down by spelling everything out; I've expressed my appreciation for its use of the protagonist/antagonist "device," and the way it enriches and texturizes the drama beyond what simple good-guy/bad-guy premises can accomplish; I've admired its exploitation of the politics vs justice theme the "device" introduces. And I think I've said I've never found the story "murky;" it requires only attention to detail on the part of the viewer, and some "doing the math."

Sorry to be repetitive, but you asked. I'll add that the minimalist construction and style quite compliment an investigative story, as it allows viewers to "play detective" along with Bullitt as they do their own investigation alongside his.

"...a few scenes made what happened fit to your interpretation."

- I don't know how that's even possible. I try to fit my interpretations to the scenes, using what the film states as a guide. I can't change what's in it, and if an interpretation conflicts with it, I reject it (like Chalmers being a Senator or D.A., for example; the film states he holds no public office, therefore, he isn't either one). Sometimes doing the math involves subtraction rather than addition: take away what doesn't fit, and you're left only with what does. As you said once, Occam's Razor. Same applies to our disagreements about the sutures and the luggage: no assumptions necessary about plastic surgery or contaminating evidence.

If I "made what happened fit to [my] interpretation," I wonder what scenes you could be thinking of.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>I hesitated before replying, because I had the impression you'd grown weary and we were done, but I do try to be courteous.<<

Now, you're sounding like Chalmers and I'm Bullitt haha. I only replied because of your:

>>And you're missing not only the film's point about Chalmers, but one of its central themes: politics vs justice<<

My point was Chalmers didn't have to be just political and out for his own good. Even if he is this way, then he should've been savvy enough to figure out he's been set up, Instead, he continues on being the blundering antagonist. That was my big complaint because he's reduced to being a plot device. I don't know how many times and ways I explained this to you, but your opinion was to explain the movie. That left me shaking my head at some of the interpretations you brought into this movie. While you had it mostly correct and we agreed on these points, it was what you interpreted in this movie that made me question your opinion. I was ready to accept that we saw different movies until you said I was missing the film's point of politics vs. justice. That's exactly what I had complained about that Chalmers was a 2-dimensional character only out to further his career in politics. As I said, he could've been a Fed DA or asst. DA, senator, or state asst. DA if it was like the book. Only you thought he was a private attorney (own interpretation).

I started reading the book now. Bulitt's character is Lt. Clancy and he shot and killed a different Chalmers' witness before when he was guarding him. Chalmers punished Clancy by him losing his promotion and getting transferred out of his precinct. Thus, he doesn't really care about the new witness testifying against the mob which was one complaint I had (no explanation in movie). Anyway, Clancy shot this witness he was guarding in self-defense, but Chalmers needles him about being a trigger-happy policeman.

Continued

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I was ready to accept that we saw different movies until you said I was missing the film's point of politics vs. justice. That's exactly what I had complained about that Chalmers was a 2-dimensional character only out to further his career in politics."

- That's the conflict the screen writers chose to exploit. I appreciate it not only for its topicality then and continuing relevance now, but for broadening that conflict beyond mere personal enmity between two characters to encompass larger themes. I feel it enriches the drama and explained why; on the other hand, you find it objectionable. That's okay; our tastes in narrative entertainment just happen to differ in that regard.

"Only you thought he was a private attorney (own interpretation)."

- Not just a private attorney, but one serving as counsel to the subcommittee, a conclusion reached from what the film states: Chalmers holds no public office. With his involvement in the Senate hearing, that leaves counsel to the committee as the most likely one (of which I've furnished several real life examples).

"Thus, he doesn't really care about the new witness testifying against the mob which was one complaint I had (no explanation in movie)."

- This doesn't bother me at all. The film needs to offer no explanation because Bullitt's assignment is only to guard the witness until the hearing on Monday. If he hadn't been shot, that's where Bullitt's involvement would have ended. The shooting changes all that.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"Only you thought he was a private attorney (own interpretation)."

- Not just a private attorney, but one serving as counsel to the subcommittee, a conclusion reached from what the film states: Chalmers holds no public office. With his involvement in the Senate hearing, that leaves counsel to the committee as the most likely one (of which I've furnished several real life examples).<<

Still, it was your interpretation while the film didn't say. It means following what they wrote could make your interpretation nonsensical, too. As I pointed out, I had a different job to me while watching, others had him as a US senator. All you can do is state what job he could not have held such as state DA. Now, I have more ammo against the film as it was based on the book, but it veered away from the book and made the story murky and nonsensical. The book makes sense, so I blame the story writers for their failure in the movie.

>>"Thus, he doesn't really care about the new witness testifying against the mob which was one complaint I had (no explanation in movie)."

- This doesn't bother me at all. The film needs to offer no explanation because Bullitt's assignment is only to guard the witness until the hearing on Monday. If he hadn't been shot, that's where Bullitt's involvement would have ended. The shooting changes all that.<<

I got that, but it became important to me. What bothered me, too, was Bullitt saying Chalmers was going to fold the case. Why would he do that? The book explains why because of Chalmers punishing Clancy in the book for killing a different witness in another case. He doesn't even mention folding the case (albeit I haven't reached that point in the book). More bad on the movie's writers. Clancy continues it is strange that Rossi is going to testify in New York and why would he do that since he's a big time mobster. Instead of Chalmers acting like getting ahead in politics is his main goal, he acknowledges what Clancy just said.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Still, it was your interpretation while the film didn't say. It means following what they wrote could make your interpretation nonsensical, too."

- It's the interpretation that best fits what the film does say; a senator or a DA don't, because they'd contradict what's in the film. I honestly don't know what your second statement there means. How can "following what they wrote" make it "nonsensical?" That's...well, never mind.

"I have more ammo against the film..."

- "Ammo?" Hmmm. Interesting.

"...Bullitt saying Chalmers was going to fold the case. Why would he do that?"

- I've explained that: an investigation into the shooting would be publicly and politically embarrassing for Chalmers; he'd rather distract attention from the cause of the shooting by dragging Bullitt before a disciplinary hearing alleging, as he says, "incompetence" and "negligence." That's what their scene in the hospital tells us. It's your privilege not to like it, but the script neatly justifies it.

Once again, we have a real-life example in current U.S. politics: a president who wants to avoid scrutiny into his own actions, so he tries to discredit investigators or distract attention from them by ginning up investigations of his political rivals.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"Still, it was your interpretation while the film didn't say. It means following what they wrote could make your interpretation nonsensical, too."

- It's the interpretation that best fits what the film does say; a senator or a DA don't, because they'd contradict what's in the film. I honestly don't know what your second statement there means. How can "following what they wrote" make it "nonsensical?" That's...well, never mind.<<

Yes, we discussed already. However, what I sad was...

If you follow a nonsensical story in the movie and make your explanations fit what the movie is telling you, then you explanations would be nonsensical, too. If a = b, c = a, then c = b where a = movie story, b = nonsensical, c = your interpretation. If the movie story is nonsensical and your explanations are from the movie story, then your explanations are nonsensical.

>>"I have more ammo against the film..."

- "Ammo?" Hmmm. Interesting.<<

The book makes it much more realistic and explains why things are like the way it is in the movie in regards to why Bullitt acts the way he does to Chalmers. However, the movie doesn't really explain Chalmers except in the way you put him. The book does a better job of filling out the Chalmers character and tells you his job. The movie should have told you his job because it is important to his character. Didn't we agree on this when we started this discussion?

Before, I didn't have much of argument to present because the movie didn't make any sense. The book explains what the situation is, so the movie is better understood and not nonsensical. Even if Bullitt kills Chalmers' witness at the end, there should be better explanation why Bullitt and Chalmers start off not liking each other. Bullitt read Chalmers speech, but it would be a stereotype just to make a judgement of Chalmers based on that.

Continued

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"...Bullitt saying Chalmers was going to fold the case. Why would he do that?"

- I've explained that: an investigation into the shooting would be publicly and politically embarrassing for Chalmers; he'd rather distract attention from the cause of the shooting by dragging Bullitt before a disciplinary hearing alleging, as he says, "incompetence" and "negligence." That's what their scene in the hospital tells us. It's your privilege not to like it, but the script neatly justifies it.

Once again, we have a real-life example in current U.S. politics: a president who wants to avoid scrutiny into his own actions, so he tries to discredit investigators or distract attention from them by ginning up investigations of his political rivals.<<

Again, more of the same. I understood what you said, but it still didn't make sense to me. Even if Chalmers has his reasons for folding up his case, Bullitt would still have a murder to investigate even if Chalmers files a complain against SFPD. Bullitt would have jurisdiction. Chalmers' job is over since his witness is dead. So what if he presses on to blame the police to save face? As an attorney, he cannot just fold up a case. That makes no sense. A Fed DA or asst. DA would not do that. He'd have the FBI investigate, but there is no FBI in the movie.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Again, more of the same."

- When you ask the same question, expect the same answer.

"Bullitt would still have a murder to investigate even if Chalmers files a complain against SFPD. Bullitt would have jurisdiction."

- You won't like it, but that answer's the same too: Chalmers could use his influence with SFPD brass to have Bullitt removed from the case and get it back-burnered. It may not make sense to you, but such things happen all the time. Remember the theme: it's perhaps the most insidious scourge of government.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"Again, more of the same."

- When you ask the same question, expect the same answer.<<

Yes, I know, but we saw different movies. I think we both liked the action parts, the tone of the movie, the lighting and realistic affects, but widely differ on our opinions of the characters and story. Earlier, I did not know what you thought. If you thought it was mediocre, then I could not see how you could say some of the things you said. However, now I know you thought it was a very good movie and why you would say those things. You may think it's based on the movie, but it's still your interpretation. To me, the story didn't make sense, so I had to go to the book to help me make sense of the movie.

>>- You won't like it, but that answer's the same too: Chalmers could use his influence with SFPD brass to have Bullitt removed from the case and get it back-burnered. It may not make sense to you, but such things happen all the time. Remember the theme: it's perhaps the most insidious scourge of government.<<

Chalmers influence only makes sense to you. No way Chalmers has that kind of pull with SFPD to get a lieutenant removed from a case unless he has evidence of wrongdoing. Or even have the investigation quashed. The hospital report and interviewing the doctor would be enough to remove Bullitt, that which I explained over and over. A private attorney does not have the power nor influence to get a case scuttled. It would have be a higher official. Name an attorney who has that kind of pull? In the book, Chalmers is state DA, so he has the power and can use state troopers. He's already had Bullitt's promotion scuttled and had him transferred.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Chalmers influence only makes sense to you. No way Chalmers has that kind of pull with SFPD to get a lieutenant removed from a case unless he has evidence of wrongdoing. Or even have the investigation quashed."

- I've explained before about political patronage, which is something that many millions of people understand. A representative of a Senate committee has no authority allowing the assignment of a police lieutenant to protect his witness; that's extended to Chalmers as a courtesy. Likewise with Baker acting as his unofficial aide-de-camp.

Those things don't happen unless Chalmers is well-connected within the SFPD at a level higher than Baker's or Bennett's. It's what Stanton means when he says Chalmers represents "a lotta juice." It's something needing no explanation to viewers with any awareness of the intersections of law and politics in governance, who understand it instinctively.

If you don't wish to accept it, that's your privilege, but it's a very real thing.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- I've explained before about political patronage, which is something that many millions of people understand. A representative of a Senate committee has no authority allowing the assignment of a police lieutenant to protect his witness; that's extended to Chalmers as a courtesy. Likewise with Baker acting as his unofficial aide-de-camp.

Those things don't happen unless Chalmers is well-connected within the SFPD at a level higher than Baker's or Bennett's. It's what Stanton means when he says Chalmers represents "a lotta juice." It's something needing no explanation to viewers with any awareness of the intersections of law and politics in governance, who understand it instinctively.

If you don't wish to accept it, that's your privilege, but it's a very real thing.<<

Name some of these private attorneys then and some people it happened with and I may get a better idea of what you mean. I asked who they are already. I named RFK as possible basis for my US attorney and presenting testimony before the Senate of organized crime running rampant in America back in 1963 when you said the Senate does not hear criminal cases. They would hear an impeachment case for POTUS, so that goes against what you said.

Again, you're assuming Chalmers' job just like me. It only fits your interpretation of the movie. Not mine.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I named RFK as possible basis for my US attorney and presenting testimony before the Senate of organized crime running rampant in America back in 1963 when you said the Senate does not hear criminal cases."

- And indeed those were not "criminal cases." They were fact-finding hearings. I know you hate repetition, but some things don't seem to be getting through: criminal cases are tried within the Judiciary branch, not the Legislative.

"They would hear an impeachment case for POTUS, so that goes against what you said."

- No, Senate trials following House impeachment are not "criminal cases," either. They determine only whether a president will be removed from office. Any criminal charges related to articles of impeachment are the purview of federal or state justice departments, and their adjudication that of the Judicial branch.

"Name some of these private attorneys then and some people it happened with and I may get a better idea of what you mean."

- If I'd expected a quiz, I'd have taken names, but I do remember that some are now preceded by titles like Representative, Senator and Mayor. They needn't necessarily be lawyers, either. If I had a buck for every time I've read about offspring of a wealthy citizen with friends in the right places, for example, who benefited from charges mysteriously dropped for "insufficient evidence," it would pay this month's utility bills.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"I named RFK as possible basis for my US attorney and presenting testimony before the Senate of organized crime running rampant in America back in 1963 when you said the Senate does not hear criminal cases."

- And indeed those were not "criminal cases." They were fact-finding hearings. I know you hate repetition, but some things don't seem to be getting through: criminal cases are tried within the Judiciary branch, not the Legislative.<<

Again, you are taking things too literally. The Senate is having a hearing on organized crime and that is why Chalmers is presenting his witness. I didn't say anything about a criminal hearing. You did just like you said it again. This is part of the movie.

>>'"Name some of these private attorneys then and some people it happened with and I may get a better idea of what you mean."

- If I'd expected a quiz, I'd have taken names, but I do remember that some are now preceded by titles like Representative, Senator and Mayor. They needn't necessarily be lawyers, either. If I had a buck for every time I've read about offspring of a wealthy citizen with friends in the right places, for example, who benefited from charges mysteriously dropped for "insufficient evidence," it would pay this month's utility bills.'<<

This is Chalmers. You said he can't be state DA as in the book because they are elected. So how could he be a HR, Senator, or Mayor? I don't know of any private attorney during that time. We had Marcia Clarke, Christopher Durden, Johnnie Cochran, Robert Kardashian, Robert Shapiro and F. Lee Bailey during the OJ Simpson trial. OJ's attorneys are private, but they would not have power over the police. That's why I don't understand how your attorney can have "juice" over the police and fold up cases. Even the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes reviewers had them as Senators and such as I pointed out. Your last part about the offspring of a wealthy citizen is different. They aren't mob bosses or doing rackets.

I'm just trying to understand your thinking.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Oh, well, skip it. I'm not sure I'm getting your gist either but, if so, it would only involve more repetition.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Clancy really does not like Chalmers, but for whatever reason, he is getting another chance to guard another witness to testify before the State Crime Commission; it was the Senate in the movie, so the movie made an error if you are still saying the Federal Senate does not hear criminal cases. It was the witness who wanted to stay in the cheap, remote hotel. Chalmers offered him a nicer downtown hotel. Renick could've been put up at the Mark Hopkins, but none of this was explained.

Also, Clancy knows Rossi (Ross) and questions why he wants to testify in New York instead of the west coast. He also thought he would want to talk with the west coast police or the Feds. See, good COMMON SENSE. WC police or the Feds. Also, the witness does not have to be vetted since he's well known by LE. That's all I was asking from the movie. A common sense explanation.

Clancy gets to needle Chalmers back as he says that Rossi's testimony will be a huge story and give Chalmers a big boost. He's the one who brings up the politics, not Chalmers. Clancy doesn't seem to care that this will help his career and so far Chalmers doesn't point this out.

And do you know how Chalmers answers Clancy's questions. He said he doesn't know and he is a bit concerned, but continues that Rossi's testimony will stand wherever it is given. Clancy knows Rossi and says he guilty of every crime in the book and continues to question why he would want to talk. He says every racket reports to Rossi, so he's pretty high up in the organization.

Long story short is Clancy is a streetwise, tough detective with good common sense. Chalmers treats Clancy like he's lower than him, but isn't as dumb as in the movie. He does needle Clancy and gets under his skin. He does treat him condescendingly. They do not like each other, especially Clancy. He gets mad, but is able calm himself down, and bite his tongue. Thus, the book seems to clear up the complaints about the movie's story that I had.

The other errors you made were the ones you addressed, Chalmers' job, and Bullitt getting lucky with real Ross. I can give you a link to proper police procedures about going through a crime scene or evidence since the 1920s if you want. Not need to defend the writers of the movie. Anyway, I'm glad you had an opinion of the movie.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"...another witness to testify before the State Crime Commission; it was the Senate in the movie, so the movie made an error if you are still saying the Federal Senate does not hear criminal cases."

- I don't think either the film or the book made an error. State or city commissions or Congressional committees are fact-finding entities rather than judicial/criminal/prosecutorial ones. Works just fine in both instances.

"I can give you a link to proper police procedures about going through a crime scene or evidence since the 1920s if you want."

- It's a moot point. The luggage is not crime scene evidence, because it was never at the crime scene, so it has nothing to do with Ross. The police retrieved it from the airport, which the film states explicitly. That eliminates any concerns about contaminating evidence. Gloves wouldn't be needed for that any more than they would for, say, examining the Renicks' bank records.

Nice to know you're reading the book and enjoying it (at least, it sounds like you are). And you can already see from it the different directions the author and the screenwriters took in both story and characters.

You might find this interesting: the story behind Warner Bros acquiring the novel for a screen adaptation is that it was intended for Spencer Tracy (as Clancy), who had been off the screen for two years at that point. Nothing came of it, and it languished among other unproduced WB properties until producer Phil D'Antoni came across it, and suggested it to McQueen.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- I don't think either the film or the book made an error. State or city commissions or Congressional committees are fact-finding entities rather than judicial/criminal/prosecutorial ones. Works just fine in both instances.<<

All right. I don't think I made an error if Chalmers is Federal US attorney and he's going to present Ross' testimony in front of the Senate. It was 1968.

>>"I can give you a link to proper police procedures about going through a crime scene or evidence since the 1920s if you want."

- It's a moot point. The luggage is not crime scene evidence, because it was never at the crime scene, so it has nothing to do with Ross. The police retrieved it from the airport, which the film states explicitly. That eliminates any concerns about contaminating evidence. Gloves wouldn't be needed for that any more than they would for, say, examining the Renicks' bank records.<<

You're wrong. It's improper police procedure. There was a cleaver at the scene. The luggage was sent to the airport by Ross to get it away from the crime scene. He took their tickets and passports. You're also wrong in what Bullitt said in that he's asking for fingerprints on the items. He's going to get dead Renick's fingerprints. The detectives are trying to figure out how the killings are tied together and some clue as to their identifty and lead for the killer. If their fingerprints contaminate the evidence, then the evidence may not be admitted.

>>Nice to know you're reading the book and enjoying it (at least, it sounds like you are). And you can already see from it the different directions the author and the screenwriters took in both story and characters.

You might find this interesting: the story behind Warner Bros acquiring the novel for a screen adaptation is that it was intended for Spencer Tracy (as Clancy)...<<

Thanks, I am enjoying the book and your factoid is interesting.

Continued

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I don't think I made an error if Chalmers is Federal US attorney and he's going to present Ross' testimony in front of the Senate. It was 1968."

- The separation of powers articles of the U.S. Constitution are the same now as they were in '68; they've never been amended. Criminal trials were and are conducted within the Judiciary branch (same applies if it's the state senate).

"The luggage was sent to the airport by Ross to get it away from the crime scene."

- This interpretation seems overly complicated, requiring large assumptions not supported by the film, disregard for information that's in it and questionable logic.

1) The film shows Ross is still on the hotel grounds while Bullitt is there, and he's just removing his gloves.

When would Ross have had time to send the trunks to the airport? And why bother? He wore gloves.

2) The film makes a point of revealing that everything in them is new and unused.

Why would Dorothy have the trunks - one of which contains only her husband's things - schlepped from SFO to a hotel in San Mateo when she was there only one night and Al wasn't there at all, only to turn around and have them schlepped back to SFO the next day?

Everything is still perfectly packed when Bullitt and Delgetti break open the locked trunks, and shows no sign of having been rummaged through for tickets or passports (and if Ross had done that, why leave a small fortune in traveler's checks signed with the name he'll be traveling under?).

So: locked trunks; unused things; perfectly packed; retrieved from the airport. The simplest conclusion is that everything was newly-purchased and packed in Chicago, and was stored at the airport overnight between their arrival from Chicago and planned departure for Rome that night.

Con'td...

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"There was a cleaver at the scene."

- The cleaver has nothing to do with Dorothy's murder. Tony's taking an inventory from another cop on another case when Bullitt and Delgetti enter, and interrupts it to tell them the trunks have arrived from the airport and record the personal items Bullitt has brought (locket; watch; necklace). Dorothy was strangled; why would the film introduce a cleaver into that case and then never mention it again?

It's nothing more than evidence room atmosphere. The film is full of such stylistic touches: the small talk about gardening at Chalmers's fundraiser; the jazz quartet at the Coffee Cantata; the O.R. scene dialogue. It's all atmosphere to lend a sense of authenticity.

"The detectives are trying to figure out how the killings are tied together and some clue as to their identifty and lead for the killer.

- With this, I agree. I said as much at the top of the thread: "They're being examined...to understand her connection to the man they think is Ross.

"He took their tickets and passports."

- Right, but not from the luggage. Dorothy would have had both of their passports and tickets with her, because Renick had nothing on him that identified him. All Ross had to do was grab them (most likely from her handbag) on the way out.

"Isn't Tracy more known as a dramatic actor than action star? He could play Clancy as in the book."

- Quite so. Would have been a very different film with Tracy, and one can readily see from the book why they had him in mind.

"Anyway, nice hashing this movie with you. I'm watching and reviewing 60s movies to understand my parent's generation better."

- And for me. And I guess that puts me in your parents' generation. I was in high school when the film came out.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- The cleaver has nothing to do with Dorothy's murder. Tony's taking an inventory from another cop on another case when Bullitt and Delgetti enter, and interrupts it to tell them the trunks have arrived from the airport and record the personal items Bullitt has brought (locket; watch; necklace). Dorothy was strangled; why would the film introduce a cleaver into that case and then never mention it again?<<

Okay, I was going by the script there. I remember her throat was slit as there was blood on her neck area, but Bullitt says it was a strangulation.

>>"He took their tickets and passports."

- Right, but not from the luggage. Dorothy would have had both of their passports and tickets with her, because Renick had nothing on him that identified him. All Ross had to do was grab them (most likely from her handbag) on the way out.<<

You and the detectives don't know that for certain. The dialog makes it a point to say the tickets and passports were missing. It means they were two of the things they were looking for, with no gloves on (snark). It wasn't in the room and now they've verified it wasn't in the suitcase. Now, along with knowing Ross is Renick, they deduce the killer, Ross, has them. Thus, the chase is on and to the airport.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"You and the detectives don't know that for certain."

- The detectives do if the airport confirmed that the trunks have been held there since their arrival... which also means they don't have to worry about contaminating crime scene evidence (snark). And Ross knows he doesn't have to worry about sending trunks to the airport, because he was wearing the gloves.

It really is the simplest explanation best fitting what the film shows and tells. No need to complicate it with bell captains, inconvenient bodies and uselessly moving trunks full of unused items back and forth between SFO and San Mateo, much less packing passports and tickets into them, only to remove them for a flight to Italy the next day; convoluted and unnecessarily complicated.

"The dialog makes it a point to say the tickets and passports were missing."

- Quite so. We're agreed on that.

Trivia note: The Thunderbolt Hotel (its real name) was actually in Millbrae. It later became the Clarion, and is still there, now part of the Aloft chain.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"You and the detectives don't know that for certain."

- The detectives do if the airport confirmed that the trunks have been held there since their arrival... which also means they don't have to worry about contaminating crime scene evidence (snark). And Ross knows he doesn't have to worry about sending trunks to the airport, because he was wearing the gloves.<<

This does not make sense. No airport would know about a passenger's luggage. Heh. No need to be getting snarky.

Also, did the airlines hold or check-in luggage w/o you being there back then? Today, I have to be with the luggage for curbside check-in or line check-in. They want to be sure you board with your luggage.

If the airlines would check your luggage only, then Ross/Renick could have had the bell captain send to the airlines before him. He would not want to be with the luggage, if at all possible.

You and the detectives are still searching for the tickets and passports in order to verify identification of the victims. Also, this is being checked out through fingerprints and the passport application.

This is more murkiness with the story. Why is the luggage being retrieved from the airlines? How did the detectives know which airline when they are looking for Johnny Ross?

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"No airport would know about a passenger's luggage."

- Sure they would: the Renicks arrive on from Chicago on Saturday, with tickets to Rome for Sunday night, and arrange for the airport - or, more specifically, the airline - to hold their trunks during their one-day layover in San Francisco until the Rome flight departs.

"Also, did the airlines hold or check-in luggage w/o you being there back then? Today, I have to be with the luggage for curbside check-in or line check-in."

- Commercial flying back then was informal in ways that would boggle the mind of today's travelers. You didn't even need ID to check in (and nobody checked for weapons, either). I flew a number of times in the early '70s when the woman I worked for was scheduled for business trips that she'd bail on at the last minute, sending me in her place and on her ticket. And every ticket agent could tell at a glance that my name wasn't Marilyn. Airlines just didn't care about those things then.

"This is more murkiness with the story. Why is the luggage being retrieved from the airlines? How did the detectives know which airline when they are looking for Johnny Ross?"

- No murkiness at all. Notice in the evidence room scene that Bullitt has stubs he's brought from the hotel room that he then matches to the tags on the trunks. Details like that are there for a reason, and it's only when they're missed or ignored that a viewer finds "murkiness with the story."

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"No airport would know about a passenger's luggage."

- Sure they would: the Renicks arrive on from Chicago on Saturday, with tickets to Rome for Sunday night, and arrange for the airport - or, more specifically, the airline - to hold their trunks during their one-day layover in San Francisco until the Rome flight departs.<<

That was my whole point which seemed to go over your head. The airlines, not the airport, would know.

>>"- Commercial flying back then was informal in ways that would boggle the mind of today's travelers. You didn't even need ID to check in (and nobody checked for weapons, either). I flew a number of times in the early '70s when the woman I worked for was scheduled for business trips that she'd bail on at the last minute, sending me in her place and on her ticket. And every ticket agent could tell at a glance that my name wasn't Marilyn. Airlines just didn't care about those things then.<<

Crazy. That is hard to believe lol.

>>- No murkiness at all. Notice in the evidence room scene that Bullitt has stubs he's brought from the hotel room that he then matches to the tags on the trunks. Details like that are there for a reason, and it's only when they're missed or ignored that a viewer finds "murkiness with the story."<<

Okay, I finally get what you are saying now. Mrs. Renick would have the claim tags if this was arranged ahead of time and the airline holding her luggage for her next leg of the itinerary.

Then Ross just had to kill Mrs. Renick, take the tickets and passports, and take a taxi to the airport.

I am a dumbass. Just didn't pick up the scene where the luggage was retrieved from the airlines.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"That was my whole point which seemed to go over your head. The airlines, not the airport, would know."

- Only a matter of semantics. Airlines' baggage-handling operations take place at airports, and I assumed we were both using the term generically. I didn't realize it was a sticking point.

"Mrs. Renick would have the claim tags if this was arranged ahead of time and the airline holding her luggage for her next leg of the itinerary.

Then Ross just had to kill Mrs. Renick, take the tickets and passports, and take a taxi to the airport."

- That's it.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"That was my whole point which seemed to go over your head. The airlines, not the airport, would know."

- Only a matter of semantics. Airlines' baggage-handling operations take place at airports, and I assumed we were both using the term generically. I didn't realize it was a sticking point.<<

Airline baggage handlers aren't called that but fleet service agent or clerk. Airport baggage handlers load and unload luggage and parcels onto and off the planes. Semantics is key when 1968 baggage check-in procedures are so much different than today, then it makes a difference. For example, you said why would Dorothy schlep her trunks from the airport to the hotel and back? No airline today would hold luggage for you for the next leg of your itinerary.

>>- That's it.<<

Agreed. Now you know why I was trying to explain what happened with the luggage, but it didn't make sense to you. The present isn't the key to the past. The past is usually different, but how was I to know lol?

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

I understood what you meant; it just didn't fit with what unfolds onscreen, is all. But that plot point's been resolved, so let's enjoy our accomplishments where we can.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Here's my experience at the airport. I heard airport security was more lax in the 60s, but I didn't know it was so different back then. If I was changing planes for an international flight, then I would have to get my own luggage and take possession and check it back in again for the next leg. Thus, it never occurred to me that the airlines would just hold your luggage for you for the next leg. I don't think any airlines today would do that. You would have to schlep your luggage to your hotel and then come back with it. The passenger has to be with the luggage in order to check it in. No exceptions. Thus, the only luggage an airline holds is one that was oversized and could not travel, lost luggage, or luggage that was not picked up. It has to have a valid claim check or else I think it gets turned over to security for x-ray and destruction.

Would Ross have picked up the Renicks' luggage? Probably not. The traveler's checks wouldn't do him any good and interpol would be after him. What if things went according to plan? He probably wouldn't because it was Renick's signature. Maybe he was a good forger, but why risk $2 M he stole for thousands he gave Renick? He could get another identity with his underworld connections.

What did Ross tell Renick in order for him to go along with the plan? He probably told him that he needs to get out from being a government protected witness and that he'll be helped to escape by two men. It was misdirection, so Ross could get out of the country, too. There was risk involved, but Renick just saw $$$$ signs.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"What did Ross tell Renick in order for him to go along with the plan? He probably told him that he needs to get out from being a government protected witness and that he'll be helped to escape by two men. It was misdirection, so Ross could get out of the country, too. There was risk involved, but Renick just saw $$$$ signs."

- Agreed. What induced Renick's cooperation beyond just the money is something left entirely to our imaginations. I figure he was someone who was already in some sort of trouble; perhaps gambling debts he couldn't meet. The film makes it easy by identifying him as a used car salesman, a profession that automatically connotes shadiness.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- Agreed. What induced Renick's cooperation beyond just the money is something left entirely to our imaginations. I figure he was someone who was already in some sort of trouble; perhaps gambling debts he couldn't meet. The film makes it easy by identifying him as a used car salesman, a profession that automatically connotes shadiness.<<

That is a stereotype. I sold used cars part-time when I was going to college. Basically, you just have to know the inventory and where the keys are at. A customer may not know the car as well since there is more variety of selection.

I thought it was easier than selling new cars. New car customers usually have studied their cars more once they narrow it down. It may mean more appointments to make a sale. New cars had more of a markup, so there was a lot more horse trading and using of specialists to "close" the sale.

If Ross offered Renick $30,000, then it's worth $222, 330.09 in 2019. I guess many people would get suckered in to Ross' scheme for that kind of money. If Renick was a doppelganger for Ross, then he would understand why he was approached.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"That is a stereotype. I sold used cars part-time when I was going to college."

- It is indeed (no aspersions toward you). It's no doubt the reason the screenwriters chose it: an audience doesn't have to think about it; "Albert Edward Renick, used car salesman, Chicago." Fair or not, something vaguely shady or dishonest almost reflexively comes to mind, and the audience doesn't have to spend time wondering about this Renick character or why he'd get mixed up in something like this. Next to lawyers and politicians, there's probably no more maligned profession.

I'm sure it's also the reason Chicago was chosen as the locale for the Ross brothers' operation. There's probably been more organized crime in New York, but 35 years after Prohibition, Chicago still bore that stigma. Nowadays, you're more likely to hear it used as code for crooked politicians.

Anyway, it's all "movie shorthand" in the interest of story-telling economy: used car salesman = shady; Chicago = mobsters.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Okay, that about covers it.

Bullitt is an okay movie, but could have been better. It could have made Chalmers smarter or more powerful like in Mute Witness who got Clancy bypassed for a promotion and moved to a different precinct. There is more give and take in the dialog between the two men, and clearly, Chalmers holds indirect rank over Clancy. So, I could see political patronage, favors, influence, etc. being used in that situation.

Bullitt's not caring about Ross testifying before the Senate in the movie bothered me, too. I can't see any LEO not caring for bringing the upper echelon of bad guys in even if he wasn't out for a promotion or like Chalmers' personality.

In your case, the movie is fine and you do not have to read the book. In my case, I am disgruntled with the film story, so get better enjoyment reading the book and having the characters fleshed out.

It was good hashing this movie out with you. I probably have never discussed the details of one movie this much in a forum. The other movie that comes to mind is 2001: A Space Odyssey, but that was with a friend whom I went with at a theater. The most recent movie that involved a lot of discussions was Us (2019) by Jordan Peele. Mostly, it's just bit a pieces of a movie that someone brings up a new topic for. Ciao.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Okay, that about covers it."

- Now what am I gonna do for a hobby? (Only kidding.)

"In your case, the movie is fine and you do not have to read the book. In my case, I am disgruntled with the film story, so get better enjoyment reading the book and having the characters fleshed out."

- I did, but it's been a good 40 years. And your observation puts a spotlight on the differing demands of written and filmed fiction. A novel can take as many pages as it needs to flesh out characters, their histories, backstories and inner thought processes, while a film has a limited amount of minutes to do that and convey a story both visually and textually.

As well, the reader of a novel enjoys the luxury of covering as many pages as they wish in a sitting, putting it down to go do other things while they absorb what they've read, and coming back to it when they're ready; something audiences can't do in public exhibition surroundings.

Each has its own advantages and drawbacks. And since the advent of home video, allowing us freedom in viewing choices and habits unavailable when Bullitt was made, we've been fortunate to enjoy the best of all possible worlds as consumers of filmed and written fiction.

Cheers, and happy viewing (and reading).

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- I did, but it's been a good 40 years. And your observation puts a spotlight on the differing demands of written and filmed fiction. A novel can take as many pages as it needs to flesh out characters, their histories, backstories and inner thought processes, while a film has a limited amount of minutes to do that and convey a story both visually and textually.

As well, the reader of a novel enjoys the luxury of covering as many pages as they wish in a sitting, putting it down to go do other things while they absorb what they've read, and coming back to it when they're ready; something audiences can't do in public exhibition surroundings.

Each has its own advantages and drawbacks. And since the advent of home video, allowing us freedom in viewing choices and habits unavailable when Bullitt was made, we've been fortunate to enjoy the best of all possible worlds as consumers of filmed and written fiction.<<

I thought I said everything, but for some reason your comments make me have to reply.

It really isn't about one is a textual and narrative while the other is visual and narrative. As I said, the movie is lacking. There isn't enough there in the story to explain the actions and dialog of both the antagonist and the protagonist, the latter to a lesser degree. It makes me complain and go why didn't they just do this? We see that today with producers using a test audience to gauge their reactions and from it change the ending of the movie or even the movie. Was this done in 1968 or the 60s?

That said, to re-write Chalmers part would be major. I have a sneaking suspicion that McQueen wanted to change the antagonist's lines. He was noted doing such things in order to come out on top in his mind. McQueen may have been an iconic actor, but he seemed to be insecure about his roles and when he was on top used it to influence the director or producer to change the script. I do not have any other explanation for Chalmers being a boob.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

I can chalk it up only to differing tastes. A book is one thing, but I'm soon very bored with a film that spells everything out. As I was discussing with ecarle on this thread a couple days ago, I admire Bullitt's less-is-more approach, accomplishing much by saying little.

The scene I referenced in that discussion (Bullitt's and Chalmers's meeting) is a case in point: McQueen says all of ten words in the entire scene, yet it firmly establishes the personalities and priorities of both, and lays the groundwork for the trajectory of their interactions.

I only wish I could achieve similar economy when discussing films on fora such as this. Perhaps I admire it because I can't do it. Whatever the reason, it engages me on a level surpassing that on which explicit exposition can. A matter of taste.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>I can chalk it up only to differing tastes. A book is one thing, but I'm soon very bored with a film that spells everything out. As I was discussing with ecarle on this thread a couple days ago, I admire Bullitt's less-is-more approach, accomplishing much by saying little.<<

Again, the movie doesn't spell everything out; it doesn't make sense. I got what happened, but the dialog and Chalmers' behavior doesn't make sense. Remember, I said Bullitt got the case handed to him on a silver platter. He didn't do much detective work while that's all Clancy did. I just finished the book.

I agree less is more, but what Bullitt says and does makes him a dumbass. Chalmers is even more a dumbass.

Here's what I would've done. In the book, Clancy needs to find the killer because it has happened to him a second time, and with Chalmers again. There isn't such a need with Bullitt and Chalmers as they just met and Bullitt came highly recommended. He doesn't know much about Ross, so doesn't question why he is going to testify. He gets the information from Federal assistant DA Chalmers. So, after the witness was killed under his watch, he just has to hold off Chalmers until he can solve the case. He ends up breaking police procedures to do it and thus puts his career on the line. I would just skip the folding up the case talk and go with holding off Chalmers until he can follow his lead and figure out what happened. He's just going by his gut feeling that something is amiss with the unhooked chain, the killer knowing where Renick was being holed up, and using Chalmers' name to get the room information. Chalmers would be upset and doing all he can to blame Bullitt and SFPD brass for his witness being shot. He would also be investigating what happened on his end as he knew the deal he made with Ross. He also would want the hospital report and talk with the doctor. Bullitt just beat him to it and made his own deal with the doctor.

Finally, the movie didn't have to kill Ross as Rossi was caught trying to leave with another blonde "Mrs. Renick" in the book. That would've led to Bullitt 2. Maybe the directors and producers had enough of McQueen haha.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

I know, jasonbourne. I'm aware of your opinions and reasoning on these items and you're aware of my opposing ones and the reasons for them, so we don't need to step back on that carousel again. We'll have to leave them at impasse status.

I don't know why anyone would need a Bullitt 2. Beyond the obvious "cash in" mentality behind them, only a precious few sequels ever made have been anything but pointless and unsatisfying attempts to recapture what made the originals appealing.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

First, the movie as I changed it would be a better movie and would've been even more popular than it was. In this case, more is more. I think the car chase scene in Bullitt led to a better film with The French Connection, so it would be a film of that caliber.

You can let Bullitt solve the crime, but he faces a tougher foe in Chalmers. He feels more heat from Chalmers and the police brass. He just has to stall Chalmers until he can solve the case, a risk in itself since he's not following police procedures.

That drives Chalmers wild and he's still an a-hole, but a smarter one. He tries to nail Bullitt and have him arrested. You see he really is interested in furthering his career, but he has to pin in on Bullitt to turn the publicity against Bullitt and blame him. Even Bennett and Baker start to feel sorry for Bullitt.

Bullitt solves the case, but he also brings in an injured Ross as killing two people and a deputy. Chalmers ends up thanking Bullitt for the real Ross and takes him into custody with his own men. The mob is still after Ross and even more angry as they realized they have been duped. Another 24 hours to go until Ross can testify. He knows he has a better chance to stay alive cooperating with Chalmers than the mob.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

I'm reluctant to criticize anyone's creative urges, but it sounds like unnecessary clutter to magnify a conflict that already existed in a basic, uncomplicated form, and then blunts that conflict by turning Chalmers into a grateful ally at the end in order to render Bullitt more heroic.

Just another matter of taste, so please don't take offense. The film as it exists is a lean, mean and efficient investigative thriller that wraps up neatly, yet leaves viewers with something to think about as a bonus.

You'll disagree, but we'll just have to consider that another impasse.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I didn't think it was an impasse. Just two different opinions. It's not like we were negotiating for something or trying to win a debate I'm not sure where taste comes in. It was a quality, well made movie, with nice cinematography and realistic tone. Nothing distasteful about it.

Any other 60s movies I should watch and review? I got that top 25 list. I think I've see the real good ones already, but may not have commented on them here.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

We've quibbled enough about plot points; no need to do so about word choices. "Impasse" is a perfectly acceptable one for unresolvable differences of opinion, as "taste" is for indications of personal preference.

I don't know about that top 25 list; I've have to know what's on it to make any recommendations about what may be missing.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Again, I wasn't trying to resolve our difference of opinions. If anything, I wanted to know how you "rated" the movie so I have some idea where you were coming from (yes, I know you do not rate movies). We agreed on some points.

Here's a top 200 list -- https://www.imdb.com/list/ls006298778/?sort=user_rating,desc&st_dt=&mode=detail&page=1

Pick a few and I'll watch and then we can discuss to see if we agree or not.

Also, I started drinking a "big glass of buttermilk" like Clancy to get my probiotics. I guess it's better than having a stiff drink in the morning or bad coffee ;).

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

Thanks for the link.

I'm afraid any discussion of them here on this thread would be rather narrowly focused, if you know what I mean.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

Not on this thread. On whatever thread the movie is for. We are done here. Also, do you think watching on VHS is good anymore? There are boxes full of VHS, but the VCR/DVD player broke. There is whole collection of Twilight Zone episodes (every episode?) which seem interesting. It fills an entire company moving box. My last post. Just stick in a movie or two if you want to continue. Thanks. Ciao.

ETA: Well, forget the buttermilk. Just drank it all, but found out the cultured buttermilk is not the same anymore and no probiotics than the traditional buttermilk.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"I don't think I made an error if Chalmers is Federal US attorney and he's going to present Ross' testimony in front of the Senate. It was 1968."

- The separation of powers articles of the U.S. Constitution are the same now as they were in '68; they've never been amended. Criminal trials were and are conducted within the Judiciary branch (same applies if it's the state senate).<<

We're talking about testimony making a case that organized crime is rampant in the US. This is what RFK was arguing in front of the Senate. No need to beat ground we already covered with your repetitious explanations which are irrelevant.

Continued

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- This interpretation seems overly complicated, requiring large assumptions not supported by the film, disregard for information that's in it and questionable logic.

1) The film shows Ross is still on the hotel grounds while Bullitt is there, and he's just removing his gloves.

When would Ross have had time to send the trunks to the airport? And why bother? He wore gloves.

2) The film makes a point of revealing that everything in them is new and unused.

Why would Dorothy have the trunks - one of which contains only her husband's things - schlepped from SFO to a hotel in San Mateo when she was there only one night and Al wasn't there at all, only to turn around and have them schlepped back to SFO the next day?

Everything is still perfectly packed when Bullitt and Delgetti break open the locked trunks, and shows no sign of having been rummaged through for tickets or passports (and if Ross had done that, why leave a small fortune in traveler's checks signed with the name he'll be traveling under?).

So: locked trunks; unused things; perfectly packed; retrieved from the airport. The simplest conclusion is that everything was newly-purchased and packed in Chicago, and was stored at the airport overnight between their arrival from Chicago and planned departure for Rome that night.<<

You have to figure these things out. Ross killed Mrs. Renick in order to get the plane tickets and passports. Those two items missing was highlighted in the dialog. There is no way for Ross to get the plane tixs and passports in your scenario. Ross is now Renick and he didn't want the luggage to remain at the crime scene. All Ross had to do was have the bell captain send it to the airport ahead of him to get it away from the crime scene asap. He also doesn't want any evidence on him to tie to Mrs. Renick. The simplest explanation is best. I'm not the one overthinking this to fit a nonsensical movie story.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

There is no way for Ross to get the plane tixs and passports in your scenario."

- And this is what brings about repetition: I've already offered just such a scenario. It's still there, right where I left it: "Dorothy would have had both of their passports and tickets with her, because Renick had nothing on him that identified him. All Ross had to do was grab them (most likely from her handbag) on the way out."

"All Ross had to do was have the bell captain send it to the airport ahead of him to get it away from the crime scene asap."

- With a dead body lying there in the room? This doesn't sound very well thought through.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>There is no way for Ross to get the plane tixs and passports in your scenario."

- And this is what brings about repetition: I've already offered just such a scenario. It's still there, right where I left it: "Dorothy would have had both of their passports and tickets with her, because Renick had nothing on him that identified him. All Ross had to do was grab them (most likely from her handbag) on the way out."

You are taking things out of context. First, Ross had to get the plane tixs and passports in order to become Renick. Thus, he goes to Mrs. Renick's hotel which presumably knows from setting the Renicks up in that hotel. All of this is staged by him. He kills Mrs. Renick via strangulation and takes the tix and passports.

Now, we get to Bullitt and his men investigating the crime scene. It appears he knows what happened and how she was killed, but do not know why. All he knows is this woman is connected to Renick/Ross. Why would both witness and his wife/gf turn up dead? Now, he has another lead and can present that to Baker and Bennett. Suddenly, his flimsy previous lead has gotten him out of hot water with the police brass.

What I was getting at was Bullitt and Delgetti are looking for the plane tickets and passports since they knew Renick/Ross was trying to get away from the hit men and the mob. Thus, they get the suitcase from the airport which the real Ross sent and look for the plane tickets and passport there because it wasn't at the crime scene.

Once they discover it is not in the luggage, and they find out who the Renicks were, then Bullitt can say his famous lines to turn the tables to embarrass and make Chalmers look bad. They also have enough to go to the airport and look for the real Ross.

Continued

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>"All Ross had to do was have the bell captain send it to the airport ahead of him to get it away from the crime scene asap."

- With a dead body lying there in the room? This doesn't sound very well thought through.<<

I've done this a few times. Ross/Renick calls the bell desk and instructs to take the luggage and place in the taxi which he was taking to the airport. He places it outside the room, locks the room, and checks out.

Ross would have to know Renick was killed by the hit men in order to go kill Mrs. Renick. He did not know and this is another problem with the story. He cannot check with the hospital because the patient and patient's report are gone.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Ross/Renick calls the bell desk and instructs to take the luggage and place in the taxi which he was taking to the airport. He places it outside the room, locks the room, and checks out."

- These aren't just carriable suitcases; they're trunks. And Ross doesn't check out (which we learn from the Thunderbolt Hotel desk clerk). And the room is registered to a Miss Dorothy Simmons, not Renick. And we see Ross exiting the hotel alone, removing his gloves, with no bell captain, taxi driver or trunks in attendance.

Your scenario just doesn't fit.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

>>- These aren't just carriable suitcases; they're trunks. And Ross doesn't check out (which we learn from the Thunderbolt Hotel desk clerk). And the room is registered to a Miss Dorothy Simmons, not Renick. And we see Ross exiting the hotel alone, removing his gloves, with no bell captain, taxi driver or trunks in attendance.

Your scenario just doesn't fit.<<

My scenario is fine. The story is murky. I was answering your question of how the trunks got to the airlines. Again, did the airlines take your luggage and check-in without the passenger being there in 1968? If that is the case, Mrs. Renick could have had it sent to the airlines beforehand. She is aka Miss Dorothy Simmons, with the hotel room set up and paid for by Ross. She is waiting to hear from Mr. Renick, so they can leave.

Moreover, I never said Ross carried them. That's why the hotel bell hops will take care of them. Ross just has to move the trunks outside. If they won't fit in the cab, then the hotel took care of having them sent to the airlines by other transportation whether it was Mrs. Renick or Ross.

I shouldn't have to explain the details to answer your point about the luggage being retrieved from the airport. They should've been answered by the movie.

All Ross has to do now is take a taxi to the airport.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

That's a nice factoid. Isn't Tracy more known as a dramatic actor than action star? He could play Clancy as in the book. With McQueen, he's the cool action figure and actor, and t I get the feeling he changed the story to make Chalmers dumb down. It's just a hunch from reading how he acted with Paul Newman in The Towering Inferno. Maybe I'm biased because I like Paul Newman's foods like pizza haha.

Anyway, nice hashing this movie with you. I'm watching and reviewing 60s movies to understand my parent's generation better. If you watch and review those or 70-80-90s stuff, then maybe we'll run into each other again. Thanks.

[–] jasonbourne (1027) 5 years ago

I don't think I had misconceptions about things such as the Senate committees as I'm the one who pointed out it was 1968 and just prior to it we had Robert Francis Kennedy going up against the organized crime as US Attorney General. He could have inspired the book as Bullitt was based on Mute Witness. You said that legal cases do not get tried before the Senate committee, but you were applying today's standards to what happened in the 1960s. You also thought Chalmers was acting like Trump. The present isn't always the key to the past.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I don't think I had misconceptions about things such as the Senate committees..."

- I'm sorry to say so, jasonbourne, but your reply indicates just such misconceptions.

What RFK did as Attorney General has nothing to do with Senate committees. As AG, he was in charge of the DOJ, which is the law enforcement and criminal justice arm of the Executive branch. Through its divisions like the FBI and U.S. attorneys' offices, it conducts criminal investigations, and prosecutions arising therefrom. None of that relates to the workings or authorities of the Senate.

As AG, RFK did testify before it, and only as a witness in their own legislative investigations; he didn't participate in them, or bring other witnesses before them, as Chalmers is doing. Any criminal activity exposed by a Senate investigation can be prosecuted only by duly empowered entities like city D.A.s, state attorneys general or the DOJ. Which leads us to:

"You said that legal cases do not get tried before the Senate committee, but you were applying today's standards to what happened in the 1960s."

- I'm applying 1789 standards (the year the U.S. Constitution took effect). They're the ones remaining in force to this day. I mentioned "separation of powers" in an earlier reply. It's one of the foundational components of our system of government; it hasn't changed, and a criminal trial in the Senate would violate it, as it simply has no such Constitutional authority.

"You also thought Chalmers was acting like Trump. The present isn't always the key to the past."

- He was, and I listed ways in which that's so: ambition; arrogance; prioritizing public image above all else; blaming others for his mistakes. If you'll recall, that was in the context of your description of the film as "dated," and I brought it up to illustrate that what you called dated is very much relevant to today.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

I don't mean to pile on, but inasmuch as we're on the topic, I skimmed back through the threads, and below are some of the remarks you've made in various replies relating to Chalmers, Ross and the Senate (followed by corrections and comments):

"I doubt Ross from Chicago would call California to turn state's evidence. He would contact the FBI first and go from there."
- The FBI doesn't bring witnesses before Senate committees; only Senators, their staff and counsels can do that.

"Ross may not have intended to testify, but once caught and facing murder charges, he would likely flee to Chalmers to protect him from Bullitt trying to convict him."
- Only D.A.s, state AGs or DOJ appointees can grant such protection (immunity from prosecution).

"I went by who Ross would contact and who, position-wise, argues Federal criminal cases before the Senate (US)."
- No one "argues Federal criminal cases before the Senate" (U.S. or state). That's out of the scope of their authority. Committee hearings are not "criminal cases." Those would have to be taken up by appropriate prosecutorial entities.

"...organized crime hearings were held in the Senate by US Attorney General Robert Kennedy."
- AG Kennedy never did that, nor have any U.S. attorneys general. Again: separation of powers. RFK served as counsel to the Senate in the '50s, and as AG in the '60s. Both involved investigations into organized crime, but in entirely different capacities: legislative ('50s) and criminal ('60s).

These represent some of the other misconceptions. I'm not trying to be mean, condescending, a smartass or win arguments. The workings of government entities at the civic, state and federal level - and their interactions with one another - can indeed seem convoluted, and their arcane nature induces millions of citizens to simply disengage from the processes. I'm trying only to offer helpful information and factual accuracy.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

I'm not entering this conversation...its too fascinating watching the two of you get into it(and maintaining civility and respect while doing so) but...

...wow.

I am thinking this: I saw Bullitt first run in 1968; I was a pre-teen, I got some of it but not all of it, plot-wise, and I took Chalmers for "a Senator." Of some type, I suppose I took him for a US Senator(each state only has two; they are "big deals.")

With each passing year and re-watch of Bullitt, I must admit I started to become curious about Chalmers' "official status." WAS he a Senator? Which kind? The "he can help us with the Legislature" line probably misdirected me to "State Senator"(California.)

All of this argumentation suggests to me that the Bullitt screenplay was rather carefully written(partially by a LAWYER, remember -- the same lawyer who wrote The Thomas Crown Affair as a first try and got ANOTHER McQueen movie) so as to make it at once clear and NOT clear as to what Chalmers was.

This we know: he was RICH. Likely inherited family wealth plus whatever wealth he gathered on his own. But from that stemmed whichever political prominence he was seeking.

The funny thing is, had not the co-writer been a lawyer(and perhaps helped by the legal accuracy in the source novel?) , I would suppose that a "generic" screenwriter would have played so fast and loose with Chalmer's credentials that...you'd never be able to HAVE the great argument in this thread.

Its also a reminder why Bullitt stands as a classic of a certain type -- historic action yes(the car chase, and, somewhat behind it, the airport chase) -- but also a great intelligence about how things work and types of personality.

It remains interesting that while the ostensible bad guys are mob killers -- who kill innocent people and are all killed themselves -- we come to dislike Chalmers even more.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I'm not entering this conversation...its too fascinating watching the two of you get into it..."

- And you're too kind! Can't blame you for preferring not to get drawn in. I'd expected all this minutea to have driven off even the most conscientious onlooker by now. So, from the "neutral zone:"

"All of this argumentation suggests to me that the Bullitt screenplay was rather carefully written..."

- The focus on detail this discussion has brought about has put a spotlight on the film's narrative economy: how much it does with how little. You singled out a delicious example in an earlier reply:

CHALMERS: "Once and for all, the top men in law enforcement are united: we're going to expose the organization."

BULLITT: "I read your speech."

On the surface, it's respectful and even flattering. Chalmers can be pleased that this police lieutenant he doesn't know is well informed on current events and reads his speeches. But there's a dismissive subtext that suggests Bullitt's impatience with B.S.: an unspoken, "So don't waste my time with an encore of it here on your terrace."

We've got the action sequences that are crowd-pleasing (auto pursuit) and suspenseful (hospital and airport pursuits), but the tone remains otherwise low key and untypically even-tempered and businesslike, steering clear of cliches of the genre: no drawn-out street shootouts or fisticuffs; no roughing up of suspects, informants or witnesses; no histrionic shouting matches with colleagues or superiors. And a major aspect of this tone are the long, dialogue-free patches of purely visual story telling.

Examining it all even more closely has deepened my appreciation for those stylistic choices. And doing so has also allowed me insight into an enduring fondness for the film that far surpasses any for Shafts, Dirty Harrys, French Connections and the like.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

ago
"I'm not entering this conversation...its too fascinating watching the two of you get into it..."

- And you're too kind! Can't blame you for preferring not to get drawn in.

---

Well, I think its a matter of professional courtesy, not looking to insert myself into such a detailed(but civil) debate. Still, I felt a need(ha) to comment on what I was reading.

---

And yet there I'd expected all this minutea to have driven off even the most conscientious onlooker by now.

---

Not me. I like to read.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

"All of this argumentation suggests to me that the Bullitt screenplay was rather carefully written..."

- The focus on detail this discussion has brought about has put a spotlight on the film's narrative economy: how much it does with how little. You singled out a delicious example in an earlier reply:

CHALMERS: "Once and for all, the top men in law enforcement are united: we're going to expose the organization."

BULLITT: "I read your speech."

On the surface, it's respectful and even flattering. Chalmers can be pleased that this police lieutenant he doesn't know is well informed on current events and reads his speeches. But there's a dismissive subtext that suggests Bullitt's impatience with B.S.: an unspoken, "So don't waste my time with an encore of it here on your terrace."

--

Yep. That's it. A well-written ADULT script (in the adult sense of that word.) As we shall see, there was a decline in cop films as the decades moved on, at least as the writing went.

McQueen personally pursued a reluctant Robert Vaughn(his old fellow Mag Sevener) to play Chalmers, upping the money offer accordingly. And I think what McQueen liked was to have the erudite Vaughn -- with his silken, reptilian patrician voice -- to play off of with his own quiet, simple manner(McQueen was among a number of stars that you can't do an impression of.)

I've read somewhere that McQueen asked -- on set -- for a change to this line of Chalmers:

Chalmers: In your nomenclature -- you blew it.

McQueen felt that word was too high falutin' for his fans to understand. So we get:

Chalmers: In your parlance -- you blew it.

Hah! Its still a pretty upper class word!

But this is the kind of detail work that went into "Bullitt," I think. And McQueen knew his own limits -- he says a lot less than Chalmers does, this is often a performance of silent gazes by McQueen.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

We've got the action sequences that are crowd-pleasing (auto pursuit) and suspenseful (hospital and airport pursuits),

---

I'll note here that Bullitt follows what was once Hitchcock's rule: three set-pieces per movie. Hospital chase, car chase, airport chase. Three. Modernly, we get action about every 7 minutes(called 'action beats" in the biz.)

--

but the tone remains otherwise low key and untypically even-tempered and businesslike, steering clear of cliches of the genre:

---

Yes. One thing I like to note is how POLITE McQueen's cop is with practically everyone he meets (as at the restaurant where he meets Bisset.) He's no "supercop," he's a public servant with a certain code of manners.

---

no drawn-out street shootouts or fisticuffs; no roughing up of suspects, informants or witnesses; no histrionic shouting matches with colleagues or superiors.

---

Somewhat interestingly, McQueen only really has to CONFRONT the baddies during the set-pieces: both the car chase and the airport chase end in death for the villains, but even those pursuits are played almost as "only business" between Bullitt and his prey.

Bullitt has a great boss protecting him(Simon Oakland), played just about right BY Oakland(he'll protect Bullitt but he can only do it for so long; everybody knows that.)

---

And a major aspect of this tone are the long, dialogue-free patches of purely visual story telling.

---

Bullitt (with a British director) was perhaps influenced by Eurofilm of the time, and McQueen's performance (as noted above) is rather silent. The movie itself plays silent a lot of the time(like during the airport chase) and thus was likely very good playing around the world in different languages.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Examining it all even more closely has deepened my appreciation for those stylistic choices. And doing so has also allowed me insight into an enduring fondness for the film that far surpasses any for Shafts, Dirty Harrys, French Connections and the like.

---

OK, here's where I get in a little trouble with...somebody.

I think we need to remember that Bullitt was made in the sixties, when major Hollywood films were considered...serious work. Bullitt is perhaps as much (if not more) of a drama than an action picture. Hence, the importance of the Bullitt/Chalmers conflict.

McQueen came into "Bullitt" just after his (sole) Oscar nomination for the epic drama "The Sand Pebbles" and his against-type suave millionaire part in the brainy(but dull, says I) "Thomas Crown Affair." His vehicles such as The Great Escape and The Cincinnati Kid were well-scripted dramas for adults. He was thus not INCLINED to do "Bullitt" as a "B movie actioner."

THAT would come with Dirty Harry -- a great film on its own raging, gonzo terms, but not in the league of Bullitt as a "serious documdrama."

I think Dirty Harry is as great a film as Bullitt in its own way -- look how differently they treat San Francisco as "terrain." But after Harry? The action got more and more coarse and more and more "sloppy" in the scripting.

And it is my contention that once we reached Lethal Weapon and Tango and Cash in the 80's, a kind of "TV series action value" crept into these theatrical films. Lethal Weapons 1,2,3, and 4 WERE like series episodes, and they gave off the vibe of being plotted on paper in less than a day("Any one of us could have written this."). 48 HRS was bit more meaty(courtesy of Walter Hill and his two great leads)...but still a bit TV-ish.

The writer of Lethal Weapon 2 said, I think, that "other movies have only two or three good parts(action scenes)...our movies have good parts every ten minutes." He meant action beats of course, and those were foreign to the world and pace and context of Bullitt.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Honestly, in the movies from Dirty Harry on, can we really recall a one of them having an antagonist with the smarts or depths of ..Chalmers?
He's a very "1968" character.

Shaft and The French Connection -- from the same year(1971) and the same writer(Ernest Tidyman) have their followings. I like Shaft better than The French Connection, and from the very day I first saw The French Connection(after reading nothing but rave reviews)...it disappointed me. Its a slog to and from the car/train chase in that one...and the acting of the passengers on the train is very amateur, takes you out of the movie. And yet: Best Picture. Best Actor(OK..but then Hackman was always great.) So...I got no case. Except with myself. Bullitt and The French Connection have the same producer, and both have a famous car chase ...but I SO much prefer the former to the latter.

OK...let the brickbats fly.

And maybe this seems a bit "off thread" what I'm saying...but I don't think it is. The care and crafting of the Bulllitt screenplay separates it from the rest.

[–] ecarle (14979) 5 years ago

Note in passing:

I've been listening to the commentary track of director Peter Yates for Bullitt. He's very elderly on the track; I think he is dead now.

I haven't finished the whole thing, but of relevance here:

ONE: Yates says that he wanted Bullitt to be a "contemporary Western." Hmm...that's funny...its Dirty Harry that I think is more of the "gunslinger model." But Yates notes things like the mob guy using a shotgun to kill Rennick/Ross as "Western like."

TWO: When Chalmers first confronts Bullitt at the hospital("You blew it" "You work your side of the street, and I'll work mine") Yates says, "Here, you see, again, the Western aspect. In every Western there comes a scene where the two main characters verbally confront each other." The two main characters.

THREE: Yates notes in passing of Vaughn's great, pompous performance: "Some years later, Vaughn tried to run for political office for real...and evidently his performance in this role killed his campaign, he said."

Hmm.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"Yates notes in passing of Vaughn's great, pompous performance: "Some years later, Vaughn tried to run for political office for real...and evidently his performance in this role killed his campaign, he said."

- A couple years back, I saw a Dick Cavett episode from mid-'68, at a time when Vaughn was apparently "grooming himself for public office." Among others occupying chairs were F. Lee Bailey and Lauren Bacall. And although his politics were distinctly progressive, Vaughn's cool, serious and precise manner displayed a lot more Chalmers than Solo.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"OK, here's where I get in a little trouble with...somebody."

- Not with me by any means. And with these Chalmers threads, it seems we three are off in our own little corner.

"I think we need to remember that Bullitt was made in the sixties, when major Hollywood films were considered...serious work."

- It may be overstating to say that the investigative thriller was a moribund genre at the time; perhaps its fairer to say it was in a state of transition. I'm hard pressed to come up with many examples of the form from the mid-late '60s, at least from U.S. producers (and I'd guess that the "spy craze" of the time temporarily pushed it to the side).

In '66, we had Harper, itself a transitional film, Sinatra's two Tony Rome films in '67 and '68, which play now as stodgy echoes of the ossifying rat pack sensibility, and between which came Sinatra's The Detective, a gritty and sober piece that's the closest to Bullitt I can think of. '69 brought us Garner's Marlowe (in tone, something like Harper with a hangover...and I say that fondly). Any I'm overlooking?

Otherwise most of the investigative work was being done on TV, until the '70s brought it back to big screen life in any number of variations from the ultra-macho Dirty Harry strain to the more humanistic and introspective ones like Night Moves, and the occasional "retro" outlier like Chinatown or Farewell, My Lovely.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I'll note here that Bullitt follows what was once Hitchcock's rule: three set-pieces per movie. Hospital chase, car chase, airport chase. Three."

- Ah! Nice.

"One thing I like to note is how POLITE McQueen's cop is with practically everyone he meets..."

- Even the good cop/bad cop routine Bullitt and Delgetti work on the hotel clerk is suitably restrained: "He's not tryin' hard enough;" "You're wastin' your time."

"Bullitt (with a British director) was perhaps influenced by Eurofilm of the time, and McQueen's performance (as noted above) is rather silent."

- It does have a European feel, in its tone, pacing and emphasis on atmosphere and process. I like that observation.

[–] Doghouse (447) 5 years ago

"I've read somewhere that McQueen asked -- on set -- for a change to this line of Chalmers:

Chalmers: In your nomenclature -- you blew it.

McQueen felt that word was too high falutin' for his fans to understand. So we get:

Chalmers: In your parlance -- you blew it."

- Even for an actor and character as erudite as Vaughn/Chalmers, "nomenclature" is a rather unwieldy word, and the substitution enables Vaughn to fairly spit the word "parlance." Half the number of syllables and the "p" make all the difference.