MovieChat Forums > Chinatown (1974) Discussion > 2 things that bother me with this movie

2 things that bother me with this movie


After Noah kills Hollis he moves his body out of the saltwater backyard pool yet he somehow forgets to pickup his broken/lost glasses and leaves behind such a crucial evidence?

With the properties scheme, they purchase land in the name of those elders in the rest home, yet for one of them they register the purchase on his name 1 week after he died? Instant giveaway that something was way off.

Both actions not consistent with the works of a powerful, rich individual but amateur hour acts, as if he wanted to be discovered.

reply

[deleted]

I am not debating these points from the movie's context point of view but rather addressing them as faulty script from the writer; for example let me quote you here:

"If only one name was registered in the properties scheme was such an instant giveaway, why wasn't it being investigated by any authorities?", if the writer of the movie doesn't want the perpetrator to be caught he wont be caught no matter how obvious his crime is.

Under the prism that Cross is wealthy and corrupted and "owned" the police as his daughter says in the final act then yes that would probably justify his arrogance and being incautious.

What i meant about the second point wasn't the fact that they used single individuals for each purchase but the fact that they used the name of a "buyer" that made the purchase 1 week after he died. (Which was the clue that led Gittes to uncover the whole scheme).

reply

I don't think the writer intended for the perpetrator to never be discovered and, obviously, Gittes receiving a clue about Cross' scheme proves that.

Also, Cross doesn't "own" the police. There is no evidence of that in the film. His daughter is speaking more to his influence.

On the last part, as I suggested, such a hasty purchase could be percieved as an error by one of Cross' conspirators but, again, you suggest Gittes' discovering of Cross' scheme is noteworthy when he has no impact whatsoever on the scheme for the entire film. And, of course, outside of Cross' conspirators, no one until Gittes discovered Cross' scheme but Gittes had absolutely no effect on the scheme.

reply

[deleted]

To your first point, the glasses: they're bifocals, and we see Cross use them only twice, both times to inspect something closely. We have to make inferences about the actual mechanics of Hollis' death, but the simplest possibility is that, in the middle of a heated argument, Cross had those glasses in his breast pocket and they simply slipped out unnoticed while bending over to force Hollis under the water's surface.

To the second, the matter of Jasper Lamarr Crabb: we can easily theorize that the actual paperwork involving the land transfers was being processed not by Cross personally, but by low-level functionaries (secretaries, perhaps) who, likely unaware of the meaning of the work they were doing, merely handled what they were given as a routine matter of course, and had no reason to cross-check the names on the paperwork against obituaries or death notices. A simple clerical oversight.

Edit for an afterthought: When Jake is at the Hall Of Records, he asks the clerk, "Why do they have all those names pasted in the plat books," to which the clerk replies, "Land sales out of escrow are always recorded within the week." The sale to Crabb may have been initiated while he was still alive; under normal circumstances, such a sale would probably either have been cancelled or revised to reflect that the buyer was now the estate of a person who died during the escrow period, but because the transaction was probably being undertaken without his knowledge or understanding, this wasn't done by either Cross' operatives or Crabb's relatives.




Poe! You are...avenged!

reply

Satisfying enough to overrule my objections. With the given chance what's your insight on Ida Sessions, as to who hired her and how come she knew about the properties scheme (tipping Gittes off to check the obituary column).

reply

That's among the things I like to call "Chinatown's Unsolved Mysteries:" unanswered questions to which we can formulate our own conclusions.

For a long while, I considered one of those to be: "Was Yelburton in on the scheme, or merely an innocent dupe?" I've satisfied myself that he was in on it since noticing something I hadn't on previous viewings: a framed Albacore Club flag on his office wall. In the case of Ida, my personal opinion is that both of the theories in your post on the topic are correct. Yelburton was the "inside man" at the Water Dept who could oversee the dumping and concoct cover stories about diversion and runoff, but when it comes to any of the dirty deeds, all roads lead ultimately to Noah, who's behind them all.

So this would represent one of the instances in which Jake's instincts were dead-on: "You hired me. Or you hired that chippie to hire me," he says to Yelburton. I've come to conclude this can be taken at face value. But what Jake didn't yet know was that everything was at Noah's direction.

How she knew the specifics about the land transfers presents any number of possibilities. As with the other "unsolved mysteries," any theory on which a viewer settles is as good as any other, as long as it fits in with story elements about which we do know.

We know, for example, she has a SAG card. But her face is obviously not well-known and she lives modestly, so almost certainly has one or more other sources of support. She refers to herself as "a working girl," which some have taken as a euphemism for "prostitute," and that she acquired her knowledge by loose talk from a client involved in the scheme.

Another possibility is that her day job was as one of the secretaries to which I referred earlier who was known to do acting work when she could get it. Or she could have been a girlfriend that Yelburton - or Mulvehill or even someone else involved that we never saw - had on the side (maybe a corrupt city councilman who favored the dam). Or any combination thereof. Or...?

Chinatown provides a number of such opportunities for viewers to play detective long after the film's over and, as long as they fit within the existing story elements as I said above, I'm not sure any answers viewers come up with on their own can be called wrong. Kinda like choosing among different routes to drive from Point A to Point B: any one that gets you there is as good as another.


Poe! You are...avenged!

reply

Thanks for your time and thorough response.

reply

It's wonderful that somebody pointed out the Albacore flag in Yelburton's office because of its subtle importance.

The director/cinematographer has Gittes look directly at the flag which is significant because when he later enters the Albacore Club after having suspicion of Yelburton and then confronting him, the same flag is flying above head and Gittes makes no connection. Then when he gets to the Mar Vista Rest home and witnesses its residents sowing a quilt of the same flag that he encountered multiple times previously, he still couldn't make any connection until he had to be told by a resident what was going on.

reply

It's wonderful that somebody pointed out the Albacore flag in Yelburton's office because of its subtle importance.
I'd be ashamed to tell you how many times I saw the film before that detail registered with me.

But as you say: subtle. As is that later scene in the Mar Vista Home, when the actress playing Emma Dill (Cecil Elliott) at first skillfully garbles the pronunciation of "Albacore" just enough to suggest how it can be misheard as "apple core" - and Nicholson just as skillfully repeats it - before correcting very distinctly, "No, the AL-bacore."

Just one of a number of beautifully nuanced moments in the film executed with precision.


Poe! You are...avenged!

reply

Great post Doghouse and "Chinatown's unsolved mysteries" is one of the many reasons I love this movie. Always something new to learn or figure out or at least try to with each viewing.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply

I think an even bigger question is, how are we supposed to believe that this old dried up Noah walking around with a cane could ever have found the strength to drown anybody, let alone somebody at least 20 years younger than him?

And if the henchman did it, why would the glasses end up in the water?


People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

reply

How do we know there wasn't a struggle between Noah Cross and Hollis Mulwray, causing the glasses to end up in the pond, with the henchman subsequentlyintervening to drown Mulwray?

reply

Simply because it was never suggested. I'm not saying it's not possible, just that the story as presented to us suggests Noah killed Hollis, reason why his glasses are found in the pond. If he wasn't the killer, then the story would have revolved around the henchman too. That's my take anyway.

People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs

reply

Anyone with a brain could see that Claude Mulvehill, the likely killer, was carrying out his superiors' orders throughout the film and likely accompanied Cross to meet Hollis Mulwray, just as he did Gittes at the end of the film. And it's definitely reasonable that Cross and Mulwray would get in a struggle, especially since his glasses were left in the pond.

So it's obviously implied throughout the film since the story consistently involves that one henchman. It's as simple as that, at least upon re-watch.

When people order other people to kill people, the people who ordered the kill are never the killers under any circumstances?

Just deal with the fact that it's the greatest screenplay in the history of cinema and move on.

reply

I'm more bothered how at the beginning, some guy recognizes the wife of a water commissioner. Do you know the name of your local water commissioner, let alone what he looks like, LET ALONE WHAT HIS WIFE LOOKS LIKE? Only in movies.

reply

Nobody recognizes the wife of the water commissioner in Chinatown.

You're thinking about another movie.

The woman indicates herself that she is the wife of the Chief Engineer of the water department, a position that had substantial prominence during that time period in California and easily within the drought-laden context within the film.

reply

She introduces herself to some guy. But there are two other guys on the outside who aren't involved in that conversation, They just know who she is, WITHOUT having been introduced to her.
I'll stick to my original point: no matter how prominent you think a water department engineer is, they are non celebrities who would not be recognized by the general public. And even more so, their spouse would not be recognized either.

reply

Actually they don't recognize her at all – that's why she is able to pose as Mrs. Mulwray despite the lack of any resemblance between them. And it's only after she states that her husband is the Chief Engineer that Duffy chimes in with interest, realizing that the head of the water department must earn a good salary and so they could charge his wife an exorbitant fee to spy on him.

The name Mulwray rings a bell for Jake probably because the drought has been front page news for a while and Hollis would have been the city's main spokesperson; he has certainly gained the attention of the farmers, who know his name very well.

reply

Well I'm more bothers that Noah cross killed Hollis himself.With him being so rich,couldn't he hire someone to kill Hollis?

reply

What it indicates is that the killing wasn't premeditated. They'd had a heated argument outside the Pig 'n Whistle days before; Noah had apparently gone to Hollis' home early in the morning, they argued again and - there in private, without any witnesses - this one ended in violence.


Poe! You are...avenged!

reply

While the evidence points to a physical confrontation between Cross and Hollis, there is every reason to believe that Cross would have taken along Mulvihill to "take care of business," just as he did for the appointment with Jake near the end of the film.

reply

[deleted]

Agreed on the bifocals. From what we can tell, Cross uses his glasses to read (and to inspect fish heads on a plate), but he doesn't wear them all the time, so they likely fell out of his pocket without his knowledge. My guess is that Cross and Hollis may have tussled, but Mulvihill did the dirty work.

reply