All of this critique, not hate, of Gittes is not only fair but necessary because his mistakes are part of the story. It's not a matter of 20/20 hindsight and simply saying "how could he have known about an incestuous relationship?"
The lesson that Gittes again failed to heed was to do "as little as possible" in investigation, which he acknowledges with his last words of the film. Why is this the case?
Regarding the macro-level crime, "he didn't do a fine job of detective work in figuring out the land grab water diversion aspect" since he was completely unconstructive in his investigation and had no impact nor any effect on the crime(s) at any time during the film. When given the chance to prove to the police evidence of such a conspiracy he's unable to muster a shred of proof. In the end, only two people learn about the conspiracy and one of them is dead at the end of the film.
Regarding the micro-level crime, his misinterpretation-of clues, evidence, and motivations-throughout the film lead to his own actions that directly prevent innocent people to escape the city and ultimately dooms them, a reprise of why he left working as a cop after he couldn't "always tell what's going on in Chinatown."
His "flawed vision" continues in the second to last scene in the film with an ill-advised confrontation with the primary antagonist of the film to prove that he "solved" the case. Such a confrontation at this point in the film is a constructive action for the classic film noir detective but Gittes' meeting only ends up loosing the detective's decisive piece of evidence against his (too powerful) adversary and sealing the fate of innocent people.
The writing is indeed great, as well as a deconstruction of the classic film noir detective.
reply
share
tricksoftrade01
8 years ago
Thank you for your well written response.
Perhaps it is because I never understood the 'as little as possible' statement that Gittes makes. What does that mean exactly? Don't try too hard because you might inadvertently hurt somebody if you do not see all the angles? I have to say that I don't entirely agree with that philosophy, because INACTION can also have the same result. But I guess it would not be film noir if he grew and developed a better philosophy at the end.
I agree with you that this is a very well written movie. I was just viewing this movie coming from 'real-time' perspective, how the viewing audience might behave compared to Gittes when learning the information for the first time. I just don't see many people getting as far as GIttes would.
reply
share
chninlp
8 years ago
The meaning of "as little as possible" is pretty much how it sounds: inaction, the term you just underscored.
That neglected lesson is central to the film's protagonist. He misinterpreted clues and motivations throughout, undermining his dogged investigation.
Had he not misread key evidence and alerted the police to the location of a completely innocent woman, she would have been well on her way to escaping the city. It's as simple as that and very uncomplicated.
Additionally, him taking action by confronting the primary antagonist, Noah Cross, only looses the most incriminating evidence against him of murder.
When he was a cop in Chinatown (more of a state of mind), his action "made sure [a woman] was hurt." He didn't fail to save a woman like people like to wrongly infer, him taking action guaranteed her death because he "couldn't always tell what was going on."
"Inaction also having the same result" could apply to other films but not Chinatown, which Jake Gittes himself validates at the end of the film with his own words.
reply
share