MovieChat Forums > The Two Jakes (1990) Discussion > Why the shot from inside the golf hole??

Why the shot from inside the golf hole??

posted 16 years ago by BruceUK
15 replies | jump to latest

I like The Two Jakes very much - I think it's very atmospheric and the ending is especially haunting. I would say it's easily Jack Nicholson's best film as a director. But one or two moments did rather bug me, especially that shot during the golf sequence where the camera is pointing upwards from inside the hole on the green to show that the ball has stopped on the brink. Why do directors feel the need to indulge in these weird shots from such unnatural camera positions? Someone once said that the definition of a good director is someone who doesn't annoy you. How true!

[–] maturity 16 years ago

I think Jack Nicholson went over-the-top several scenes, like sticking a gun in Loach's mouth. The representation of police and lawyers is ridiculous. He would have been hit over the head with a blackjack or shot to death before he got out five syllables, holding a gun on a cop in a police station.

That said, there are several entertaining scenes, and the production values are high enough to keep watching IMO if you like the genre or the characters. But I think they needed to re-write half of the script and cut about 15 minutes. Jack Nicholson and Robert Towne were very self-indulgent.

I didn't mind the shot from the golf hole. What's more annoying is that you can tell the ball wasn't going toward the hole when they cut to that. It was sloppy and careless work. They should have at least shot repeated takes until Jack was able to hit the golf ball near the hole from where he was.

[–] xmonn 16 years ago

I think the shot was a metaphor for Gittes' frustration up to that point in the story: close, but no cigar. Just a theory.

[–] nutsberryfarm 13 years ago

he was living on the edge!

Golf clap? Golf clap.

[–] zerobeat 13 years ago

Also, when Jake punches Lillian in the face to knock her out.... that's very unrealistic. That kind of blow would have caused concussion and other damage, not a simple "oh, she fainted". I suppose that standard fare in a lot of Hollywood films... showing violence without the actual consequences they would cause.

I'm not against portraying actual violence (bring it on!). It's just way less impactful and realistic if the consequences are minor or non-existent. The scene n Reservoir Dogs when Roth's character gets shot is amazingly visceral - it really would be THAT painful and awful.

[–] SolitaryCZ 11 years ago

Well, I don't see that scene at police station that unbelievable. It skipped my mind, of course... but when you think about it. Gittes is ex-cop, now P.I., so still in same line of business, so he might be seen as a colleague and known person... even though he is mostly disliked by the cops, he is still probably respected. Escobar is almost his friend you might say. When two colleagues start fighting, you don't shoot at them or bash them, it's just two roosters that get in each others hair... they might went bit over the top, but still... they were seen as equals by the surrounding cops. If it was some criminal punk, he would get shot in a second.

[–] maturity 11 years ago

They would have thought he had lost his mind, IMO, and shot or bashed him. And I don't get why Escobar and Loach were always riding Jake's ass anyway. They tried to set him up with a fake charge of sexual assault or pandering at the end. Why? They were more colleagues than friends, I think. They gave Jake the professional courtesy of not killing him, like you said. He was WAY over-the-top, though. And the relationship between characters is never really explained, it's left to your imagination. Maybe Jake got busted for taking bribes or getting violent with his superior officer or dereliction of duty ("as little as possible"). Maybe they do not like his line of work, mostly breaking up marriages.

[–] SolitaryCZ 11 years ago

Well, they probably did not believe he would do it... I don't think they thought he lost his mind. It's questions raising scene, for sure, but I think it's still in believable area. If two cops would do the same, you wouldn't just shoot at them... because you know them and you do not want to see anyone hurt, you would most likely try them get separated, but not hurting them. Professional courtesy is bit different... professional courtesy was that they let him go after that. Not shooting him was just natural thing amongst colleagues.

Yes, the chinatown past is never fully explained, but I always got the feeling he was the one who quit (the one who got away), probably just got fed up with things he saw there. I don't think Gittes is a crook, he is bit crooked, but not a crook. With his morals and stuff... funnily enough, he is disliked by people, because of his work, but not because who he really is. People just started to see it as a one, because they assume he must be bad, when he is doing that sort of job. I would definitely scratch bribery. He wouldn't take money, that was where he draw the line. Being rough might work.

[–] gary_w_trott 8 years ago

Escobar and the other cops saw exactly what we viewers saw. Giddes and Loach were in a pushing contest and when Loach is pushed across the room he draws his gun. Giddes takes it away from him and humiliates him.

[–] AssetsonFire 16 years ago

I saw it as a kind of portent of what was to come, i.e. the oil coming from below; the circular hole could almost be a pipeline opening up to the sky. Alternatively it might signify Gittes' 'tunnel vision'. Read it how you will, I loved the film's visual quirks.

How do you like them apples?

[–] ClockworkKarma 16 years ago

I can't believe that golf-hole shot would annoy anyone.
It's a trick shot. BFD.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 12 years ago

Another great point about it.

Nicholson was shooting for "conceptual continuity" in the minutiae, just like Polanski had done in the first film.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] jc1305us 12 years ago

I agree, it was awkward cut to a strange shot. Didn't bother me, but it was a bit odd.

[–] JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies 12 years ago

Why the hell would that annoy you though? Seems like a very weird hang-up to have.

Anyway, there was an artistic reason for that shot being the way it was: Gittes can see the end to the extent that he can imagine himself there, but he just can't quite get there yet--he's stuck just on the edge. The pov shot from within the hole emphasizes that he can envision himself at the end. Shooting it from outside the hole wouldn't quite convey that.

http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DaveBowman2001 8 years ago

Totally agree. Can't see how that could be annoying (or enough to stand out from the rest of the film anyway). Creative decision. I was half expecting another earthquake to make the ball fall in the hole, but that probably would have been the cheap way out.