MovieChat Forums > Chinatown (1974) Discussion > It's insane how you all have ZERO unders...

It's insane how you all have ZERO understanding of Noah Cross and family

posted 10 years ago by LetThemEatCake01
87 replies | jump to latest

Literally ZERO. For starters everyone keeps on babbling about the water plot, the water plot, the water plot, when he realized Catherine was alive, the water plot went right out the window, it wasn't about that, it was about Catherine alone. The Albacore discussion was because of Catherine, Hollis died because of Catherine, period.

And what is this business about he and Evelyn being estranged equating them never seeing each other? Her husband was Cross' right hand man, you seriously think that they weren't constantly seeing each other? Who paid for Evelyn's house? Hollis? lol. Hollis' murder is evidence enough that Noah Cross could go to Evelyn's house as he pleased. You also don't even understand Hollis' function. He was there to be a sexual buffer between Evelyn and her father, that's not the only reason Evelyn needed him, I do believe Evelyn in fact loved him, but being a sexual buffer so that Noah couldn't rape her anymore is as far as his protection of Evelyn could go. There is just no way Hollis or anybody else could keep Cross entirely away from Evelyn. They must have seen each other SOMEWHERE from time to time, at her house, or who knows.

Which brings me to the glaring plothole of the movie. There is no way Evelyn didn't know those glasses were Cross'. There's also no way she didn't know Noah killed him.

Would it really have ruined the film if she had said, Hollis didn't wear bifocals, my father did, with a knowing look? I don't think so.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

The notion that what Cross is doing to the city doesn't matter is naive because Towne obviously wouldn't have included it in his screenplay if it wasn't important; and you better believe the corruption is absolutely as destructive as his personal crimes. Hollis Mulwray was chief engineer of the water department, and as Cross said "Hollis made this city", which means he is plenty rich. Also, Mulwray wasn't Cross's right hand man. He clearly opposes something Cross wants at the beginning of the film. Unfortunately, there's basically no evidence or scene to support what you just wrote.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

Except there is, and I never said it didn't matter, I said once Catherine appeared, that was his main driven force, not the water, so stop having water on the brain with this movie, the movie isn't even about that, it's like an OBSESSION.

[–] kleinfrankenheim 10 years ago

The working title for Robert Towne's screenplay was "Water and Power." His inspiration for writing it was the book "Southern California Country: Island on the Land," in particular the chapter entitled "Water, water, water."

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

It's still the backdrop, the movie is not even about the city. I'm sorry but it's about evil.

[–] kleinfrankenheim 10 years ago

Surely great works of art are about more than one thing. And one thing that is great about Chinatown is how the water politics still speak to us today, given the drought in California. e.g. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-california-can-learn-about-drought-from-the-classic-film-chinatown-2015-04-22

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

That is true however anyone that thinks Hollis died because of the water is a damn fool that doesn't understand this movie, I'm sorry.

[–] The_White_Hotel 10 years ago

If you have no understanding of allegory you have no chance of understanding this film. It is, as someone else has pointed out, about many things, not least the psychological mindset of the characters. If you were familiar with psychoanalytic film theory, which is the key critical theory for analysis of the classical film noir cycle that Towne's screenplay constantly refers to, you would know that it concerns itself with representation - how what we see on screen is analogous to something else (Middle of a drought and the water commissioner drowns - only in LA!). To feel the full impact of this movie you have to understand the water plot, and you have to understand how it relates, metaphorically, to the plot involving Noah Cross and Katherine. If you dismiss the water plot as not important you cannot possibly appreciate the complexity of the screenplay or film.

But judging by most of the statements I have seen you make on this board (not to mention your general rant above, aimed at everyone yet no one in particular, and in which you question other people's understanding of the film whilst suggesting that Hollis Mulwray, the chief engineer and water commissioner for Los Angeles and based on the eminent William Mulholland, could not afford to buy a house(!)) you are not a person for whom complexity is a pressing concern. You seem more involved with the idea that everyone is stupid except you; a mark, if you will excuse me, of hubristic naivety and a complete lack of self awareness, which is also evident in your appraisal of the movie.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

Except I do have perfect understanding of this movie, you just have zero imagination. Yeah, Hollis is going to be a multi-millionaire by working at the water and sanitation department, suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. He lives AT Evelyn's house which must have been bought by Noah Cross at some point.

[–] The_White_Hotel 10 years ago

He doesn't just work there though, does he? He is the water commissioner and chief engineer. He and Evelyn live together in their house. Your confusion around this point is representative of your general confusion around the aspects of the film that you have settled for simplistic explanations for.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

You know damn fvking well what I mean and you sit there arguing about what I didn't say, like an imbecile.

[–] The_White_Hotel 10 years ago

No I don't know what you mean and I am arguing with what you did say. Why do you assume Cross paid for Evelyn's house? Nothing in the film suggests that he did. Why do you assume Mulwray does not have his own money, given that he is in a very senior position himself? It's just like your assumption that Evelyn and Cross see each other regularly, despite the film making it clear that Evelyn can't stand even the mention of his name. I see you've now backed down on that one, but without so much as an acknowledgement that you were wrong (or that in being wrong you made inflammatory comments towards me and others who it turns out you now concede were right).

Normally I love discussing good movies with people. You, though, are wedded to an idiosyncratic interpretation of this film that has no basis in what we are shown and told on screen and that seemingly sets out to reject complexity in favour of the virtual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling when people contest it. It seems that this interpretation is also subject to change when flaws are pointed out in it, but that you yourself will not acknowledge these changes and will just carry on as if you have been right all along.

You believe the water plot isn't important despite being the linchpin metaphor for Cross's whole character and psychological makeup. You have stated elsewhere that this film is "not about the city" when the construction of the city of LA by crooked and corrupt oligarchs is a key and blatant part of the capitalistic critique that Towne's screenplay aims at LA and by extension America itself. You don't understand this film, you don't understand the purpose of cinematic representation, preferring to simply ignore what is on the screen in favour of what you've made up off it, you clearly don't understand the psychology of or the motivations of its characters, you make everything in to an argument for no other reason than you can't handle any variation from your undefendable and at times completely fictitious observations about the film, you butcher the english language, you are rude and confrontational for no reason whatsoever, you are ridiculously stubborn even about things that you have shown to be wrong about, and on top of this you are a viciously outspoken racist.

I've never said this to anyone on this site before despite encountering some pretty unbearable people in my time here, but you, kid, are simply too unpleasant, stupid and irritating to continue to bother with. Ciao.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

There's nothing in the film to suggest he paid for her house?? Are you an imbecile? Let me see. Hollis is a government CLERK, and a righteous one, how many government employees who are honest become millionaires?? No one. Evelyn is a socialite, she doesn't work, so how the fvk do you think she can have horses and live in a huge mansion?? On the salary of a fvking government director?? You must be really stupid. That only leaves one person capable of supporting her lifestyle and that is Noah Cross. And if you think that just because she hates his guts and he raped her all her life he is not going to pay for her bills and she's not going to accept it? That clearly shows you have zero understanding of the dynamics of abuse, or a dysfunctional family.

As a matter of fact, in this regard Cross paying for everything is CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN THE FILM, there is no other possible explanation and if he pays for everything, he is a never ending presence in her life.

I don't know what else you wrote because that first line is so stupid and it really shows how you have no imagination and you need absolutely everything to be spoon fed for you to understand it. Ironically, in spite of this, you cite things that were never shown or implied in the film to support your stupid arguments, which is kinda the point of this thread, you and the rest in here have zero understanding of the dynamics of the Cross family.

[–] sokeyt 10 years ago

Your hysteria and furious contempt for everybody suggest serious mental health problems.

I could rebut every one of your fan ficcy "arguments", but you are best left to your shrieking foul-mouthed rants.

clicks "ignore"...

Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

lol ok

[–] electrictroy 8 years ago

The movie is not black-and-white. (And if you don't know what that phrase means, then it proves you don't understand the story.)

[–] Phillip Marlowe 8 years ago

Has there ever been a more wrong headed interpretation of a movie? (Well, I still think Roger Ebert's insistence that Claude Rains' Major Renault was gay is ridiculous; this is in the same ballpark.)

Mulwray dies because he opposed the dam and had the power, influence, and reputation to present a serious obstacle to it. While he may have befriended Katherine, the struggle over her was between Cross and Evelyn, Hollis Mulwray was incidental to it. He died by water because of water. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a damn fool. I'm sorry.

[–] roreyking 8 years ago

You have nothing to be sorry for, Phillip (except that Chandler's Marlow is spelled with one "l"). There's no other conceivable interpretation.

[–] The_White_Hotel 10 years ago

No it isn't, it's never even hinted that Cross pays for Evelyn. Read up on who Mulwray is based on. He was called William Mulholland, he was one of the most powerful men in Los Angeles, and he was rich, despite being a government employee. He was a very prominent and well paid government employee.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. You say I am making things up but have no imagination. You say you go by what is in the film but immediately speculate that Cross must be bankrolling Hollis and Evelyn, which isn't in the film. On top of this, you're too dense to realise that that's what you're doing.

As you didn't read the rest of what I said, here's a brief summary - you are a shrieking and petulant child who is incapable of partaking in a conversation because all other points of view but your own nonsensical one are beyond your comprehension. You don't understand this film and until you change your attitude and start listening instead of shouting your head off at every variation from your own limited outlook you never will. You come across as a very nasty person with a very nasty penchant for dishing out unprovoked personal and general abuse and I'm done trying to have a civil discussion with you.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

I don't care about who Mulwray was based on. At all. There you go bringing IRRELEVANT facts completely detached and immaterial to this movie to support your insane views. I have no reason to believe Hollis has any money let alone pays for anything, in fact, once he is dead Evelyn has no trouble for paying very high quantities to Gittes for his investigations, not once but twice, as well as many servants, apartments for her daughter and many other things. What are you going to say now? That Mulwray left her with 10 million dollars like the imbecile you are? I have no reason to believe that. There is NOTHING in this movie that suggests he pays or is even capable to pay for anything. Who has over 20 million or whatever? Cross. Who is related to Cross?? Evelyn. What's a heiress going to do for money having a father so loaded?? The answer is totally obvious.

As I said, it is not me who has trouble understanding the facts and nuances in this film, you are.

And a word of advice: Do not bring anything that is not in the movie to argue about the movie.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

All you have to do to totally refute what LetThemEatCake01 claims are point out scenes like what the second meeting with the secretary at the water department or the meeting with Cross when he says Hollis Mulwray "Made this city..."

[–] kleinfrankenheim 10 years ago

Or right at the beginning, when Jake seems bored and disinterested in taking on the fake Mrs. Mulwray's case - until she tells him that her husband is the city's Chief Engineer. Jake (not to mention Duffy) smells a big payday. He warns her that the investigation will be expensive, and once she tells him that money is no object, he smilingly accepts the assignment.

And in the "capable of anything" meeting, Cross declares to Jake, "I want the only daughter I've got left. As you found out, Evelyn was lost to me a long time ago."

[–] The_White_Hotel 10 years ago

Thank you guys, I haven't seen the movie in a while so couldn't remember specific dialogue. I could remember though that I've never had the impression that Cross was funding Evelyn and certainly not Hollis.

This jack ass is so obstinate that when you mention examples from the film that show him to be incorrect he just carries on like you haven't mentioned them and he's been right all along (such as Evelyn's admission to Gittes that Mulwray and her father haven't spoken since the dam burst). Just watch him, I bet you he tries to refute what you are saying, which is in the film, by insisting on some bizarre reading that relies on him making stuff up out of thin air.

He's also still claiming that Hollis was a government "clerk" and so must have had no money when the film makes it quite clear that he is the chief engineer and a very important man but again he just totally ignores this in favour of insisting on things that aren't in the movie whilst accusing other people of doing that exact thing and yelling insults at everyone. I've honestly never seen anything like it on this site, and that is saying a lot.

[–] Doghouse-6 10 years ago

If you hear from LTEC01 again (I temporarily put him on "ignore" a while back and no longer engage him), you might point out that Hollis got his money the same way Noah did, and remind him of this exchange in the film between Jake and the secretary in Hollis' and Yellburton's office:

JAKE: "He owned the entire water supply for the city?"
SECRETARY: "Yes."
JAKE: "How did they get it away from him?"
SECRETARY: "Mr. Mulwray felt the pubic should own the water."
JAKE: "Mulwray? I thought you said Cross owned it."
SECRETARY: "Along with Mr. Mulwray."
JAKE: "You mean they were partners?"
SECRETARY: "Yes. Yes, they were partners."

Oh, and there's this too, from the man himself:

NOAH: "Hollis Mulwray made this city. And he made me a fortune."

Not that it'll do much good, for all the reasons you've already stated above.

Poe! You are...avenged!

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

You are so fvking dumb. The phony Mrs. Mulwray was impersonating Evelyn CROSS, daughter of the richest man in town, not only that but whoever was paying her came from Cross' camp, or at least had the money to pay, her statement about money is a mere reflection of her employer who has no problem with money. As a matter of fact, if Mulwray is sooooo rich and famous as you stupidly and blithely point out, then why would Gittes even mention money??

In case you don't understand language, film and Noah Cross, and believe me you don't, when Cross says Evelyn was lost to me a long time ago, he is not talking about a father and daughter relationship, he's not even talking about being in physical proximity or presence to each other, he is specifically referring to the fact that he couldn't fvk her anymore. Maybe because she would never allow it again, maybe because of Hollis, but the meaning of the line is undeniable. But you have to be smart and sensitive to pick it up and understand just how sick and perverted this character actually is, that the loss for him is the inability to have sex with his daughter. Which just brings even more weight to my point, that he is capable of talking to her if anything to have continuous screaming matches. There is no reason to believe that Evelyn in fact had never seen her father or talked to him in years, none at all.

So keep on believing this film is about water.

[–] kleinfrankenheim 10 years ago

The fake Mrs. Mulwray never told Jake that she was Evelyn Cross - she only said Mulwray. And even if she had, Gittes didn't know who Cross was until later, when he poked around at Mulwray's office. And I didn't say that Mulwray was famous, but Jake did recognize the name as the head of Water and Power, and, based on that, he knew that Mulwray would have a good income. It's as simple as that. And there is every reason to believe that Evelyn didn't see her father anymore - because she shudders at the thought of him. That's why she ran away from home and Hollis took care of her thereafter. She certainly wouldn't have wanted financial support from her father, which would have made her beholden to him. Your rants are based on a single-minded interpretation which fails to understand or appreciate the complexity and richness (no pun intended) of the characters and the film.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

And yet he still warned her about it being really expensive. You have zero idea about the dynamics of abuse and incest, hence why you don't understand this movie.

[–] PsychiatricPezDispenser 9 years ago

It's very clear in the movie that Jake had NO idea that Noah was Evelyn's father until that girl at the office told him who owned the water... that was way after the fake Evelyn hired him. Everyone knew that Hollis Mulwray had money, he was a socialite and made his money the same way Noah did. Could you please stop bringing every argument around to "you have no idea about the dynamics of abuse and incest"? The movie is about soooo much more than just that. You're making assumptions that not only were never in the movie, but are incorrect. Watch the movie over again.

[–] The_White_Hotel 10 years ago

Just one question for you; given that the fake Mrs MULWRAY never tells Jake she is Cross's daughter and that Jake doesn't even know who Cross is at this point, are you going to do the decent thing and apologise to the person who you called "fvking dumb" and admit that you are wrong about this, or are you just going to ignore the objective and undeniable fact that you are wrong and continue to act like a prick?

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

You are all so fvking stupid, whoever paid her had the money and her orders were, make him take the job. That's what I meant. Why don't YOU accept that you are wrong and that Mulwray is not a rich man otherwise why would gittes warn her about money after he already knew who she was, dumb ass.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

Robert Towne on Chinatown commentary: the relationship between Noah Cross and Hollis Mulwray "would be analogous to producer-director." That means that Hollis Mulwray is plenty rich, and there isn't much you can do about it and it also means you're entire interpretation is obliterated.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL ARE YOU INSANE?? You really think Mulwray is going to be the producer to Cross' director?? lol you are so dumb.

[–] The_White_Hotel 10 years ago

So, continue to act like a prick it is then. The guy above is quoting Robert Towne. However, I suspect that if Towne were here and flat out told you that you were wrong you would argue with him. This is actually becoming funny. Your complete desperation not to admit you are at all wrong about anything ever is causing you to say some priceless things.

Why are you so completely wedded to the idea that Mulwray has no money? The film does not tell us he has no money. It makes him seem very well off indeed. I can't wait to see what you write next.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

I don't give a fvk what robert towne says, or what deleted scenes say or unused scripts say, that is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what's on the screen and so far you have done nothing but bring up things that were NOT on the screen to support your moronic view.

I couldn't care less about whether he has no money or not, he is nowhere near as rich as Cross, and it's almost certain he can't afford to support Evelyn, the issue here is how little you all understand about the Cross/Mulwray dynamics, the only interesting thing about this movie mind you, and it's laughable.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

I can't believe Robert Towne, (who along with Polanski) wrote the greatest screenplay knows less about the screenplay to Chinatown than LetThemEatCake. If possible, LetThemEatCake, I'm intrigued in finding out if you know more about this film than Robert Towne and Roman Polanski; your interpretation of this film is believed by only one person in the entire world and there have already been scenes in the film itself that repudiate your "analysis".

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

They haven't, and I don't care about what you or that person has to say, this is far from being the greatest script ever made, FAR FROM IT, and artists may have their point of view and more often than not when the work is out there, people don't even see what they wanted to say because it turned out in an entirely different way. So his opinion is immaterial.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

When some of the greatest writers call Chinatown the most perfect screenplay ever, then it is arguably the greatest/most perfect screenplay ever. It is absolutely impossible for people who do not write films to know more about screenwriting than screenwriters. As for Hollis Mulwray, your opinion has become immaterial because it isn't supported by any scene in the entire film; you just gotta deal with that.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

It is not a perfect screenplay because it has a lot of plotholes. I never said I knew more about screenwriting, I know what a good script is, what a good movie is and I judge that, I don't care what a screenwriter says about his work, it's not relevant. What is relevant is what's there on the screen.

And no, the context in which things happen is very clear in the film, and it shows what I say, period.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

First of all, there are no plotholes. Second of all, as previously stated, there isn't a single scene that supports your "analysis" of the film. If you think there is, I'd be more than happy to correct your incorrect interpretation.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

I already explained it and there are plotholes, the glasses are a plothole, the ending is totally forced and nonsensical just to shock us with Evelyn's death.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

I don't care to read your previous thread but the glasses cannot be a plothole because Mulwray didn't wear biofocals. They didn't belong to him; and I have already dispelled what your wrote about the ending. The only thing unlikely about the ending is the shot connecting with hear head at that distance but it's no different than the unlikely aspects of The Godfather, another of the greatest screenplays.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

It is a plothole because it's impossible that evelyn didn't know they were her father's.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

There is no evidence that she knew that her father even owned glasses or that he owned glasses when she left him at age 15. None whatsoever.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

You are such an imbecile, her husband and her father worked intimately for years and she never saw him again after she was 15?? Please. He went to his house and killed him there, that means he could go there as he pleased, and surely even bought the house himself. Deny that, fvking ass hole.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

You're the complete imbicile. Did you not hear her say that Hollis had a falling out with Noah Cross you idiot and never spoke to him again?; Their only meetings that took place during the film are when they had an impassioned argument captured in photos and when he killed him later. What happened with the glasses???

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

Oh yeah because everything Evelyn says is the truth right? Have you no imagination you fvking moron?? lol, this movie goes WAAAAAAAAAAAY ABOVE YOUR HEAD.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

So Evelyn never tells the truth in the entire film? You're WAAAAAAAAAAAY ABOVE YOUR HEAD. Her only lies are out of concern for the welfare of Catherine you fool

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

They are still lies you imbecile. Awwwww what's wrong?? You can't argue anymore? Is that it? lol fvk offf.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

What does that have to do with her saying that Hollis and Noah Cross had a "falling out" and never spoke again?; obliterating, annihilating, and liquidating your argument to little pieces you infantile imbecile?

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

Not at all, to think that Noah never talked to Mulwray in after the dam even if Noah was intertwined intrinsically with everything water related in LA is the thinking of a moron that has literally no imagination and certainly no understanding of what the dialogue and images imply.

[–] chninlp 10 years ago

You simplistic fool, whenever Hollis and Noah Cross had their falling out is when they ended their relationship. How can one be so idiotic? Cross used to own the water department until Hollis convinced Cross to make it publicly owned, which strained their relationship. They finally had a falling out and split after the Van Der Lip dam disaster and there was nothing for them to discuss. They didn't talk again until Hollis found out about Noah Cross' corruption through dumping water and using his Club to facilitate it; And their falling out happened years before the events of the film. What happened to the glasses???

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] The_White_Hotel 9 years ago

Hahahaha, so now you're saying you don't care what the writer says about his own screenplay, you know better? Hahahaha, this is getting ridiculous. When you say something that isn't in the film and people disagree you say they have no imagination. If anyone else says something to you that is heavily implied but not literally stated in the film you say they shouldn't be saying things that aren't in the film.

You're claiming Hollis "can't afford" to support Evelyn? Why? Where do you get that information from? You don't make any sense, you're now involved in about six separate arguments with six separate people, you are the only one who can see your own weird reading of this, you're incapable of communicating without yelling and swearing and the statements that you make are getting ever more desperate and ridiculous and all to support your child-like insistence that you are never wrong about anything.

You're the laughing stock of the board, why not just give it up, calm down, go and watch the film again and come back when you're willing to play nice?

[–] LetThemEatCake01 9 years ago

Why don't you fvk offf?? You don't own this movie, you don't even get it, quite tragic really.

[–] The_White_Hotel 9 years ago

Hahahaha, so this is what it all comes down to, when there's no more arguments to make, there's nothing else you can say to defend your undefendable position just tell everyone to "fvk off" and hope that works. Hahahaha.

I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh, I'm sure you get enough of that at school.

[–] Robbmonster 8 years ago

Your own words.

Yet every argument you bring up is based on assumption and 'reading between the lines'.

Truly pathetic.

Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

You misinterpreted my comment.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

And that shows just how little you understand about power, position in life, money. Many people built towns, doesn't mean sh*t when it comes to money.

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

its a movie, not art lol

[–] Information-Police (4890) 3 years ago

But the water plot is the really interesting plot line. Things keep switching from a PI investigation of a cheating husband to a murder, to a water/land sale scheme to a family / incest drama.

The last one is most shocking and drives the last act, but it is insignificant compated to the much bigger story of power, greed and corruption that is so big the police can't go near it.

It's the ominous lesson of the movie: There are evil things that are so complex that you will be destroyed if you try looking into it. Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown..

[–] rrb_1 10 years ago

If Robert Towne ever read the OP, he'd laugh his ass off.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

And your point is?

[–] rrb 10 years ago

Obvious. Do you really have zero understanding?

[–] LetThemEatCake01 10 years ago

No. Do you?

[–] atiq1969 9 years ago

I know this thread was going fairly hot and now no one has commented recently, but I had to make a comment. I very rarely get on these boards, but after reading this, I had to comment after just finishing watching Chinatown again after many years. The major question I have for letthemeatcake, the original poster, is what do you care what people think? If you feel you have the right answer, then why are you so incensed over people not agreeing with you? What was your point? So you want to make it clear that no one but you understands what this film, and by extension the script, is actually about. So you've already stated that; that you are the only one that understands the true intention of this film, so then why are you so surprised and why get so angry when people say otherwise? I'm just curious is all. I'm also curious as to why all the other people are going to such great lengths in defending their positions. Based on the OP's responses, doesn't it seem like he's not really wanting to discuss this intelligently? It seems like a losing battle. So what if the OP feels that this movie is not about the water, but it is about the family dynamics? To the OP, if people believe that it goes beyond that and that the water politics is a metaphor, and you don't, so what? I do have to say though that their responses, whether one agrees with them or not, are intelligent and backed up by empirical evidence, while you clearly came across as frustrated and just used cursing eventually as your defense and not really backing any of your arguments up except "it's what's on the screen that matters". Does that mean that Puzo and Coppala's assertions that the Godfather films are critiques of capitalism mean nothing? Or that Citizen Kane was based on William Randolph Hearst and his media empire and by extension a critique on the power of the media? Or how about any drama film? Everything is not laid out on the screen, but certainly you can infer that certain dramatic themes, such as good versus evil, or the darker side of human nature, are the intended themes. Certainly you can infer that even though it's not explicitly stated in these films word by word, there are things that are allegorical? In regards to this film, I have no problem with Cross raping his daughter symbolic of him raping the land. So much great literature is based on allegory, and so are films. Are you saying there in no room for symbolism in art? If the OP responds to this post, I think that if you're honest with yourself you can ascertain that you were just getting defensive and that you were on the losing end of the argument, hence you're lashing out at everyone. Just my thoughts.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 9 years ago

I wasn't on the losing end of anything, if you want to make allegories you can, the movie is still about evil.

[–] atiq1969 9 years ago

And who said it wasn't about evil?

[–] LetThemEatCake01 9 years ago

All the imbeciles on this board.

[–] atiq1969 9 years ago

I see. Thanks for your time.

[–] The_White_Hotel 9 years ago

Hello atiq1969, thought I'd try to give a response without starting this whole pointless argument up again (let's face it, no one comes out of these things looking very good). As you can see, no one has claimed this film is not "about evil", simply that that is not all it is about, and why the OP is determined to limit its subtext to one thing (and an incredibly vague and general thing at that, what does it even mean, to be "about evil"?) is anyone's guess. If anything, seeing Cross's scheme with the water as allegorical to his rape of his daughter emphasises the scale of his evil. How he behaves on a personal level is symbolic of his wider behaviour.

But ultimately this argument is not about that, nor is it about whether or not Evelyn would recognise Cross's glasses or whether Hollis was rich. It is about the OP's attitude that everyone is stupid except him, which is the entire reason he started this thread, and his subsequent inability to accept any other point of view, or to engage in discussion or debate without petulance and insults needlessly thrown in.

[–] atiq1969 9 years ago

Thank you for your reply stupidflanders. I agree with you that no one is saying that the movie is not about evil, but that it what the OP believes; that he seems to be the only one that sees it that way. I have to admit though, it was awesomely entertaining the way the OP kept coming back with the same curse word as his only response. They say the ones who are most angry are the ones who know they are wrong.

[–] GiaJake 9 years ago

SF - Just to put my two cents in, imo Hollis was wealthy. This was evidenced by his ability to pull up stakes and care for Evelyn in Mexico, as well as being a co-owner of the water department. Hollis puts me in mind of a wealthy businessman, who after amassing his fortune, decides to devote himself to public life and give back to the community. In addition, although not stated in the movie, Evelyn may have been part of a trust fund, inherited through her MOTHER when she became of age, possibly including their home.

Perhaps understanding an abusive childhood tells me that Evelyn was firmly no contact with her monster of a father, and Hollis only deals with Noah in business until the falling out. Evelyn would know accepting anything financially from her abuser would result in strings and expectations. Her goal is to protect Katherine. In doing so, she wants to stay completely off Noah's radar forever. FWIW, I have two wonderful kids who see their father often. They would never recognize his glasses in that context. Evelyn would have been glad to tell Jake they were her father's glasses if only she recognized them. If Hollis were not rich, Evelyn would have preferred to live in squalor with Kathrine safe, rather than accept anything from her father.

Occasionally on other boards someone discounts the insight of the screenwriter or author. Their opinions are considered the ultimate authority. It's just ludicrous that a viewer believes they know more. I know we are in agreement, but I couldn't reply to the anti-Semetic OP. That bothers me a great deal, and of course I would be blasted too.

[–] The_White_Hotel 9 years ago

I agree with you completely sh2836, as I think virtually everyone on this thread would, with of course one notable exception. Great points about Evelyn and her obvious refusal to have anything to do with her father in order to protect Katherine.

[–] cookiela2001 9 years ago

Yes. And, is there anything to indicate Hollis wasn't born with money of his own? The house were the Mullwrays live could just as well be the one he himself grew up in.

It's also possible Evelyn's mother's money was separate from her husband's, and she set up a trust fund Evelyn eventually came into.

(These aren't points I've ever dwelled on....as the Mullwray's financial situation has never seemed central to me.)

.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

I didn't say I knew more than them, my point is that what they say is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what's on the screen.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

Why is it arrogant?? I've read and heard directors say stupid things and what's worse, glorified quacks like Ridley Scott actually say things that CONTRADICT what's on the screen. And when they argue about their point of view about a film, fans then come with deleted scenes, director commentary, previous scripts, not of that matters. Literally none of it. I don't care what the first script of Blade Runner said, I don't care. In the final version of the movie, he's a replicant. I don't care what explanation Scott has for Prometheus, the film is still one of the worst films ever made.

The only thing that matters is what's on the screen, nothing more. Not even their intention because sometimes a director or an artist will have a certain intent, but their intention is not visible or understandable on the screen. So it doesn't matter. The screen is it.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chninlp 8 years ago

And what is on screen clearly contradicts you analysis.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

how?

[–] chninlp 8 years ago

Your original post has long been disassembled.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

good for you.

[–] Martoto (5049) 7 years ago

A) Cross does not misinterpret Gittes unambiguous question about what more he can afford "buy" and "eat" with the ill gotten profits of the land grab and water diversion.

B) Evelyn hasn't seen her father for years. Avoided him, in fact. You assume that she should know or care what kind of glasses he is currently wearing.

C) You're a snotty little twerp.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I believe you are stating the water issue was a red herring.
That's what makes this story so fascinating.
The more clever the red herring, the better the story.

[–] EdwardHaskell (145) 8 months ago

The last line of the quote below says it all.

https://cinephiliabeyond.org/roman-polanskis-chinatown/

Robert Towne:

Well, I don’t have to tell you that we weren’t trying to write a screenplay that was perfectly-structured. We were just trying to make it make sense. I remember, even without Roman, the first structural question, which may seem absurd now after the fact, was the question of which revelation comes first, the incest or the water scandal? And of course, it was the water scandal. When I realized that, I realized how foolish it was even to have asked the question. But the water scandal was the plot, essentially, and the subplot was the incest.

[–] BourbonKing (5778) 6 months ago

Interesting opinion, but a hard disagree from me.

[–] roger1 (3703) 6 months ago

And nine years later, yet!

That's a good thread...