Question about the glasses
Why did Evelyn tell Jake that the glasses didnĀ“t belong to Hollis?
Did I miss something?
Cheers
Why shouldn't she have told him? It was the truth.
Jake assumed, incorrectly, that the glasses were her husband's, and he thought that finding them near that pond proved that Evelyn had killed him.
Once Jake learns the truth about the girl, and thus concludes that Evelyn is not the murderer, and they have both calmed down, she gets a closer look at the glasses, and realizes that they couldn't be her husband's, since they're bi-focals.
Jake now realizes that the glasses belonged to her father, and that *he* is the murderer.
It should be against the law to use 'LOL'; unless you really did LOL!
That makes a lot of sense... I totally missed the point that the glasses belonged to Noah Cross.
Thanks for clarification.
So did I.....film is that splendid.
shareI missed that point totally too the first time i saw it.
Second time i saw it, the scene right after Mulwray says those glasses arent her husband's, we have a scene with Nicholson & Huston, and in that scene, Huston takes a closer look at something, and puts THOSE TYPE OF GLASSES on.
A subtle hint, but a great one.
Favorite films of all time list
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls031708001
The question here is, how did she not know they were her father's?
shareBecause she was estranged from her father and wasn't familiar with his wardrobe and accessories.
Vote Syriza and Podemos!
I thought that but seems a rather vague explanation, surely she must have known he wore bifocals and what type. Remember Cross was able to go to her house, so the estrangement couldn't have been much.
shareThey are definitely estranged. Evelyn told Jake that Hollis and Cross had a falling out a number of years ago, over the Van Der Lip Dam, and that they had not spoken to each other since. Gittes thinks she's lying because Walsh recently took photos of the two men arguing in the street, but she had no knowledge of that head-to-head.
shareIt seems a script flaw for me
shareNot necessarily a flaw. For one thing, she knew that the glasses were not her husband's and, even though they were "estranged" it does not mean that she had never seen him or a photo of him or even heard someone make the remark about his bifocal glasses. I think that as this whole scenario was playing out she began to suspect what had actually happened.
shareShe'd already told Jake the night before that "It's possible" Noah was behind Hollis' death. If she was aware that her father wore bifocals, there's no indication of it in the scene, or that she's made any connection at that moment between him and the glasses. If she had, it seems reasonable that she'd have mentioned it to Jake, having already warned him about Noah and what he was capable of.
On that basis, wouldn't you say that her remarking only that the glasses weren't Hollis' is something we can take at face value, indicating just that and nothing more? Having bared her soul - and her secrets - to Jake only moments earlier, it doesn't seem likely that she'd fail to tell him if she'd realized the glasses pointed to her father.
Poe! You are...avenged!
Well, one of the wonderful things about movies is that we can all have our own perception of what and why things happened. Personally, my point is that I do not think that the writer or the director or the actors made a "flaw" when it came to the glasses. Though it has been a few years since I watched the film, I recall that the finding of the glasses was a VERY distinct clue to Jake and it was not an insignificant event in the film as it was portrayed as such a vital clue. I always took it that through this entire film you never knew exactly what was going on as the truth about the events that were unfolding was kept as a mystery almost to the very end, when it all became very clear. Whatever anyone chooses to believe about the particular mystery involving the glasses is up to that person but I just don't think that these extremely talented people were guilty of a "flaw" in how that was handled in the film. Everyone is entitled to their own view, and that is mine.
shareWell your view is completely delusional.
shareThat's exactly the sort of reply that I expected from someone so arrogant and self important as you are. It HAS to be YOUR way, because YOU are, in your own little mind, SUPERIOR to everyone else. Now, go away and try to grow up, I am done with your childish attitude.
http://www.sparknotes.com/film/chinatown/summary.html
The next morning, Lieutenant Escobar of the Los Angeles Police Department finds the fraudulent Mrs. Mulwray (an actress named Ida Sessions) dead and accuses Jake of withholding evidence that proves Evelyn killed her husband. Escobar tells Jake that Hollis was found with saltwater in his lungs, suggesting that his body was moved to the freshwater reservoir. Jake returns to the Mulwray mansion, where he learns that a backyard pool is filled with salt water, and he finds that it contains a pair of broken glasses. Jake deduces that Evelyn drowned Hollis in the pond. He rushes to the house where Evelyn is hiding her sister. There, he sees Evelyn packing hurriedly. Jake calls the police and confronts Evelyn with his theory, showing her the broken glasses.
Evelyn denies everything but finally confesses the secret sheās kept throughout the movie: the blond girl, Katherine, is really her daughter as well as her sister, the result of an incestuous relationship Evelyn had with her father, Noah Cross. Evelyn claims that Cross had Hollis killed because Hollis and Evelyn tried to keep him away from Katherine. Evelyn points out that the broken glasses were not Hollisās, as Hollis did not wear bifocals, and Jake deduces that they must have belonged to Cross. Jake decides to help Evelyn and Katherine escape, suggesting they hide in Chinatown, his former beat and the site of many bad memories for Jake. After leading the police away from Evelynās true location, Jake arranges for a former client to smuggle Evelyn and Katherine out of Chinatown and into Mexico.
lol why are you posting a summary to the movie?
shareAbsolute agreement here on all those points.
ī
Poe! You are...avenged!
It's just impossible for her not to know her father wore bifocals. Period. Where are those racially superior jew pig genes when you need them? This is a major blunder from Polanski.
sharePlus, Evelyn had been estranged from her father since she was 15. She ran away to Mexico and Hollis had pretty much taken care of her ever since.
shareAnd she came back married to Hollis and Hollis became her father's right hand man. It's IMPOSSIBLE she didn't see her father on a regular basis. Simply impossible.
shareEvelyn obviously didn't see her father on a regular basis. I'd say that she never saw him, judging by her reaction in the film when she does see him (or even just when he is mentioned to her). They are estranged and she clearly can't bear to be anywhere near him.
Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-madeshare
This.
(Actually, I said this months ago. And it's still true.)
Forget it Jake. It's Chinatown.
What a dumb thing to say.
shareJust because he can go to her house doesn't mean he did. Cross doesn't seem much interested in Evelyn and doesn't give the impression that he would show up and see her for no reason.
Also, why do you keep going on about Jewish people?
Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-madeshare
lol you clearly have no clue about the Cross family dynamics.
shareNeither do you because the film doesn't go into it in detail. Instead we have to infer what we can from the information given. You appear to be writing fan fiction about Evelyn bumping into Noah at parties.
And also, why do you keep going on about Jewish people?
Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-madeshare
The only writer of fanfiction in here is you. If you understood the characters, what the movie infers, and the dynamics of abuse, specially incest, you'd realize that Noah was a constant presence in Evelyn's life.
shareThe movie doesn't infer anything. We infer, the movie implies. And the strong implication in the movie is that Evelyn, who is reduced to a stammering, quivering wreck at the mere mention of her father's name, cannot stand to be around Noah Cross and never sees him. If Cross regularly saw Evelyn do you not think that he would already know about Katherine?
Now, are you going to explain your bizarre and unprovoked comments about Jewish people on this and other threads or are you going to continue to duck the question?
Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-madeshare
[deleted]
Why, if she never sees him? And why do you "loathe" Jewish people, and why bring it up?
Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-madeshare
Jesus christ, you are dumb. Are you a jew? Are those inbred ashkenazi genes causing a number on you right now?
When Noah loses his lenses, he gets another ones that look EXACTLY THE SAME. It is pretty logical to infer and conclude that, he has been using the same pair of recognizable glasses probably for years.
So I see you've learnt the meaning of the word "infer". You're welcome, kid.
I wear glasses. I have had several different pairs over the years, prescriptions change, styles change, and I doubt that many people, even people who know me well and I see very regularly, would necessarily recognise a random pair of my glasses as mine, if shown them out of context.
Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-madeshare
Yeah because Noah Cross is soooo fashionable he will change his glasses lol, shut up already.,
shareI'm not saying that Cross was a fashionista, jack ass, I'm simply saying that when you go to buy a new pair of glasses it is not always possible to buy a pair that are exactly the same as your previous ones. You conveniently ignore that I also said prescriptions change over time necessitating the purchase of new glasses, that it has been years since Evelyn saw Cross anyway so there's no reason she would recognise his glasses, and that glasses, by and large, all tend to look similar to each other, especially, I am sure, in the early part of the last century before consumerism and stylistic concerns increased the choice available. But then ignoring things that you find inconvenient is the only tool you have to win these pointless arguments that you clearly love.
Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-madeshare
All of that is conjecture that is nowhere in the film. Evelyn hasn't seen him in years?? Really? How do you know? This man is audacious enough that he murdered her husband in her house. Do you really think there weren't regular screaming matches between the two? Give me a fvking break. I also just realized that even though Evelyn said Hollis and her father hadn't spoken since the dam, just three days before they were arguing in front of a restaurant. Evelyn is a liar and there are insinuations and flat out clear statements that she could barely put her father at a distance, barely. So that makes it virtually impossible for her not to know those were his glasses specially since the replacement glasses looked the same, which means that he must have been wearing that particular kind for many years or quite sometime and she must have seen them somewhere.
Ultimately you are an imbecile that argues about things that were never in the film in the first place, I take everything at face value and talk about what is IN THE FILM, it's not my fault you are too much of a moron to understand it. And I'm getting bored of this.
Unfortunately for you, your entire conjecture about the glasses has been obliterated and disproved.
share