(spoilers) Jake to blame for what happened in the end - Chinatown (1974) Discussion

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

He thought he could run a little bit faster. The way the end plays out, it's pretty close. A millisecond here or there, or if that one bullet that did find its mark actually missed, and Jake would've been a hero.

No, I wouldn't say he's to blame. He was dealt a bad hand and played it pretty well. Of course, he still lost the ante, didn't he?

The blame is all Noah's, as far as I'm concerned, since he's the spider weaving the webs. I might fault Jake a bit for not pulling it off, but then again, maybe I'd fault Evelyn a bit, too; if she was more candid with Jake earlier, who knows what he could've pulled off? (Even then, I want to be clear: I don't blame Evelyn, the responsibility and blame is all on Noah, and Evelyn is also playing a bad hand - can't imagine the pressurized life she lead).

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

I see what you mean for sure. but Jake didnt have the means to be a hero. he had lost Escobars trust who didnt want to hear anything he said. How would he have bee the hero? Evelyn drives away, Escobar ignore Jake about Cross.

he was an insanely passively hero. who didnt move the plot and action forward, so much as went along for the ride. I don't see how he played it well. He didnt press Evelyn when he should have. He didnt come prepared to see cross when he should have.

Ohh agreed Evelyns been through some crazy stuff clearly, and of course this hypothetical "well why didnt he just" doesnt work in fiction. movies would be incredibly boring, predictable and short if our protagonists did all the right moves.

still Jake didnt seem prepared in the slightest for the danger of what he was investigating.. and you think a murderer man, hired heavies shooting at you, and heavies slicing open your nose would have pushed somone to be bit more concerned with their mortality. He didnt even own a gun, and the hardest we ever saw him fight was against some hillbillies in an orange orchard.

other than that, he was a passive protagonist, along for the ride

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

Good points.

For a long time, Jake's primary objective is to find out truth. He's trying to clear his name and figure out what the heck is going on. Only as he uncovers things does he realize that he wants to fight Cross and try and save Evelyn.

I gotta rewatch the movie for details. I wouldn't say he's passive, it's just that at first his goals aren't to solve problems, just to find out what's going on and get himself disentangled. Ironically, he gets more entangled.

I think he was prepared for danger. There's only so hard you can fight with a switchblade in your nostril.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

I also may have to rewatch it again to fully appreciate it and follow it better.

but it seems he is super passive, going from one place to another, not pushing enough for more information, not being an active protagonist.

"I gotta rewatch the movie for details. I wouldn't say he's passive, it's just that at first his goals aren't to solve problems, just to find out what's going on and get himself disentangled. Ironically, he gets more entangled."

thats fair same. I am too used to L.a confidential and other films I guess where the heros do want to be actively involved and I was applying my own preference/biased to this film.

I just don't see how in any world going unarmed with no plan to cross, a powerful known murderer is in any ways a good plan that would workout in his favour. his one advantage, having a detective on his side, he ruins by phoning early and betraying his trust. he had no reason to rush over to Cross to confront him. he had evidence (the glasses), he had witnesses to back up what happened. and Cross didnt know Evelyns whereabouts (right?). Had he called Escobar before and explained everything, he would have shown up with the law on his side, ready to arrest Cross with a substantial amount of evidence. or at the very least Evelyn could have escaped., but then again maybe not, it seems cross owned the police and only Escobar wasn't under his sway (yet). so its possible Evelyn and her daughter would have been given to Cross anyways as corrupt higher ups stepped in to cover for and help Cross.

I get the film was never going to end on a happy note that was the point (you cant change what happened, things are the way they are). but when you write your protagonist to be completely illogical to push that, it lessens a film IMO. just seems like that could have been handled better. the film seemed to meander 30-45 minutes too much. just going set to set to "investigate" things not particularly interesting or relevant to case. and even if they were it just seems like it could have been done tighter and more concisely. but that may have been Polanskis intense (I mean he made the film so clearly it was). but doesn't mean I have to like it and doesn't make it good just because thats what he intended (see George Lucas for intention not equaling good)

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

I'll try to rewatch it to track Jake's exact actions. I don't remember being bothered by this stuff, so maybe a rewatch will jog my memory as to why Jake does what he does. Sometimes characters (and people) make decisions that do make sense in the moment because of a specific element at play, even though larger-picture they're kind of illogical or ill-advised.

Apparently the first couple drafts of the script ended well. The first draft was a happy ending, the second was a mixed-bag (but still mostly positive), and Polanski insisted to Towne that the story could only reach its full potential if it were to end on a dark note. I agree; it's far more poignant as a tragedy.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

I get in a mood where I get obsessed with watching a certain genre of film. for bit it was gangster movies. now im on to detective film noir sorta thing.

it was a first time watching it so maybe ill rewatch it and more fully appreciate it. kinda like how in Godfather two I used to skip the "boring godfather flashback scenes". but now I love them.

oh I agree it's far better to end with a tragedy it def sticks more with you. and as you said it may be explained by Jake not wanting to get entangled. it was paid for a job he isn't an idealist seeking the truth to do what is right. and before he knows it he is entangled in the whole thing and then Just makes one bad decision confronting cross unarmed or with no plan

did you know there's a sequel called "two jakes"?

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

For awhile now I've been meaning to drink Chinatown in again. I'm planning to shut off my television set's colour, too. Some movies are fun in black-and-white, and I think Chinatown might have a cool, extra "noir" flavour if I shut down the colour. I did this with The Curse of the Jade Scorpion, and it was really fun (another throwback film, made after the period its representing, and with noir overtones (albeit for comedy).

One of the ways I think a great movie pulls ahead of the pack of bad movies (or even "good" ones) is by rewatches. Is it worth another trip? Then it's better than good. Even if you never get around to the re-watch, just knowing that you'd go again is a good indicator of quality. Some movies get better with each journey through, and Chinatown is definitely one of them. So are The Maltese Falcon and The Third Man, since you're going down Noir Alley.

Oh, and check out the movie Detour, if you haven't already. It's public domain, so you can watch it on good ol' youtube. There's a remake of the movie starring the original lead actor's son! It's not good, but I watched 'em back-to-back a little while ago and it's fascinating seeing the differences and what worked and what didn't and why.

Jake becomes an idealist too late. He used to try and Chinatown beat it out of him ("What did you do in Chinatown?" "As little as possible.") He gets used to aloofness and apathy. Then he starts to open up and BAM! It's Chinatown (again).

I know of The Two Jakes, but I haven't seen it. It's like Godfather 3: I LOVE the first one (or two) and the finale's reputation is "It's okay..." and I don't want to tarnish the original's brilliance with even just a "good" movie followup.

reply

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 3 years ago

yaa black and white would suit it perfectly.

nice ill check those films out. I may be youngish but def not against watching older films ill check them out.

I guess seeing what he sees and doing what he does. he has to become an apathetic detached person. his job is finding and delivery bad news.

I advent seen two jakes. but reading the synopsis it just seems like another run of the mill detective story with nothing interesting to offer. I feel like two jakes could have been interesting if it readdressed the Cross incident. almost like a part two where a fully broken obsessed Jake tries to finally get justice. but that may be my own bias and disappointment with Jake himself showing. my imagine is basically a more active Jake with guns actually getting shit done lol

reply

[–] Ace_Spade (9577) 3 years ago

Best noir films I've seen are Maltese Falcon and Third Man, probably followed by Chinatown and The Big Sleep.

If you're looking for more recommendations, Touch of Evil, Double Indemnity, and Sunset Blvd. are all also great.

Also on my "black and white" list is Match Point, The Matrix, and the Tim Burton Batman films. I want to see how those movies look in greyscale.

When I read Syd Field's book Screenplay, he talks about how Jake is used to being aloof. He's in the shadows, behind the scenes, out of sight. When he makes the front page for his Mulwray gaff, he's at his most uncomfortable and vulnernable. That's what makes him a great main character: this is his nightmare scenario. Along with that, I might add that being forced to give a damn is the last thing Jake wants to do, but his character arc wouldn't be as impactful if he was a gung-ho fighter. He's intellectual so he has the acumen to spar with guys like Cross, but he's also somebody who needs to learn to care again.

I think I read somewhere that they were planning a trilogy about major events in California/LA history. Chinatown was the drought. The Two Jakes has some other major political thing as the backdrop (can't remember what - as I say, I haven't actually seen it) and the third was going to be something else.

I love that about the movie, too, that it mixes in real politics and historical events with the personal stories of the characters, and the larger themes about corruption and power.

reply

[–] roger1 (3703) 10 months ago

I think I read somewhere that they were planning a trilogy about major events in California/LA history. Chinatown was the drought. The Two Jakes has some other major political thing as the backdrop (can't remember what - as I say, I haven't actually seen it) and the third was going to be something else.

---

Chinatown was set in the 30s and was about water(rights); The Two Jakes(which was made in 1990 and directed by Nicholson, but no classic) was set in the 40s and about oil..oil IN the Los Angeles area. The third film in the trilogy was to be called "Cloverleaf"; it was to be set in the 50s and to be about the freeway system growing in LA(hence the "cloverleaf that multiple freeways sometimes form at their junction.)

Though The Two Jakes was actually made(the film is not BAD, just not great), it is said that some of the "Cloverfield" plot made its way into two later movies -- "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"(1988) and "LA Confidential"(1997)...LAC WAS set in the fifties as Cloverleaf would have and did have a tiny freeway subplot. Roger Rabbit was about the end of mass transit street cars in LA, among other things.

More on The Two Jakes:

It went into pre-production in 1985 or 1986. Nicholson was the lead actor, and Chinatown screenwriter Robert Towne was set to direct. Towne and Nicholson decided on Paramount studio chief Robert Evans to play "the other Jake." Evans had been an actor in the 50s and 60s before quittin to eventually run a studio and then produce. As produciton was about to start, Towne got cold feet about Evans and the whole project fell apart. As I recall actress Kelly McGillis had been hired but got lost with the project.

Attempts were made to change the name "Jake Gittes" to something else and make a movie about a DIFFERENT detective...with Harrison Ford in the lead. That fell apart too.

CONT

reply

[–] roger1 (3703) 10 months ago

Finally, around 1990 -- with Nicholson superhot off of Batman and the Joker -- The Two Jakes got greenlit again. After some thought being given to Nicholson's co-superstar Dustin Hoffman as "the other Jake," they went cheaper(but still good) with Harvey Keitel.

The Big Jakes proved that Jack Nicholson alone couldn't seel "Batman" level tickets for The Two Jakes...even if it was based on a classic. (And The Two Jakes DID take up some leftover characters from Chinatown, including Evelyn's daughter, now grown up.)

reply

[–] Information-Police (4890) 2 years ago

Forget it, Leo, it's Chinatown

reply

[–] LTUM (1037) a year ago

you are kinda right, actually

one thing: did evelyn hire the fake evelyn? double check that info...

reply

[–] VonFisch (354) a year ago

I watched this again after many years last night and I thought the same about how Jake led them all there, but it all comes down to that idiot at the end. Escobar was precisely shooting at Evelyn's tires to stop her, gets held back, but then that idiot takes over and starts shooting indiscriminately willy nilly, not really aiming, and rapid fire. That is why she got hit. The blame ain't Chinatown as far as I'm concerned.

reply

[–] roger1 (3703) 10 months ago

..but "fate" took all the main characters TO Chinatown, "where bad things happen". The end wasn't in the first draft -- or drafts -- of the script -- but somebody felt a movie called Chinatown should...go to Chinatown.

And then, famously, director Roman Polanski changed the end so that Evelyn got killed(thus, the addition of that stray shootin' detective.)

CONT

reply