Remember: have a conversation with each other.
In many ways J.J. Gittes (Jack Nicholson) seems to be a parody of classical noir protagonists such as Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart). For example, at the beginning of Chinatown, Gittes makes a comment about his Venetian blinds, and moments later Gittes’s barber tells him he “looks like a movie star.”
Polanski’s use of (classical) film noir homages such as these are rampant throughout Chinatown. First, name at least one other classical noir reference you noticed. Second, explain how it (or others mentioned) relates to Modernist Noir (or even Post-Modernist Noir). In other words, what’s its purpose? Is Modernist noir doing something new, different? Or is it just rehashing the classical noir period/genre/tone?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
I think the one scene that sticks in my head would be the scene when the “thug” slices open Gittes’ nose. I can relate this to THE KILLERS when the two gangsters held up the diner and tied together the hands of the cook and the owner or when the Swede is killed. Both scenes from the classical noir and the neo noir evoke threatening gestures and have one person acting as the victim while the other is residing power over them. The difference would be that in CHINATOWN, Gilles’ is actually cut and we see it occur while in THE KILLERS, we don’t see the people being tied up or killed explicitly. It is very masked from the audience because of the Production code in classical noir but the neo noir has less restrictions and studio can show more violence, sex, etc. in their films. I don’t think it is rehashing the classical noir period/genre/tone because I think it is instead taking classical noir narrative and situations to a new level. It is more than ever, evoking real terror in the audience. Because we can actually see Gilles being cut, we feel the terror of the situation more than having it shielded from us in classical noirs.
[Reply]
Dr. Marshall Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 9:19 am
Thanks, Kristine. “It is more than ever, evoking real terror in the audience.” So do you think that classical noir audiences felt no “real terror”?
[Reply]
I agree that the neo noir (based on this film at least) is not a rehash of classical noir. It takes the elements of classical noir, but it is something uniquely its own. There are the same elements that I saw such as the lack of traditional shot reverse shot dialogue sequences and there were definitely some strong camera angle usage. I remember in one of the chapters a mention of how phone booths and cars often resembled coffins made from glass and metal and I think that was definitely present for the Evelyn Mulwray character, as she is often in a car with J. J. Gittes in either his car or hers. With the exception of Gittes being in her car, he seems to always be in a black car whether it be his or someone else’s which I could see being a metaphor for him following this trail of death to expose the connection to the water company scandal and the murders he uncovers. The use of the pocket watches in the beginning reminded me of the toy baseball game in Laura for some reason even though they really didn’t show up after that initial scene. It is definitely noir in terms of its feel and presentation, but there is something unique about it in the sense that the crimes seem much larger in scale in the terms of the corruption and how the water scandal doesn’t just affect the group of characters on screen. It affects all of L.A. I agree with Kristine regarding the production code (or lack thereof) and its effect on the film. The sexual relationship between Gittes and Mulwray was not implied. It was right there for everyone to see. The violence was on a graphic level that would have shocked audiences during the time of the production code and the idea of rape and incest being an element of a film back then would be unheard of. And what’s a noir without cigarettes and scotch, right?
[Reply]
Dr. Marshall Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 9:22 am
Thanks, T.J. “The violence in [CHINATOWN] was on a graphic level that would have shocked audiences during the time of the production code and the idea of rape and incest being an element of a film back then would be unheard of.” What about TOUCH OF EVIL, for instance? Violence is present, and rape is implied/mentioned, right?
[Reply]
Modernist noir is something of its own and not a simple rehash of classical noir. It holds many of the features of a classical noir but uses them to a new degree. The modernist noir uses its own style of camera angles, shorter ASLs and lighting. They are also mostly in color, which opens a whole new avenue for style. The colors add to the visual by helping to set the mood and making the element of blood more prominent which adds to the violence. Many of the features like the drinking and constant smoking in all classical noirs are also present in the modernist ones, like CHINATOWN. And like stated above about the Production Code and the lack of, it opens freedom to portray the violence and sex in anyway the director pleases. In CHINATOWN, the violence is clearly there with the explicit scenes of Gettis’s nose being sliced and of Mulwray being shot in the head at the end. The sex between the two is also not hidden like the classical noir. The modernist noir for sure is a different breed with its own style and visual image but still gives homage to its classical counterpart.
[Reply]
Under the Hayes code such things as the nip slip in the bedroom would not have been allowed. Neo Noir has no boundries and are free to express themselves in many more ways than the clasics. The graphic violence of how Evelyn is shot in the end displays that they can do many things to express themselves. This greatly red minds me of the strangl scene in touch of evil. althought these two are both graphic. the use of blood and its vibrant color is what sets neo noir apart
[Reply]
One of the classic noir references I noticed deals more with the props. The clothes including Gittes suits along with the cars referred back to the time period in which noir had been in its golden age. This relates to modern noir because it in a way it is collaborating the noir style in a new-noir world closing any differing gap. In a way it is saying that neo-noir films while not rehashing, or duplicating classic noir films, neo-noir are a basis of the neo-noir evolution.
[Reply]
Sean Reply:
April 12th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
or that neo-noir is influenced by numerous noir traits and that with original concepts, neo-noir are but an evolution of what once was and with Gittes suits and the cars along with other props and reflected images as seen through the driver side car mirror when dude man is at the quarry and the reflected image off of Gittes camera as he is following the scientist, pays homage to the original genre.
[Reply]
One of the most obvious noir homages has been as-yet overlooked, and though it doesn’t play an integral part in the story, I think it’s a subtle but successful way to establish the movie’s feel relatively quickly: the older, noir-era credit sequence. It begins with a classic Paramount logo, then segues into an expanded credit sequence set to Jerry Goldsmith’s fitting musical score. The entire sequence helps to quickly set-up both the movie’s noir-style and time period shift. And though not strictly black and white, the credits are so nearly-devoid of color that they manage to capture the feel of a 1940s-era film. I do wonder, however, if the effectiveness of this tactic may wear off to a degree as the movie ages, because it seems that the potential for viewers to have a familiarity with this older style of credits would also decrease. But, overall, I feel like the credits are just the movie’s first example of what occurs in neo-noir: the refashioning and altering of classical noir elements to allow them to be better-suited for more modern audiences. Changes in technology (the ability to make color films, for example) fundamentally alter some classical noir devices, such as chiaroscuro lighting. With the advent of color, neo-noir films wishing to capture the look and feel of classical noir need to adapt their styles accordingly. CHINATOWN manages to do so by using extremely muted colors and tones. Similar such things can be done with other noir conventions so that they can be better-portrayed to the different tastes and sensibilities of modern audiences.
[Reply]
Dr. Marshall Reply:
April 13th, 2010 at 9:25 am
“I do wonder, however, if the effectiveness of this tactic may wear off to a degree as the movie ages, because it seems that the potential for viewers to have a familiarity with this older style of credits would also decrease.” An interesting point you’ve made here, Nick. Who do you think is the contemporary audience for a film like CHINATOWN?
[Reply]
One of the major parts of Modernist Noir is that we are already aware of what a noir is “supposed” to be like. As we watch Jake Gittes, we immediately think of Sam Spade. We know that the girl will just bring Jake trouble, we just don’t know how. What makes Modernist noir so different is that the “how” can be much more extreme. The Production Code would never have allowed Jake Gittes getting his nose cut or the incest storyline.
I would say Modernist Noir is its own class of Noir, yet it is reliant on a knowledge of previous noir films. While one does not need to have seen a noir film before viewing CHINATOWN, it certainly heightens the experience. This is not as evident in most of the other film noirs we have viewed so far.
Having John Huston in the film is one of these references to early noir. As I mentioned above, you don’t need to know that Noah Cross was portrayed by the director of THE MALTESE FALCON, but for those in the know, it adds a little more to the film.
While watching CHINATOWN we are to be constantly thinking of previous noir. This helps especially as we analyze the character of Jake. As I mentioned above- we cannot help but compare him to detectives like Sam Spade. Because of this, we can see that Jake is NOT like Sam- Jake is crude, racist, and can’t even save his “damsel in distress”.
[Reply]
This film was playing with film noir but went up and beyond then just sticking to it, probably mostly due to the Hayes code being lifted off where now they can play around with the violence and the sex on the screen instead of placing it off screen or just maybe suggesting it. Now they can push the limits and make it keep up with the younger generation.
Jake at times can resemble Sam Spade. His cool and stronger character leads him to the truth and he doesn’t come off as a week character like other noirs. He has a little slip up and gets caught and gets his nose cut but that reminds me of the scene in THE MALTESE FALCON where Spade drinks something that knocks him out. He gets knocked down for a minute but gets right back up and goes at it again. Only differences is that Jake gets no results in the end that go in his favor. He winds up losing another one to Chinatown.
[Reply]
I definetely feel that Chinatown is a noir ‘off-the-leash’ so to say. I feel that the violent and sexual energy that is freely displayed was a needed release for the noir movie type. For example, the scene in which Evelyn is fixing Jake’s nose and they kiss, the fact that they skip immediately to the aftermath seems to be a reference to the Golden Age during pre-Hayes code era. But again, the fact that nudity is shown seems to be Polanski expresses the freedom of a new age.
[Reply]
Dan Reply:
December 30th, 2010 at 8:21 am
I agree, and it appears to be intentionally ironic that it is by the character played by Polanski himself that the violence is taken past the pre-Hayes code level, locking Polanski in the knowing viewer’s mind as the one who is intentionally taking us down this path. I have always been fascinated by the specific inclusion of violence, sexuality, and profanity in this film, especially compared to hard-boiled detective/noir films such as the Big Sleep. Whereas Polanski could have saturated the film with excessive violence, sex, and profanity, he instead keeps all to a necessary minimum, including them only when he feels they are necessary to flesh out or further the plot (e.g. the sex is limited to about 5 seconds of partial nudity, some discussions of incest, and scandalous photographs in the opening scene- compare this with The Big Sleep, in which Marlowe makes it clear that he is in the room with a naked woman, who we only see after she clothes herself. Additionally, in the same scene Marlowe views pornographic photographs taken of the woman, but we don’t get a glimpse of them. Polanski’s decision to open the film by giving the audience a glimpse of the racy pictures Jake is looking at, represents his decision to not hide things from the audience, and to adopt a sort of Cinema Verite. The frustration to the makers of Film Noir was the Hayes code, which limited the content of their films, so they in turn created films that dealt with extremely dark [at the time] issues, while doing everything but show the audience what was occurring onscreen [Polanski’s choice to make incest the ‘dark issue’ dealt with in Chinatown demonstrates his conscious choice to deal with controversial issue that was not only relevant in the 1970s, but was also extremely relevant at the time of the original noirs. Polanski’s decision to only include 2 scenes of brief and intense violence, one f-bomb, and 5 seconds of nudity shows amazing restraint, and shows his understanding of the intentions and the modernity of Film Noir- a. that Film Noir at its best was not about presenting veiled pornography or exploitation to the public, but rather a more-or-less Biblical perspective that ‘all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God’ by exposing to the greatest degree possible, the seamy side of humanity, with realistic motivations and portrayals of guilt; and b. that it only took the briefest of violations of the Hayes code to push film noir into the category of the modern, unrestrained cinema that was beginning to become accepted by the viewing public, ‘expressing the freedom of a new age’ as charlieo so apty put it.). In contrast to the Film Noir of the 1930s to 1950s, the Noir fiction was saturated with sex, violence, and profanity. Thus, while the films of these books were made keeping in line with the Hayes code, they were also to some degree hyprocritical (the blame for which can be attributed to the Hayes code, not the filmmakers themselves), and unable to express the true stories written by the authors, which in turn reflected an aspect of the zeitgeist. The Film Noir of the Hayes production code was akin to the edited films in Cinema Paradiso, and what Polanski was doing, which the character was unable to do in Cinema Paradiso, was in essence reattaching the parts that had been cut in the editing room, by the censors, and bringing an honest, less repressed vision to his audience. Film Noir never really helped people worked through the repressive attitudes of the age, but it did it’s best to numb some of the frustration and pain. Films before and after Chinatown helped the viewing public free themselves from the repressive attitudes of their culture, and while Chinatown had all the elements to allow itself to do so, I don’t believe it was intended to. Chinatown, viewed by a movie-going public during the time of the Hayes code might have had such a freeing, liberating effect, but in the 1970s, it merely, and brilliantly reflected the artistic and social advances that had already been made, while slyly providing commentary on them, and the role of Film Noir in exposing repressive attitudes if not in overturning them.
[Reply]