Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974)

Forget It Jake: The Key Ways in Which Chinatown Reflects the Classic Film Noir Period

According to Todd Erickson's "Kill Me Again: Movement Becomes Genre," Roman Polanski's 1974 film Chinatown "is the only 'period noir' which manages to maintain an air of timelessness in its presentation." (Erickson 312). Chinatown is exceptional filmmaking with such essential noir elements as the non-heroic private eye, the complicated labyrinth-like plot structure, and a despairing, fatalistic worldview.

Above all, Chinatown is properly "voiced" in the classic noir style, although there is no actual voiceover used. The film stays with a single, subjective point-of-view, that of the main character, private investigator J.J. "Jake" Gittes. Polanski's camera tails Gittes as he is duped by the duplicitous woman (Evelyn Mulwray), who strings him along with lies and evasive half-truths even before Jake encounters an immoral businessman (Noah Cross) who happens to be Evelyn's father.

A detective in the vein of Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon and Philip Marlowe in Murder, My Sweet, Gittes is a much coarser fellow with fancier pretenses. For example, he attempts to cover up his rough language in front of the ladies while making certain his pocket-handkerchief is arranged correctly in the breast pocket of his tailored suit.

This duality of character further enhances the theme of the film. Gittes searches for the truth about the Mulwrays and the Department of Water and Power never even pretending to limit his search to within the boundaries of the law. At one point, he impersonates a W&P company official in order to gain access to a restricted area; in another, he willfully destroys documents in the Hall of Records for his own immediate gain.

Much like Spade, Gittes has hard-boiled sensibilities, but Jake's code has a wider scope and latitude. The bottom line for Gittes is image, how others perceive him. Indeed, his primary reason for remaining on the Mulwray case initially is that he has been duped and exposed as such in the press. Gittes has to discover the truth in order to save face, subtly enhancing the central metaphor of Chinatown: a major code of the "inscrutable" East is the tradition of allowing combatants to "save face."

In addition, Chinatown has the requisite complicated plot. Despite the twists and turns, it is plausible, and it enhances the suspension of disbelief (323). …

Finally, Chinatown's worldview is one of despair, alienation and fatalism, all celebrated traits of classic noir. … In the world of Chinatown, there are no givens, no best bets, no sure things. The entire worldview is symbolized by the place, "Chinatown." This is a place where nothing is known, a mysterious place closed to outsiders, where nothing is as it seems. In a structure similar to films of the "classic" noir period, the viewer follows Gittes, sees what he sees, knows only what he knows, gets duped right along with him, and realizes finally that one can never really know anything for certain. Most assuredly, Chinatown delivers a "vicarious experience of the nightmarish world of noir" (323).

Tracy Taylor
© 2003, The Write Word, Inc.

Richard Lester’s A Hard Day’s Night (1964)

In 400 years, when our descendants look back on the 20^th century and reduce our culture to a few prominent artists, performers, and thinkers, what will stand out? If today we can only name one English Renaissance playwright (no, it’s not Ben Jonson), what are the chances that the University of Minnesota will have a class in 2407 examining the films of Adam Sandler? When it comes to music, the last century offered us so many geniuses – Igor Stravinsky, Duke Ellington, George Gershwin, Elvis – it is sad to think how such a diverse period might be encapsulated. For longevity, our money is on the Beatles.

Despite a relatively short “lifespan” (their performances as a group cover only a single decade – 1960 to 1970), the Beatles shaped and changed most popular music that came after them. They moved from pop sensation to socially conscious artists, they expanded their musical scope from western to worldly, they both reflected and motivated the political and social culture around them.

They also made movies, in an era before music videos became mainstream. And while they were not the first musical group to do so – big band leaders and other rock and roll groups, like Bill Haley and the Comets, preceded them – their movies echoed the innovation one finds in their music. Richard Lester’s film A Hard Day’s Night is an excellent example. Far more than a performance film, A Hard Day’s Night builds the persona – cheeky, witty, independent, fun-loving, and lovable – that drew legions of fans to them. The film is as interested with their activities off the stage as on it, but both are performances. In this way, the film is a mock-documentary, anticipating by over a decade the mockumentary style that has become so popular in the films about fake bands (This is Spinal Tap, Fear of a Black Hat) and fake people (Best in Show, Waiting for Guffman).

In addition, Lester chose innovative methods of filming to enhance the movie – a cinema vérité style, a minimalist plot that puts the performances in context, and a rapid-fire approach to dialogue that added the naturalistic documentary style. Today the use of black and white also looks innovative, but at the time Lester resorted to it to save money on the production. In retrospect it was the right choice artistically too.

In the end, the movie participates in and establishes the Beatles’ legend. It captures a musical moment, but also acquaints you with the lads as media darlings and individual voices without appearing false or insincere. Wikipedia points out that A Hard Day’s Night was filmed, in 1964, at the height of Beatlemania and that the studio that produced the film rushed the production, believing that fan interest would have dissipated before the film would be finished. They were famously wrong, and the Lester and Beatles went on to make a second film, Help!.

A Hard Day’s Night is clearly secondary to the Beatles music, but it leaves us with a visual reminder of the group just entering the top of their popularity and creativity. Historians will find it harder to overlook them, in part because Lester has done more than document their musicality. He has also captured their winning, disarming personalities in a way that seems authentic. Watching the movie now, 44 years after it was made, it still seems fresh. And we believe it will feel the same, even after 444 years.

R. Findlay
Film Club Adviser