You're probably right, mainstream films don't even try to be this good anymore. Hollywood is now designed to create, and feed, mental infants. TV is the new home for quality, adult entertainment.

That said, while I appreciate Chinatown, I don't particularly enjoy it. I struggle to connect to the characters.

True. Director Polanski pushing for the downer ending seems like a move that probably wouldn't happen nowadays.

Well he did get away with it in his more recent effort The Ghost (Writer) and film noirs are generally allowed a downer ending as it's so woven into the genre, but I think it's the presumption of a patient, intelligent, adult audience that means it would never be allowed today. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was an extremely rare exception.

@Drooch said:

... I think it's the presumption of a patient, intelligent, adult audience that means it would never be allowed today. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was an extremely rare exception.

I think you've hit the nail on the head...

Film culture really has been infantilised... I'm optimistic though, that we'll still see filmmaking for grown ups, it'll just be at a much smaller scale and niche.

Most likely yes. They don't really make movies like this anymore. If it were to get made it would be a series on HBO or Netflix.

A studio just wouldn't allow a script that didn't telegraph its clues to the audience, telling them that their intelligence (such as it is) will be justified all the way through.

@TheBayHarborButcher said:

Most likely yes. They don't really make movies like this anymore. If it were to get made it would be a series on HBO or Netflix.

Because an audience that doesn't know how things are going to play out will come back next week. And that equals advertising revenue. Movie execs dread that movie audiences will walk out if they don't know how the plot is supposed to play out, or that they will tell their equally stupid friends that the film was stupid because it didn't try to make them feel clever

Most Netflix/HBO series that operate like this though tend also to feature some titillating or outlandish stuff week in week out that purely to keep the audience on board while the actual story unfolds.

@Renovatio said:

Chinatown would be impossible to make now, at the scale and released as wide as it was. It's too adult and too idiosyncratic.

Watch it. Savour it.

I disagree, while modern movies are mostly CGI trash for kiddies, the real movies are saved for the Oscars, look at recent movies like The Drop, Moonlight, Manchester etc.. Good dramas are still in need

@Renovatio said:

@Drooch said:

... I think it's the presumption of a patient, intelligent, adult audience that means it would never be allowed today. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was an extremely rare exception.

I think you've hit the nail on the head...

Film culture really has been infantilised... I'm optimistic though, that we'll still see filmmaking for grown ups, it'll just be at a much smaller scale and niche.

I agree. I also think film making is so much more political these days. You have to kiss the ring of the fat cats and the special interest mafias, and make adjustments, inclusions and exclusions, to get a film made these days. There is a message filter now to an extent unknown before. That affects what kind of film you can make.

@Tector_lives said:

A studio just wouldn't allow a script that didn't telegraph its clues to the audience, telling them that their intelligence (such as it is) will be justified all the way through.

I agree that most films don't have complex/sophisticated symbolism. However, Arrival (2017) is likely the best symbolism I've ever seen, and I still haven't met anyone face-to-face that has correctly deconstructed it :)

The only issue I have with Chinatown is that there’s no hope at the end of it. It’s such a despairing film.

@CelluloidFan said:

The only issue I have with Chinatown is there’s no hope at the end of it. It’s such a despairing film.

So true. I just re-watched it and found Jack Nicholson's character even less likable. Jake seems vaguely on par with John Huston's abusive, toxic, rapist father, with the only potential Hero being the murdered water egalitarian, Mulwray.

The plot seems quite complex, which is intellectually very stimulating, and marvelously cohesive/purposeful. Imho, the intellectual sophistication of the story makes it more compelling, in spite of its depressing nihilism. The atmosphere of the film seems to lack idealism (except for Mulwray's brief appearance), portrays life as a hopeless struggle, and is full of abusive men ruining young women. I can reconcile the purpose of this overwhelming despair more so though, when looking at it through the lens of the 1930's, Great Depression, and Los Angeles as a desert city suffering a drought. The drought & The Depression seem to be realized in the souls of men at that time as well, which may provide more substance for the bleak undercurrent to the story and the seedy characters. In that regard, the film may be an impressive window into the era of 1930's Los Angeles, and Chinatown as well.

When this film was made in 1974, there seems to have been a fascination with the perverted personalities/actions from the era of Great Depression Los Angeles. This takes on added meaning with Roman Polanski's perversions in real life, ruining a 13 year old through sexual abuse three years after this film came out. It makes this film look like less like an exclusive view of Depression Era Los Angeles and more like present day commentary of 1970's Los Angeles.

@CelluloidFan said:

@20thCentury said:

@CelluloidFan said:

The only issue I have with Chinatown is there’s no hope at the end of it. It’s such a despairing film.

So true. I just re-watched it and found Jack Nicholson's character even less likable. Jake seems vaguely on par with John Huston's abusive, toxic, rapist father, with the only potential Hero being the murdered water egalitarian, Mulwray.

The plot seems quite complex, which is intellectually very stimulating, and marvelously cohesive/purposeful. Imho, the intellectual sophistication of the story makes it more compelling, in spite of its depressing nihilism. The atmosphere of the film seems to lack idealism (except for Mulwray's brief appearance), portrays life as a hopeless struggle, and is full of abusive men ruining young women. I can reconcile the purpose of this overwhelming despair more so though, when looking at it through the lens of the 1930's, Great Depression, and Los Angeles as a desert city suffering a drought. The drought & The Depression seem to be realized in the souls of men at that time as well, which may provide more substance for the bleak undercurrent to the story and the seedy characters. In that regard, the film may be an impressive window into the era of 1930's Los Angeles, and Chinatown as well.

When this film was made in 1974, there seems to have been a fascination with the perverted personalities/actions from the era of Great Depression Los Angeles. This takes on added meaning with Roman Polanski's perversions in real life, ruining a 13 year old through sexual abuse three years after this film came out. It makes this film look like less like an exclusive view of Depression Era Los Angeles and more like present day commentary of 1970's Los Angeles.

What Polanski did was wrong, but I'm skeptical to the idea that the now-adult woman whom he molested was ruined. If anything, she would like for the moralizers who keep bothering her about what happened to leave it alone. I seem to recall that she wants the charge or charges against Polanski dropped? She seems to have forgiven Polanski, while society has not. As your other post suggests, he messed up in a practically prophetic way in his action after directing this film -- but his journey is just as valid as anyone else's, and not without its merits.

"His journey was just as valid as anyone else's, and not without its merits." ???

I don't believe drugging, raping, and sodomizing a 13 year old girl is a very "valid journey." I also don't believe anyone is "bothering her" by demanding that child rapists like Polanski are punished under the law.

@CelluloidFan said:

Here is an article about Samantha Geimer wanting the charges against Roman Polanski dropped.

If you read it, you'll see that it's pretty unequivocal that the media was "bothering her."

You took issue with my saying that Polanski "ruined" a 13 year old girl when he raped her at the age of 43. Did Polanski ruin her life so completely that she had "zero" life remaining? Obviously not. You earnestly believe raping a 13 yr old isn't going to ruin an enormous part of their childhood and have lifelong effects/trauma? Go read the Grand Jury Testimony with the girl when she was 13. Read reports from the five other women who said that Polanski sexually abused them when they were children (one as young as 10 yrs old). https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/8/17/16156902/roman-polanski-child-rape-charges-explained-samantha-geimer-robin-m

Polanski paid this woman $225,000 (that we know about, potentially much more) to settle a Civil Suit. Polanski's pay-off was obviously a combined lobbying effort to encourage the victim to support his returning to America w/out serving time. Regardless, no-one can buy their way out of a Criminal Suit, even if the paid-off victim wants him pardoned. The epicenter of ALL the "bother" (trauma) that this woman (and other women raped by Polanski) have had to endure lies at the feet of Polanski. For that, he should still be held fully accountable under the law. Your distracted focus on the "bothersome Press" is a red-herring, obviously meant to normalize Polanski's violence and pardon him from the full weight of the law.

@CelluloidFan said:

The only issue I have with Chinatown is there’s no hope at the end of it. It’s such a despairing film.

I am thinking back to that time period when the film came out and I think that activists of that time sort of used this kind of story as a way to illustrate problems. It's like they were intended to make people think "that is just wrong, things shouldn't be like that". It was a despairing ending to the film. I think they liked it this way because it was intended to motivate a feeling that things needed to change.

I don't have any formal background in film or history or art or anything related, so my point of view is purely that of an amateur, and I could be off base here. But that is my impression of the film, and my memory of that time period.

As far as Polanski, I recall that he fled for raping an underage girl. I recall his supporters portrayed it as just underage sex and made it out like it was consensual sex. The details were not discussed in the press of course. But there were some people very angry about it and he was forced to flee. Now we hear about the pedophilia rings involving important people in Hollywood, and other places. Even some actors have made statements about it. It is some shocking stuff. One actress told of anal rape as some kind of initiation for some group.

I have no legal background either, but I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on rape. There is none on murder in the United States. But I don't know about rape.

Even if there is, I don't suppose Polanski would be able to return. His case was notorious. And the metoo movement would almost certainly make a professional life impossible for him here now.

@CelluloidFan said:

@CelluloidFan said:

What Polanski did was wrong, but I'm skeptical to the idea that the now-adult woman whom he molested was ruined.

Mrs. Geimer is married today with children, seems to be gainfully employed, and spoke up in Polanski's defense of her own volition. As you stated, most likely, part of her childhood (or perhaps all of it) was damaged by Polanski's rape, but she doesn't seem like a ruined person today.

If anything, she would like for the moralizers who keep bothering her about what happened to leave it alone. I seem to recall that she wants the charge or charges against Polanski dropped? She seems to have forgiven Polanski, while society has not.

See the article I linked to for back-up on these points.

As your other post suggests, he messed up in a practically prophetic way in his action after directing this film -- but his journey is just as valid as anyone else's, and not without its merits.

I'm actually not sure that I used the word "prophetic" correctly there, in retrospect. Anyway, what I was alluding to is this: Everyone has a journey to live in life, from the President of the United States to a lowly child molester. I don't think it's my purpose in life to condemn Polanski endlessly and imply that he is irredeemable. I didn't click your link just yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if all of the accusations against him are from decades ago, suggesting that perhaps he has changed. That's what I mean by saying that his journey is a valid one. And as for its merits, look at the films he has directed in his career.

There... while looking over this post earlier, I hit cancel, accidentally deleted the whole thing, and had to re-type the damn thing. I hope that I've put to rest some of your issues with this.

Regardless of how old his crimes are, he's still fleeing from them outside America. He still needs to answer for them. You claim that your purpose is not to condemn Polanski. Then shut up on the issue altogether. Don't criticize MY concept of morality. You ARE weighing in on the morality of this issue and you're an ignorant hypocrite for pretending that you aren't. I am passing moral judgement and I'm not cowering from the sidelines as if I'm not. It's clear where your morality lies, it lies with wanting to see Polanski escape full weight of the law. You think living outside of America for a given number of years should excuse someone from raping many children. In this regard, you do share your moral judgement with Polanski, the child rapist.