The Darkest of All Worlds

Right. It’s not a movie’s job to provide hope.

Despair is a place Polanski has visited but you cannot get more jovial than Pirates, and it is one of his better films! It predates the Depp nonsense and lovingly recreates a period and a ship.

BTW has anyone seen the Two Jakes (nicholson directed) it is about oil (in the sense that Chinatown is about water). I find it to be a superior film. This thread has made me want to rewatch Chinatown tho, great job drew (are these recent posts homework assignments?)

Wait a second. This doesn’t need to devolve into misguided attacks. No one is sub-adolescent, no one is on a search for hope, no one believes it is a movie’s job to provide hope, and we’re all aware of Polanski’s life. We were merely discussing what the film is trying to say, and whether it’s world view is completely pessimistic.

Through great discussion my opinion of the message has changed with the revelation that even if evil beats good in the end, there’s something still positive about their being a good in the first place. When looking at Polanski’s life it’s interesting to see that his misfortunes did not cause him to draw up a negative view on human nature, but merely the negative view that evil always wins. He doesn’t blame humanity for his losses, but instead the Charles Mansons or the Hitlers or the Noah Crosses.

Den, I’m on a Polanski kick (watched Chinatown twice and then watched Cul-de-sac) so I’ll be seeing Pirates soon! And I’m also interested in seeing The Two Jakes. These were homework assignments for my Film as Lit class (it was the very loose assignment of picking three movies and writing about them), but I figured what’s the point of writing an essay on film with discussion? Plus I think this site could really use some more film-related threads desiring discussion. :)

“The Two Jakes” is sadly nowhere near as good as “Chinatown.” Towne rummages around in a vauguely similar arena and Jack is solid as always, but Meg Tilly is no Faye Dunaway and the sotry and treatment tends towards the bland.

@Drew My question to all of you is do you feel like Chinatown is devoid of hope? What do you feel it is saying about life?

00:38:21 —>
Jake Gittes: What can you buy that you can’t already afford?
Noah Cross: The future, Mr. Gitts! The future!
The film makes the future a corrupt moral objective for one half of the partners Mulwray and Cross.
So there is hope; hope for the future, but that future is corrupt.

@Drew (Also I tried to keep my analysis thematic, but can I just say that Chinatown is the most perfectly made movie ever? I mean seriously! Absolutely amazing!)

Yes, it is the only film I own.

Just saw this, and I have a few comments and questions:

>What does Gittes say at the end, after Mrs. Mulwray crashes the car? It sounds like he mumbles, “…as soon as possible….” If so, what is that referring to or what does that mean?

>Was Chinatown a really seedy, corrupt place in L.A.?

>In the scene where Mrs. Mulwray reveals the truth about her daughter/sister, Gittes asks her if Cross raped her and I could’ve swore she shook her head. Was I seeing things? And I’m assuming that the daughter was seeing Mr. Mulwray and not his girlfriend? (I’m a little confused about that because Mrs. Mulwray says that she recently wanted to get back into her daughter’s life. Where was her daughter all this time and what was her relationship to Mr. Mulwray?)

>I really liked the film, and I thought more highly of it the second time around. Still, Drew’s assertion—and Robert seems to concur—that this is “the most perfectly made movie” leaves me scratching my head a bit. The script seems wonderful and the direction is excellent. I loved Nicholson, Dunaway and Huston in this, too. Still, “most perfectly made movie” seems a bit too far…well, I’m probably quibbling, so I’ll stop, It’s an excellent film, although, like In a Lonely Place (a film that was brought up), I’m not sure I could articulate the reasons I think so highly of the film.

Greg said, It could perhaps be said that Cross required a man with Gittes somewhat shabby but earnest moral code to get what he wanted, and that would mean that the usefulness of a moral code is in abetting the immoral with their actions since by having one you are trustworthy, predictable, and usable.

Having a moral code wasn’t Gittes’ problem, nor do I think it ultimately drove him to help Mrs. Mulwray and stop Cross. Instead, I think his combination of hubris and naivete ultimately motivated him. I suspect a lot of people aren’t going to share this view, but I’ll try to explain myself. A person who tries to change the world, fight injustice or something similarly grand and ambitious often has to have a significant ego and even arrogance. Think about it? One person taking on a whole system or group of powerful individuals? The person is either deluded, arrogant or both. And if none of these apply, then the person is a character in the movies.

That doesn’t necessarily a bad person, but that does make him a little less admirable. At the very least it makes him a little less believable or realistic. The blame doesn’t only go to the Nicholson’s performance or the way the screenwriter and director conceived the character. Things don’t happen in the film that probably would have happened in real life—things that would have either wised Gittes up or eliminated him altogether. (Gittes conducts his investigation largely without any attempts to stop him. Yes, Cross hires him, but not before Gittes discovers the Cross’ entire scheme to buy property and move water to that area.) So Gittes might be deluded, but the film doesn’t really do anything to shake him from that delusion.

Of course, the film might have been less entertaining if it did do that. It’s a movie afterall.

In any event, while I’m rooting for Gittes, I couldn’t take him too seriously. Moreover, one could tell sense that a happy ending wasn’t in the cards.

(Btw, the ending is sort of muddled a bit for me. At the end, Gittes’ main priority seems to be to help Mrs. Mulwray get away with her daughter—not really to stop Cross; stopping Cross is put on the back-burner. So, at the end of the film, I don’t really feel like Cross wins so much as Gittes’ main objective is thwarted—so what’s the point of going after Cross? Mrs. Mulwray turns out to be sympathetic character and Gittes wants to help her—but like the other woman he knew in Chinatown—he only ends up hurting her.)

Drew said, My question to all of you is do you feel like Chinatown is devoid of hope? What do you feel it is saying about life?

My response: that there is forces beyond our control and we’re often helpless to them—but the film delivers this not message in the form of a tragedy-i.e., tragedies are often bleak, but they’re satisfying in the way they are true and the sadness and tragic aspects actually serve to comfort us. I wouldn’t go so far as saying the tragic elements comfort us or provide us with catharsis, but there are tragic elements that make the film different from a pointless, dark film. I’m thinking specifically of Gittes, who tries to the right thing (no matter the reasons), but you know it’s impossible because the deck is stacked against him. There’s the element of tragic fate—Jake hurting a woman in Chinatown, a past he doesn’t like thinking of—and when he returns to Chinatown he fails another woman. There’s the image of Mrs. Mulwray desperately trying to escape the evil forces around her, but she can’t. The drama and tragedy make for a compelling and satisfying film.

So I don’t think the film presents much hope, but I don’t think it is completely bleak, either—although I can’t fully explain why I feel this way. I think part of my reaction relates to my perception of Gittes and how things work in the world. An individual can’t wake up one morning and say, “Hey, I’m going to change the world” and then go out and change the world instantly. At the same time, I’m not saying that individuals don’t and can’t make a difference—but there are certain circumstances, situations and times when an individual can’t—and a person has to be deluded or arrogant to think otherwise. I saw Gittes as that type of character, so when the walls come crashing down, I guess it reaffirmed my own understanding of the world.

So what is the film saying about life? To me, the film is saying that as individuals we have limitations. We can’t overturn systems of corruption by ourselves or take on the powerful and wealthy—just because its the right thing to do; and we certainly can’t do this instantaneously. Things take time—and timing.

One small aside, I think that it is possible for systematic change to be initialized by an individual, but he has to build up a support base first. He can’t just rush in headlong and try to fix everything himself, though I wouldn’t say those who try to do so are not admirable. It doesn’t make a person arrogant, it just makes them intolerant of the institutional vice the rest of us get accustomed to.

I did think the film was pretty bleak in that the message seemed to be ‘People with a lot of money and no sympathy win’. Gittes’ seemed to me to follow an arc where he started out as cynical and selfish, then he tried to beat the system in order to reverse his past failures where a person got killed because of his attempts to help her. Then he found that the reason he couldn’t beat the system was that nobody would listen to him, because they were owned by the system, and made history repeat itself.

Haven’t you ever just thrown your arms up though and said “What is wrong with people, why do they go along with this obviously evil thing?” Gittes seemed to me that sort of person who understood reality on an intellectual level, but on an emotional level, just couldn’t accept it. He convinced himself that he was wrong, the world isn’t as bleak as he thought, because he didn’t want it to be.

CHINATOWN is surely one of the darkest movies about the worst in people. It says peel back the onion & you’ll find stuff you never imagined could or would exist. And once you do, you’ll regret it…A LOT!

@Jirin

One small aside, I think that it is possible for systematic change to be initialized by an individual, but he has to build up a support base first. He can’t just rush in headlong and try to fix everything himself, though I wouldn’t say those who try to do so are not admirable.

People who do this generally do this have their heart in the right place and that’s commendable. But they’re misguided and maybe even a bit arrogant, don’t you think? Why is Gittes so special that he—all by himself—is going to stop Cross? How’s he going to overcome all the people Cross has in his pocket?

The same can apply for changing a system—say a big organization like a government or society. Even the most talented, industrious and brilliant individual generally won’t change things—certainly not overnight. You need other people and you need time—and timing. That last part is crucial, too. The best idea, the best individuals at the wrong time won’t amount to a hill of beans. (Man, I’m in the film-noir mode.) I speak from experience.

But again, that doesn’t make these individuals bad people. I don’t know if I would admire Gittes, but his intentions are good and I actually tries to do the right thing—that counts for a lot.

Gittes’ seemed to me to follow an arc where he started out as cynical and selfish, then he tried to beat the system in order to reverse his past failures where a person got killed because of his attempts to help her. Then he found that the reason he couldn’t beat the system was that nobody would listen to him, because they were owned by the system, and made history repeat itself.

That’s the tragic element of the story. While it’s bleak, it’s also poignant and compelling. As dark as the ending is, I don’t really see the film in such a dark way—just as I don’t think many tragedies are dark and bleak.

@Jaspar

(Appropriate for you to come out of the ground for the thread. :)

It says peel back the onion & you’ll find stuff you never imagined could or would exist. And once you do, you’ll regret it…A LOT!

I’m interested in hearing what you’ve discovered.

C’mon Matt, just give us the good parts. (Dude, I’m overwhelmed with the amount of books I have waiting to be read as it is. I’m sure you understand.)

Part of the tragedy of Gittes situation, or that of all the characters in the film and by extension our world, is that, by rights, he shouldn’t be alone as he would supposedly have the backing of everyone through the laws created to serve the people. So his quest for knowledge and, eventually, to bring down Cross is one that should, by rights, be open to him if he can discover the truth behind the events in question. That he does and is unable to find the sort of satisfaction allegedly demanded by the law, and further that his own actions in searching for the truth help provide the undoing of those he wishes to protect is suggestive of a larger social problem in that the laws and, indeed, the truth are not entirely what they would appear to be or as they represent themselves as being as there is an even larger truth behind them which can only be discovered by falling prey to it.

Gittes moral code, makes him predictable, it shapes and is shaped by the world as he expects it to be by how he interprets both laws and moral values. He knows something of the dark side of human nature as can be seen through his normal detective work spying on cheating spouses, but that too falls into a set of patterns that can be covered by his beliefs. Even if he doesn’t find those actions admirable or acceptable to him, there is something of the same desire to know the truth and follow the consequences of knowing that truth to its expected end. There is a predictability and understandable set of moral actions associated with the knowledge and consequences of that knowledge that comes from human frailty or weakness that will be lacking in his dealings with Cross. Cross effectively subverts what Gittes understands as normal action and consequence, he is beyond Gittes conception of humanity in a way, or more accurately his success and place set him beyond having to deal with his actions and their consequences in ways that everyone else does.

The movie plays off the older detective films or the very idea of a detective where once the truth is revealed there will be a logical consequence to the events or facts shown. Chinatown suggests this in fact is a lie, that there are truths that aren’t truths in that sense, that they don’t follow the causal logic seemingly demanded by the world as it is. Men like Cross rewrite the “laws” to their own ends thereby existing beyond them. Whereas Gittes has to accept the consequences of his actions as derived from the laws Cross dictates. The morality of the world then becomes incoherent, subject to the whims of those beyond reach. It is beyond understanding, it is Chinatown.

Part of the tragedy of Gittes situation, or that of all the characters in the film and by extension our world, is that, by rights, he shouldn’t be alone as he would supposedly have the backing of everyone through the laws created to serve the people.

I don’t know what this says about me or the kind of person I have become, but I don’t feel a sense of tragedy about the above—and I’m not boasting about this. I guess I feel like the fact that someone rich and powerful like Cross is above the law is the way things have always been. I’m not condoning this state of affairs, but I guess I feel it is naive and a bit delusional to think that this is often the way things are. I say “often” to suggest that our world (at least in the U.S.) is pretty complex. Our society and government is based on the rule of law—and this is often the case. But rich and powerful individuals have ways of manipulating the system to the point where they rules don’t apply to them as they do most everyone else. At the same time, the system can take down these powerful individuals, too. All is not completely hopeless. But many times the rich and powerful get away with breaking laws and doing what they want.

Is that tragic? I’m not sure. It’s certainly not a good situation, and I wish it were not so, but I think this is the way things are. Gittes seems to be oblivious to this or doesn’t share my perspective of the world. On the other hand, Gittes, as created by Nicholson and the other filmmakers, isn’t a very deep or complex character, imo. We’ve been talking about his moral sense, but the film doesn’t really explore or depict this side of his character—not in a way that I feel is deep or very complex. He seems like conventional detective in these types of films—that is to say, pretty simple and not really multidimensional.

It is beyond understanding, it is Chinatown.

What does this mean? There seems to be a lot of backstory—historical, I would guess—about Chinatown that makes this statement meaningful. I know that the film suggests that Chinatown is a kind of lawless place, where unspeakable things occur and nothing is done about it; a kind of dark and chaotic place. But I feel like I’m just supposed to accept that—or know about what the real Chinatown was like in L.A.

Another element worth mentioning about Chinatown is that it’s in many ways a genre tribute. Sure, I think Gittes was arrogant. The girl wanted to just run away, and he didn’t let her because he wanted to use her as a lure tactic to bring Cross to justice, and that led to her getting killed. But is he any less arrogant than, say, Bogart from The Maltese Falcon? He behaves almost identically, but he manages to get the gangsters to make a deal with him under the impression he’s corrupt, when they had nothing to lose just by killing him. Those meta-elements of the film are, to me, crucial to understanding Gittes.

I do consider it a tragedy that officials elected to serve the public instead just help the billionaires who gave them the money they needed to convince the public to elect them. Change doesn’t come through politicians, it comes through grassroots action. The thing is, people who are comfortable have a tendency to side with authority, and people who are not have a tendency to side against it, so as long as most people are pretty comfortable, they will continue to look at the government as a black box autocratically dispensing laws that don’t effect them unless they deviate from course, and not see the people like Cross turning the wheels.

Evelyn does indeed shake her head no when Gittes asked if her father raped her.

Jake sas “as liittle as possible” not “as soon as possible.” This was in answer to the question of what he did in Chinatown.

Chinatown in Chinatown<.i> is boht an actual palce and a metaphor. Jake used to be a cop. But what he saw in Chinatown made him get off the force and becoem a detective. The film’s narrative drags him back to Chinatown and a confrontation with the aort of horror he thought he’d left in the past. It’s still there.

ALL of L.A. is seedy and corrupt.

I just learned that the ’75 Oscars (for the ’74 movies) had a Best Picture showdown between: CHINATOWN, GODFATHER 2, THE CONVERSATION, LENNY, and….THE TOWERING INFERNO! Which leads me to wonder, due to the extreme quality of the other contenders, is THE TOWERING INFERNO in fact good? Any recommendations?

@David

Thanks for clarifying those issues.

Evelyn does indeed shake her head no when Gittes asked if her father raped her

I thought so—which makes the film even darker and more disturbing to me.

Jake sas “as liittle as possible” not “as soon as possible.” This was in answer to the question of what he did in Chinatown.

Oh, OK. That’s a good line—and huge difference from what I first thought!

Re: Chinatown

I understood that it was a bad place, but except for off-the-cuff remarks by the characters, the film doesn’t really do much to establish. For that reason I thought the actual L.A. Chinatown was known for being a very bad place.

@Ben S.

I wanted to see TI as a kid (and maybe I did, actually). My sense is that it’s not a great movie—not very different from other 70’s disaster films. (I recall a lot of stars were in the film, though). I think the original Poseidon Adventure was the best one.

@Jirin

Sure, I think Gittes was arrogant. The girl wanted to just run away, and he didn’t let her because he wanted to use her as a lure tactic to bring Cross to justice, and that led to her getting killed.

I thought he was just trying to help her get away at the end. Gittes knew that the Lieutenant would try to arrest him, so he devised a plan to get around that, but I don’t think he had any idea that the Lieutenant and Cross would be there when Evelyn Mulwray is making her getaway. (Or am I forgetting something?)

FWIW, even if he did use Evelyn Mulwray as bait, that’s not a display of arrogance—at least not in the way that I’m thinking of this. (If anything it’s selfish or cold-hearted.)

But is he any less arrogant than, say, Bogart from The Maltese Falcon? He behaves almost identically, but he manages to get the gangsters to make a deal with him under the impression he’s corrupt, when they had nothing to lose just by killing him.

I can’t remember the details of TMF so much, but I do agree that references to film noir is important. However, I think the stakes in this film and the scope are much broader than many noirs.

I do consider it a tragedy that officials elected to serve the public instead just help the billionaires who gave them the money they needed to convince the public to elect them.

FWIW, I view politicians as more complex. They don’t just serve special interests, including the wealthy, OR the people. Generally, they do both—at least the good ones. The ones that almost exclusively serve special interests are corrupt, bad politicians. The ones that only serve the people, don’t last very long. The good politicians do both—and the really good ones serve the people the majority of the time.

“I thought so—which makes the film even darker and more disturbing to me.”

Because Evelyn can’t admit that her father raped her, or it leaves it open to the possibility that she was more obliging in the incest than most are willing to accept (some Mackenzie Philips territory here)? I personally don’t remember the head shake and absolutely always presumed Cross raped Evelyn.

I’d call Gittes’ character pretty complex: arrogant though we see him be both funny and charming (and increasingly as a clown when his machismo is subverted by that bandage on his schnoz), detrimentally naive yet he wins audience alignment through cleverness and cunning needed in his profession (and as it becomes increasingly clear that he will be our sole guide through this world), perhaps amoral though obviously, early on, overly sensitive to criticism of his line of work—one of the few times he loses his cool in the barbers chair—and his amorality finally yields to some sense to follow through on an honorable and heroic gesture. This is all choice Robert Towne stuff, well depicted by Polanski and embodied by Nicholson.

I agree with those who don’t view the film as entirely hopeless, and, oddly enough, I think it has something to do with the Goldsmith’s beautiful theme which the film returns to yet again for the end titles rather than relying silence or a recapitulation of Goldsmith’s atonal cues from earlier in the film. Polanski could easily have selected the sonic palette of the “boy on a horse” or “last of Ida” material to buttress the cacaphony of chaos the closing scene attains visually. But the focus is on the well established love theme of the solo trumpet, the loner, gradually interfacing with the overwhelming romantic melancholy of the strings.

I think the screenplay structure and the score compliment each other marvelously. Towne doesn’t include a single moment that could not have been witnessed by Gittes (common in a several private detective scripts, but perfected in this neo-homage), and the viewer comes to rely exclusively upon Gittes’ detection to advance the plot, presuming in many instances that he’s ahead of the game, only to learn when it’s already too late that he’s been dramatically occluded to the full insanity of the universe he lives in. The mystery is solved, but not in time for the solution to be of any use to those involved, yet the perennially returning love theme gives the audience some grounding in a sensation of almost…bittersweet rather than the outright hopeless, a kind of mixed tone worthy of the deceptions the carefully crafted plot itself has led us to believe. Jake had something beautiful, and it was brief, and it was torn from him. Perhaps he’s lost his naivete a bit. Perhaps he’s going to get the hell out of Dodge and find a new line of work. But I do get the sense from the pairing of image and music that he’ll move on with his life. I think the movie would feel much more tragic if the point of view had been diversified and the audience encouraged to align even more with Evelyn.

Interestingly, I saw MACBETH at MOMA a few weeks ago in a beautiful print, and found it often quite funny, culminating in the exhausting though absurdly comic final battle, mano a mano between Macbeth and Macduff (which accomplished what I thought impossible by dethroning the alleyway slug-out in THEY LIVE as “Most grueling on screen fight”). Anyways, it got me thinking about the prevalence of dark, dark comedy in Polanski’s movies that are otherwise thought of outside of comic terms, and in MACBETH, the definition of “tragedy” seems more to be “a comedy comprised of cosmically bad jokes upon the players”.

@Ben S

Because Evelyn can’t admit that her father raped her, or it leaves it open to the possibility that she was more obliging in the incest than most are willing to accept (some Mackenzie Philips territory here)?

The latter. And my sense is that the film—and Gittes—rushes over this—not letting the implications settle in—which is more disturbing (in a good way).

I’d call Gittes’ character pretty complex: arrogant though we see him be both funny and charming…

Several comments:

1. Hubris is probably a better word than arrogance. He doesn’t realize his limitations and the enormity of the situation or he things he can overcome it by himself. The idea that he can solve the problem is what I mean by arrogance or hubris.

2. I suspect people really like Nicholson’s performance, but I’m a little more ambivalent. On one hand, in comparison to his recent performances, I found this performance refreshing. Since he hasn’t developed the film persona we know now, he isn’t playing himself. On the other hand, I feel like his performance lacked some of the nuance and subtlety to convey the complexity you talk about—especially the moral dimensions of the character. (To be fair, many detectives in film-noir don’t convey this kind of complexity, so maybe Polanski didn’t want that.)

I agree with those who don’t view the film as entirely hopeless, and, oddly enough, I think it has something to do with the Goldsmith’s beautiful theme…

Nice observations about the score. I do agree that the score gives the ending a bittersweet quality—almost adding a hint of romance to the tragedy.

I would think any examination of Chinatown would be lacking without talk of The Two Jakes since the two films are linked in a way much deeper than a tradition sequel. This was a planned trilogy Oil, Water and Land (still unmade but Nicholson was hopeful as late as 2007).

How was the Two Jakes, Den? (Did Towne also write it? Was he supposed to be involved in the third film—interesting concept, btw.)

Re: Evelyn’s admission…pretty amazing. Though I maintain that she could be in denial of a non-violent though not necessarily consensual overpowering by Noah. Obviously I’ve got to watch the movie again soon, as I don’t even remember it being a question! Thanks for pointing this out!

I guess I’d stick with “arrogance” at least to explain Gittes’ smart-alecky assholeness, an initial hint of smug superiority and self-satisfaction that goes beyond the hubris you describe…though hubris certainly does evolve to be his tragic flaw. Furthermore, when used increasingly against those characters that the audience distrusts, the very assholeness that originally seems so off-putting about Jake shifts to be seen as a positive characteristic.

Yeah, the score’s pretty special in that it remains so thematically consistent, but we end up reading very different emotions out of it by the end than we could have ever imagined to at the outset. By the end there’s romantic melancholy of heroism thwarted (but, at least, attempted rather than Gittes’ pursuing a life of apathy).

@Ben

Re: Evelyn’s admission…pretty amazing. Though I maintain that she could be in denial of a non-violent though not necessarily consensual overpowering by Noah.

Well, you’re welcome, but you should thank David, too. In any event, a non-violent, but not necessarily consensual is almost amounts to the same thing as consensual incest. I expect that in cases like this there would be at least some level of ambivalence (and confusion), even if it were consensual. (Then again, I could be wrong.)

I must say that the first time I saw this I thought the relationship wasn’t forced (or at least not completely)—which disturbed me. On the second viewing, I actually found myself hoping that she was raped—which would almost be more comforting. Yeesh. Let me know what you think if you see it again.

..the very assholeness that originally seems so off-putting about Jake shifts to be seen as a positive characteristic.

I was going to say earlier—that’s the part of his arrogance I like! :)

Uh, regarding incest. That’s the thing, confusion. There really is no such thing as consensual incest. A parent who does this to a child does it out of their power over them. That is never consensual.

Evelyn does indeed shake her head no when Gittes asked if her father raped her.

Not because she “wanted it,” but because she was under the power of her father and was afraid to say. This is what happens in the case of incest — “it’ll be our little secret” implying they’ll get beaten or worse for spilling the beans, and the hope of the child that maybe in some way it is ok. Also, it’s a very shameful thing to admit.

That was pretty clear to me. The fear of her father and the shame of what he was doing to her seemed very clear from Dunaway’s performance, at least to me.

“The fear of her father and the shame of what he was doing to her seemed very clear from Dunaway’s performance, at least to me.”

Yeah, I guess that’s what I always presumed was coming through in her reaction.

excellent point, odil. parent/child incest is NEVER consensual. that’s just blaming the victim

Yeah, rewatching this moment right now through the convenience of netflix instant, I would describe that motion as a reflexive head jerk in reaction to the terribleness of remembering the rape, not any kind of denial…an attempt to shake away the memory out of her brain. Dunaway’s performance during this sequence is filled with incredible non-verbal moments, another being the eyebrow raising to compensate for the loss of speech while chocking back tears as she says, “My father and I… eyebrow raise”. It speaks so much more than the script could. Again, she can’t face the terribleness of the truth enough to put it into words.

What’s also fascinating about this sequence is the pathetic brutality of Nicholson’s violent erruption. He’s literally beating the truth out of someone yet incapable of registering that they are spelling out the facts for him. Almost an expression of his frustration at his own mental inadequacy to get to bottom of this case.

The opening titles under the love theme do such a good job establishing a classy, classic, measured tone that belies the brutality ultimately going on in the story. They set the tone for Gittes’ movie-long sophomoric position.

Also when you’re that young there’s the feeling ‘My parents can do no wrong’. Just because the rape was not forceful does not mean she had the ‘mens rea’ to give consent.