The Godfather II is the best movie sequel ever made. The series of films made in the 1980's don't even come close. Empire Strikes back or Indiana Jones are juvenile films that were successful commercially, but not as complex or dramatic as Godfather II.
In The Godfather II Michael Corleone consolidates his power over the criminal underworld by killing of all contenders to his throne. The film starts much like the first Godfather. A giant party scene celebrating a ritual of life for Michael's youngest son and heir to the Corleone family. The scene is set and all the major characters are there; Fredo, Senator Geary, Johnny Ola, and Frank Five Angels Pentangeli. It is from here that all of the conflicts in the film emerge and develop into high drama.
I read the screenplay and watched the film twice. It's a process I've followed from Graduate school. Comparing the film and the script show that several revisions were made. The scenes with Senator Geary were changed to include the setup with the mutilated girl. The attempted murder of Pentangeli was also moved up in the film. That would be my major criticism of the film. That it starts off too slow. The script read that way. It takes awhile to get from Lake Tahoe to Havana, Cuba. But when it does the film becomes a classic apart from the first film.
The scenes from the film of Cuba are great. It is one of the best sequences in all of movie history. It shows Michael leading the Corleone family to international status as a major player in the leisure industry. The film makes full use of the lively culture of Cuba. It shows people dancing, the flare for life that Latin cultures are known for. It creates a World that is a teeming with conflict and the conflict explodes in the final party scene where Michael confronts Fredo about his treachery against Michael. Against the family.
Everything is there in Cuba. Great acting, cinematography, pacing, and editing. The acting of Lee Strasbourg as Hyman Roth was top notch. I really believed that he was a lying criminal who was Michael's rival. His speech about Moe Greene was full of anger towards Michael. Saying that it was "the business we have chosen." A great sequence that combines the politics of Cuba, the impending deal by the gangsters, and the familial conflict between Fredo and Michael.
The film then goes into one it's flashbacks to the young Vito Corleone. It is a character study of a rising Mafia Don who learns his lessons early in life and never forgets them. I guess it's true of Sicilians. You don't want to ever cross one because they will get revenge. Like the Roman Emperors and their struggles to keep the empire together and kill of rivals, Vito does the same. He builds his empire through calculated action; murder, theft, intimidation, nothing seems to be out of the question for Vito. But, when he gets home he is a family man. The intimate scenes of Vito and his young family in the small tenement are touching It's a theme that runs through the entirety of the film. Vito loves his family dearly. So does Michael. There is nothing more important to him then his family. It's the backbone of his empire.
The last hour after intermission brings all of the themes and conflicts to a boil. The Senate investigation where Michael is cleared of wrong doing, the abortion of Michael's son by Kaye, and of course, like the first movie, Michael's elimination of enemies and his consolidation of power. The murder of Hyman Roth was tamped down. In the script he is shot point blank in the head by Rocco. In the film he is shot in the heart. I couldn't help but admire Rocco's courage. As he was being shot by the FBI guys I thought "he took one for the team." It was different was Neri kills Fredo. Unlike the first film where I was cheering for Michael as he killed Barzini and Tatalia, I thought of him as cruel and evil in his decision to murder Fredo, the only brother he had left.
The film revolves around the character of Michael. It provides one of the classic characters of Film history. Why does Michael do it? In the last scene in the boathouse where Michael makes the decision to kill off Roth, Tom Hagen asks him "you've won. Do you really want to kill off everyone?" His response is as ruthless and his actions. "Only my enemies" he says. He knows killing Roth will cost Rocco his life. Yet he sends his most trusted assassin to make sure the job is done. In the final scene of the film the camera pans in to rest on Michael's eyes. I couldn't help but think, what is going on in his mind? Does he feel remorse after having killed not only his brother in law Carlo, but now his own brother? Does he long for more power? More money? More control? At the end of the first film I was happy that Michael had succeeded. At the end of the second film I felt nothing but revulsion and pity for him. I wished he would be brought to justice. That he would have to somehow atone for his ruthless grasping for money, power, and control. He doesn't confess his sins. He is the last man standing. Michael always wins.
The film is a lasting testament to the Italian American experience in the United States. The flashback scenes with young Vito show Little Italy and Sicily in a bygone era that will never return. Little Italy is getting smaller and smaller. And quite a few Italians are part of the afluent in the US. In New York the Governor is of Italian descent. So was his father who was Governor before him. So much Italian culture oozes out of the film. The scenes around the dinner table, in the Church, the bonds of the community, the scenes of the theater with Fanucci. The street scenes with the crowds and vendors. I couldn't help but recall Ric Burns excellent documentary of New York. Or that the actor in the theater piece looked like Fiorello La Guardia. The romance and the history pulls you into the World. It makes you able to excuse Vito's criminal actions because he is a romantic figure. The same was true of Don Corleone and Michael. It's what makes the film so great. It's an experience within itself. Better than anything at the theaters these days.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Tuesday, January 23, 2018
Review of The Godfather
As a capstone to my study of crime films I decided to read the screenplays and watch The Godfather and The Godfather II. I remember a painter saying how when he looked at the Dutch painter Franz Halls he said he felt like painting. But, when he looked at Rembrandt he felt like giving up because Rembrandt was so perfect. I would say the same for The Godfather I and II. I've seen some other films about the Mafia, but only the Godfather films attain a standard that will never be reached again. If Chinatown is a perfect film, the Godfather is beyond perfect. Everything with the film works so well. There aren't any faults in the film. The direction, the writing, the cinematography, the editing, the art direction, and of course all of the excellent performances by the all star cast. So much drama; love, hate, violence, tension, passion, and the back stories about the actors. Al Pacino was an unknown before The Godfather. He was living hand to mouth and living a vagabond existence in the Village before Francis Ford Coppola cast him as Michael Corleone.
The story is a straight forward one. The ups and downs of the Corleone family against the other mafia families. It is a romantic film, but mostly a thriller. It is always acting on the next question that it will answer. I was dying to know what would happen next. And every scene is varied or different from the previous one. The emotional range is varied which keeps me emotionally feeling the film. I was cheering for the Corleone family. I was cheering for Michael when he kills Solozzo and McCluskey. After all who likes heroin dealers and crooked cops? That scene in the restaurant is one of the best scenes in Cinema history. It creates so much tension. Will Michael kill Solozzo and McCluskey? Will the gun be there? Will he get out alive? It is a thrilling ride until the final violent shooting.
I couldn't get over Marlon Brando as the Don. Was it his best performance? Was it his career peak? It would certainly seem so. He never did anything as great as Don Corleone again. Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now rivals the performance, but it isn't as good as Don Corleone. The Don is a much deeper character with much more to say and do than Colonel Kurtz. Every performance is great. Every character hits a note with the viewer. Sonny, Clemenza, Tessio, Fredo, even Moe Green comes off as an interesting character even though he has only a few lines in the film before he is killed.
And of course Al Pacino will forever be remembered for his portrayal of Michael Corleone. The transformation of Michael from care free college boy to Mafia Don is one of the best character arcs in film history. But what does Michael think? He is so cold hearted. And to think of poor Kaye And Connie. Women characters in the film get much sympathy. I was so glad when Carlo was killed at the end of the movie. The scene where Talia Shire is beaten in the bathroom is so revolting. The way the camera doesn't show the violence. We can only hear here screams of pain as Carlo beats her with a belt.
The film is non stop action from beginning to end. There is never a dull moment. Even the little reflection scenes of The Don are fraught with unspoken musings that are alluded to by the Don's face. Can you think of anyone playing Don Corleone but Marlon Brando? I can't even imagine someone else in the role.
The screenplay is about 120 pages. The last thirty or forty pages are such a quick read. It seemed like time stood still as I read those pages. I forgot about my problems and escaped into the world of the film. I forgot that I would die. And my life would end in obscurity and irrelevance. It's the greatest art that does that. Films attempt to achieve that, but so few really do. The Godfather does without reservation. After the film ended I was already lamenting the fact that I had to stop watching the film. Reality and mortality awaiting me like a giant chain that I'll never be free from.
But as Samuel Beckett says, "I can't go on. I'll go on."
The story is a straight forward one. The ups and downs of the Corleone family against the other mafia families. It is a romantic film, but mostly a thriller. It is always acting on the next question that it will answer. I was dying to know what would happen next. And every scene is varied or different from the previous one. The emotional range is varied which keeps me emotionally feeling the film. I was cheering for the Corleone family. I was cheering for Michael when he kills Solozzo and McCluskey. After all who likes heroin dealers and crooked cops? That scene in the restaurant is one of the best scenes in Cinema history. It creates so much tension. Will Michael kill Solozzo and McCluskey? Will the gun be there? Will he get out alive? It is a thrilling ride until the final violent shooting.
I couldn't get over Marlon Brando as the Don. Was it his best performance? Was it his career peak? It would certainly seem so. He never did anything as great as Don Corleone again. Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now rivals the performance, but it isn't as good as Don Corleone. The Don is a much deeper character with much more to say and do than Colonel Kurtz. Every performance is great. Every character hits a note with the viewer. Sonny, Clemenza, Tessio, Fredo, even Moe Green comes off as an interesting character even though he has only a few lines in the film before he is killed.
And of course Al Pacino will forever be remembered for his portrayal of Michael Corleone. The transformation of Michael from care free college boy to Mafia Don is one of the best character arcs in film history. But what does Michael think? He is so cold hearted. And to think of poor Kaye And Connie. Women characters in the film get much sympathy. I was so glad when Carlo was killed at the end of the movie. The scene where Talia Shire is beaten in the bathroom is so revolting. The way the camera doesn't show the violence. We can only hear here screams of pain as Carlo beats her with a belt.
The film is non stop action from beginning to end. There is never a dull moment. Even the little reflection scenes of The Don are fraught with unspoken musings that are alluded to by the Don's face. Can you think of anyone playing Don Corleone but Marlon Brando? I can't even imagine someone else in the role.
The screenplay is about 120 pages. The last thirty or forty pages are such a quick read. It seemed like time stood still as I read those pages. I forgot about my problems and escaped into the world of the film. I forgot that I would die. And my life would end in obscurity and irrelevance. It's the greatest art that does that. Films attempt to achieve that, but so few really do. The Godfather does without reservation. After the film ended I was already lamenting the fact that I had to stop watching the film. Reality and mortality awaiting me like a giant chain that I'll never be free from.
But as Samuel Beckett says, "I can't go on. I'll go on."
Tuesday, January 16, 2018
Review of Zodiac
The Zodiac is a long and complicated movie that runs over two hours. The first hour and a half comes off as a Law and Order episode with some cinematography that uses the "God's eye" view in effective ways. I couldn't get over how much like Law and Order the film was. It's far too procedural for me. I liked the last hour of the film. The character of Robert Graysmith saves this film from utter oblivion. The beginning starts off with a lot of brutal violence. I couldn't help myself thinking, in the first murder scene, how much the zodiac killer looks like Joe Pesci from Goodfellas as he kills Samuel L. Jackson for forgetting to ditch the incriminating vehicle. The setup for each murder looks the same. Each using a pistol with a silencer. It even uses a rock song. The scene was brutal enough to invoke the emotion of fear that would grip San Francisco about the Zodiac killer. It is that use of showing brutal murders that creates the initial impulse to follow the film to it's conclusion.
The period dress and settings were remarkably done. The police station and the newspaper office evoked American conlformity from the sixties. The gray desks and chairs along with the haircuts and shirts created an ambiance that created a World in which to get lost in. Forgetting that those days were more than several decades past. In the first ten minutes all the particulars are established; the main characters, the atmosphere, and the conflict that runs throughout the course of the film. After the first twenty minutes or so the film delves into procedurals which left me bored and wondering when the film will end.
Robert Downey, Jr. carries the film forward, but the police investigation bogs it down. There is no action. Perhaps the film would have been better as a documentary? I wonder if there has been a documentary made about the Zodiac killer? Probably. The film aims for documentary realism and it succeeds mostly. But for a good solid hour there is little to no action. The film wasn't made for the fan boy audience. It's a serious film that attempts to be an awards contender.
The screenplay was a thriller. It runs a long 194 pages and is not too light on thrilling sequences. Especially thrilling is when Jake Gyllenhaal goes to the movie buff's house to see his secret canister of film. The scene is filled with nervous tension that grows out of the central conflict of the film; who is the Zodiac killer? According to the film it has never been resolved conclusively. It is too bad that the lead suspect didn't get justice. During the investigations of the Zodiac murders I found myself angry that they didn't indict Arthur Leigh Allen. Why didn't the DA act? Surely they could have brought him to trial and if nothing came of it, then he would be a free man and the investigation would continue. It's a travesty of justice that makes the film watchable for the last hour. Was it sloppy police work? A judicial system too protective of criminals? That was the questions the film raised for me.
The screenplay also veered into documentary, perhaps too much for me. It used hard dates to emphasize how much time had passed. Maybe that was used in the Graysmith book from which the film was derived? It was a very newsworthy approach. Similar to Nixon which used specific dates in it's back and forth between time periods. I liked the use of dates to show the elapse of time. It really showed how much time lapsed between letters and kept me interested. After all the procedural stuff I could be brought back to the case with the use of a specific date. It made the film more cinematic rather than just another procedural like CSI or the previously mentioned Law and Order.
I wouldn't recommend this film to someone who isn't interested in serial killer films. It is far too detailed and procedural than a casual film goer would want to watch. Still I did find it better the Girl on The Train which had it's merits, but lacked the seriousness and gravity of Zodiac.
The period dress and settings were remarkably done. The police station and the newspaper office evoked American conlformity from the sixties. The gray desks and chairs along with the haircuts and shirts created an ambiance that created a World in which to get lost in. Forgetting that those days were more than several decades past. In the first ten minutes all the particulars are established; the main characters, the atmosphere, and the conflict that runs throughout the course of the film. After the first twenty minutes or so the film delves into procedurals which left me bored and wondering when the film will end.
Robert Downey, Jr. carries the film forward, but the police investigation bogs it down. There is no action. Perhaps the film would have been better as a documentary? I wonder if there has been a documentary made about the Zodiac killer? Probably. The film aims for documentary realism and it succeeds mostly. But for a good solid hour there is little to no action. The film wasn't made for the fan boy audience. It's a serious film that attempts to be an awards contender.
The screenplay was a thriller. It runs a long 194 pages and is not too light on thrilling sequences. Especially thrilling is when Jake Gyllenhaal goes to the movie buff's house to see his secret canister of film. The scene is filled with nervous tension that grows out of the central conflict of the film; who is the Zodiac killer? According to the film it has never been resolved conclusively. It is too bad that the lead suspect didn't get justice. During the investigations of the Zodiac murders I found myself angry that they didn't indict Arthur Leigh Allen. Why didn't the DA act? Surely they could have brought him to trial and if nothing came of it, then he would be a free man and the investigation would continue. It's a travesty of justice that makes the film watchable for the last hour. Was it sloppy police work? A judicial system too protective of criminals? That was the questions the film raised for me.
The screenplay also veered into documentary, perhaps too much for me. It used hard dates to emphasize how much time had passed. Maybe that was used in the Graysmith book from which the film was derived? It was a very newsworthy approach. Similar to Nixon which used specific dates in it's back and forth between time periods. I liked the use of dates to show the elapse of time. It really showed how much time lapsed between letters and kept me interested. After all the procedural stuff I could be brought back to the case with the use of a specific date. It made the film more cinematic rather than just another procedural like CSI or the previously mentioned Law and Order.
I wouldn't recommend this film to someone who isn't interested in serial killer films. It is far too detailed and procedural than a casual film goer would want to watch. Still I did find it better the Girl on The Train which had it's merits, but lacked the seriousness and gravity of Zodiac.
Tuesday, January 9, 2018
Review of The Silence of the Lambs
Why are Americans so obsessed with serial killers? I don't know. This film is really a testament to that mystery. The Silence of the Lambs was a huge hit and garnered several academy awards as well as other awards. And it deserves it. The film is practically flawless. Great performances by Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopikins. I can still hear Hannibal's voice in my head and so many lines that will never be forgotten. The directing was unrivaled. The pacing of the film is great. It jumps from quick to slow with memorable cuts to one event or the other. In the final sequence where Buffalo Bill uses the night goggles and follows Starling I wondered how they did it. It was a bone chilling scene. When he reaches out and almost touches her I wanted to scream out loud to let her know he was there. I had to remind myself that it was just a film.
The screenplay was just as nerve racking. I'm not a big fan of horror films. And Silence veers into horror territory and the macabre. Especially when the viewer is shown Buffalo Bill's layer. I couldn't get over how weird he was. The montage used to show him getting into his psychotic states prior to killing was so creepy. Just a shot of his eye, his peieced nipple, his little tattoos. It all created a portrait of a monster.
The adaptation from script to screen stayed true to the script. There were just a few omissions of minor scenes and minor dialogue. I haven't read the book, so I can't speak about how it was adapted from the novel into the screenplay. I found nothing wrong with the script. The descriptions and word choice was flawless. The use of details was very good.
My screenwriting mentor told me that I didn't have enough detail in my script. Perhaps I should follow John Tally's example. The use of little details follows the whole story. It is in fact how the whole story evolves and Buffalo Bill is caught. Not only the use of the moth to track down the killer, but also the flashbacks which populate the story and explain why Starling is such a good agent. That little detail of the moth; how it is lodged in the victims, and eventually after good detective work Starling sees it at Buffalo Bill's house and knows he is the killer. That is the big, little detail that is used. Hitchcock called it the "mcguffin" the thing that seems meaningless, but turns out to be crucial to the story.
The script also etches in a lot little subplots that make it eminently watchable. Like the struggle of Starling to be accepted on equal footing with males in the story. And her story of her childhood. Through the story we get Lecter's personality on the screen. I was eerily fascinated with Lecter in the final scene between him and Starling. His whole face with his dark, hollow eyes, filled the entire screen while he penetrated Starling's childhood, and the reason she keeps fighting to solve crimes. After that the story flows into action sequences which reveal where Buffalo Bill is and the escape of Lecter from imprisonment. It moves fast and never gets dull. Even the second time I watched.
The last great technique used in the film is the false lead. On the second, or rather the third time I saw it, it wasn't as potent. Still it was an incredibly entertaining sequence. The fast cross cutting between locations. One where we thought Buffalo Bill was. And the other where he really is. It's a great use to build suspencs. The scenes cut together; the FBI agent with flowers ringing the door bell, to Buffalo Bill's basement, and finally to reveal it is Starling who is at the right place rather than Crawford. I can't even thing of another film that uses a false lead to turn the audience in one direction while at the same time leading to the correct location so well.
The Silence of the Lambs reminds me of Psycho. I've seen Hitchcock's masterpiece three or four times. And every time it is just as creepy, just as frightening. Silence of the Lambs is that kind of film. I've seen it at least three times and it is still just as creepy and thrilling as the first time I saw it. Especially the ending. I've read somewhere that a film can be bad except for the ending. If you give the audience a good ending, then all is not lost. The Silence of the Lambs is a great film from start to finish. It will stand out in film history as a genre defining film. I don't know how many other films or TV shows it has influenced, but I'm sure it is countless. It will not be forgotten easily.
The screenplay was just as nerve racking. I'm not a big fan of horror films. And Silence veers into horror territory and the macabre. Especially when the viewer is shown Buffalo Bill's layer. I couldn't get over how weird he was. The montage used to show him getting into his psychotic states prior to killing was so creepy. Just a shot of his eye, his peieced nipple, his little tattoos. It all created a portrait of a monster.
The adaptation from script to screen stayed true to the script. There were just a few omissions of minor scenes and minor dialogue. I haven't read the book, so I can't speak about how it was adapted from the novel into the screenplay. I found nothing wrong with the script. The descriptions and word choice was flawless. The use of details was very good.
My screenwriting mentor told me that I didn't have enough detail in my script. Perhaps I should follow John Tally's example. The use of little details follows the whole story. It is in fact how the whole story evolves and Buffalo Bill is caught. Not only the use of the moth to track down the killer, but also the flashbacks which populate the story and explain why Starling is such a good agent. That little detail of the moth; how it is lodged in the victims, and eventually after good detective work Starling sees it at Buffalo Bill's house and knows he is the killer. That is the big, little detail that is used. Hitchcock called it the "mcguffin" the thing that seems meaningless, but turns out to be crucial to the story.
The script also etches in a lot little subplots that make it eminently watchable. Like the struggle of Starling to be accepted on equal footing with males in the story. And her story of her childhood. Through the story we get Lecter's personality on the screen. I was eerily fascinated with Lecter in the final scene between him and Starling. His whole face with his dark, hollow eyes, filled the entire screen while he penetrated Starling's childhood, and the reason she keeps fighting to solve crimes. After that the story flows into action sequences which reveal where Buffalo Bill is and the escape of Lecter from imprisonment. It moves fast and never gets dull. Even the second time I watched.
The last great technique used in the film is the false lead. On the second, or rather the third time I saw it, it wasn't as potent. Still it was an incredibly entertaining sequence. The fast cross cutting between locations. One where we thought Buffalo Bill was. And the other where he really is. It's a great use to build suspencs. The scenes cut together; the FBI agent with flowers ringing the door bell, to Buffalo Bill's basement, and finally to reveal it is Starling who is at the right place rather than Crawford. I can't even thing of another film that uses a false lead to turn the audience in one direction while at the same time leading to the correct location so well.
The Silence of the Lambs reminds me of Psycho. I've seen Hitchcock's masterpiece three or four times. And every time it is just as creepy, just as frightening. Silence of the Lambs is that kind of film. I've seen it at least three times and it is still just as creepy and thrilling as the first time I saw it. Especially the ending. I've read somewhere that a film can be bad except for the ending. If you give the audience a good ending, then all is not lost. The Silence of the Lambs is a great film from start to finish. It will stand out in film history as a genre defining film. I don't know how many other films or TV shows it has influenced, but I'm sure it is countless. It will not be forgotten easily.
Thursday, January 4, 2018
Review of Chinatown
I watched Chinatown tonight for the sixth time. Every time it is as sensual and alluring as the first. Even though with repeated viewings Jake Gittes comes off as a a boob. How doesn't he make the connections between the murder, the water conspiracy, and Noah Cross? It all seems so obvious. This time I watched the film I really was taken with the character of Evelyn Mulwray. She is such a tragic character. Raped by her father, the prime suspect in the murder, and abused by Gittes who is her last ally. It's a great creation by Robert Towne. In the thirties women weren't given much and this film shows that in excellent detail. Her hair style, bobs. Her clothing have a Chinese influence. And she is always smoking. She doesn't reveal anything easily either. It is only after she sleeps with Gittes that she finally reveals that she has a daughter who is also her sister. And Gittes refuses to believe her. It is such a shame that Mrs. Mulwray suffers so much only to be brutally murdered with a gunshot to her face.
This time around Jake Gittes comes off as clueless, merely drifting from one clue to the next. Like he says about his years spent on the Chinatown beat; he gets closer, but never really knows what's going on. The whole film seems to depict his problem of figuring out what is going on. And when he does he makes mistake after mistake. Why does he call Noah Cross? Why doesn't he call Escobar and have him meet him at Mulwray's house? What is he trying to get? More money? It brings Cross to the girl and Evelyn. For all his style and polish, Gittes is the fall guy that eventually leads to Mrs. Mulwray's death and the triumph of Cross over not just his daughter, but all the farmers in the valley who are losing their land as well as the people of Los Angeles who are paying for water they will never get.
The film is practically flawless. I couldn't get over the Mise en Scene of Roman Polanski. The shots of Gittes in the office are so well done. And the looming pictures of FDR in the background are a constant reminder that the film is set in the throws of the Great Depression. Perhaps the best shots using the kind of framing Polanski uses are when Gittes and Mrs. Mulwray have just finished having sex and Gittes is revealing his memories of working in Chinatown for the District Attorney. In the conversation he reveals how he tried to do "as little as possible" while working for the DA. It all comes back to him when Mrs. Mulwray is killed in the end.
The last sequence of the film pulls everything together; Cross, the damn, the farmers, the incestuous daughter, and Gittes own stupidity as well as the domination of the rich over the poor. I've watched the ending many times in the course of watching the film in it's entirety and as a clip on youtube. It is always a suspenseful sequence and the last words of the film spoken by Gittes' associate are classic and imprinted on every viewers conscience "forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
This time around Jake Gittes comes off as clueless, merely drifting from one clue to the next. Like he says about his years spent on the Chinatown beat; he gets closer, but never really knows what's going on. The whole film seems to depict his problem of figuring out what is going on. And when he does he makes mistake after mistake. Why does he call Noah Cross? Why doesn't he call Escobar and have him meet him at Mulwray's house? What is he trying to get? More money? It brings Cross to the girl and Evelyn. For all his style and polish, Gittes is the fall guy that eventually leads to Mrs. Mulwray's death and the triumph of Cross over not just his daughter, but all the farmers in the valley who are losing their land as well as the people of Los Angeles who are paying for water they will never get.
The film is practically flawless. I couldn't get over the Mise en Scene of Roman Polanski. The shots of Gittes in the office are so well done. And the looming pictures of FDR in the background are a constant reminder that the film is set in the throws of the Great Depression. Perhaps the best shots using the kind of framing Polanski uses are when Gittes and Mrs. Mulwray have just finished having sex and Gittes is revealing his memories of working in Chinatown for the District Attorney. In the conversation he reveals how he tried to do "as little as possible" while working for the DA. It all comes back to him when Mrs. Mulwray is killed in the end.
The last sequence of the film pulls everything together; Cross, the damn, the farmers, the incestuous daughter, and Gittes own stupidity as well as the domination of the rich over the poor. I've watched the ending many times in the course of watching the film in it's entirety and as a clip on youtube. It is always a suspenseful sequence and the last words of the film spoken by Gittes' associate are classic and imprinted on every viewers conscience "forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)