Chinatown
As a movie thatâs been praised to the moon and routinely shows up on many All-Time best lists, Roman Polanskiâs 1974 potboiler (the last film he made before fleeing the U.S. on rape charges) has its good points and bad points, with the former just barely outweighing the latter. The filmâs lush, beautiful cinematography by John Alonzo magnificently evokes the colorful era of LA in the 1930s, and the filmâs Oscar-winning screenplay by Robert Towne draws the viewer in slowly without letting too much out of the bag. Nicholsonâs private eye Jake Gittes is one of the more ethical pliers of his trade, doing his best to talk a cuckolded wife out of using his services to catch her husband in the act including saying it might be too expensive. Faye Dunaway as the femme fatale of the story brings a tragic vulnerability through what seems most of the time like an ice-cold exterior. And John Huston as the villain in many ways steals the film, playing perhaps the most twisted mean old corrupt rich bastard in the history of cinema, with his lip-smacking robust at talking shit to our hero literally riveting the viewer. However, there are times where the film suffers from a sluggishly lethargic pace, showing Nicholson checking out places and people that could be explained just as easily with some dialogue. The filmâs focus about the political power struggles concerning the LA water department during a severe drought is meant to show that corruption is as old as the political process itself, but comes across a bit heavy-handed. And the ending, altered by Polanski from Towneâs screenplay for a more depressing feel, may or may not turn some viewers off as they wonder really just what was the point of the whole thing. We do get some fine character actors in supporting roles, such as John âHigginsâ Hillerman, Diane Ladd, James Hong, Burt âPaulieâ Young, and even Polanski himself (doing a fine job of hiding his accent) as a low-level henchman who slices Gittesâ nose, but alas Gittesâ two cronies who assist him are bland cardboard cutout gee-whiz types who only seem to be on hand to deliver the famous final line of dialogue. The biggest issue is ultimately the central paradox of the story, which is: WHY would Dunaway hire Nicholson to solve the mystery when 1) she clearly already knows the answer and 2) the last thing she needs is for those responsible to realize sheâs on to them, when in 20/20 retrospect she (and Nicholson) would have been MUCH better off keeping a low profile. Regardless, it all plays out with a kind of tragic beauty, as Dunawayâs big secret and Hustonâs scheming lead up to that ending, which many people probably wonât digest properly unless itâs on a 2nd or 3rd viewing. Many still have even tried to connect the story to the Watergate-Vietnam era that the film was released, but overall, a fine detective story thatâs incredibly well-made despite some reservations about the story and the overrated reputation it has garnered over the yearsâŚ
7/10