Chinatown wasn’t the first Hollywood film to explicitly break the incest taboo, but it’s the one that tends to stick out most prominently in film lovers’ minds. The climactic reveal—”She’s my sister and my daughter!”—gains its explosive power from the care that Roman Polanski and Robert Towne, the director and screenwriter, took in setting up the story’s slow burn, allowing us to think the mystery would be about something else before springing the terrible surprise on us.
Years ago, when I was majoring in cinema studies, one of our introductory textbooks included an essay by John G. Cawelti called “Chinatown and Generic Transformation in Recent American Films,” the gist of which was that the movie was a deep subversion of the American private-eye myth much as, say, Robert Altman’s McCabe and Mrs. Miller undermined western iconography. Cawelti describes watching Chinatown as provoking “an eerie feeling of one myth colliding with and beginning to give way to others.” From the moment I first read the article, I wondered: If Chinatown is about the private eye colliding with other myths, then what are those other myths? I wrote a paper about it for one of my classes, and once I figured out the answer, I could never look at the detective genre the same way again.
Cawelti argued that while Jack Nicholson’s Jake Gittes might look like a traditional private investigator, Chinatown puts him in places that are out of sync with the urban crime story, such as mansions and yacht clubs. Also, film noir is traditionally in black-and-white, but Chinatown is in color: What’s up with that?
I speculated that these elements might make more sense if we treated them as components of a Hollywood genre that matured almost simultaneously with the noir films: the sprawling family melodramas of directors like Vincente Minelli, Elia Kazan, or Douglas Sirk. (I even went so far as to suggest that Polanski’s muted color palette was where noir intersected with those directors’ Technicolor worlds.)
Melodramatic conventions also explains why Faye Dunaway’s character, Evelyn Mulwray, was so much more neurotic and hysterical than the typical hard-boiled dame. Evelyn panics every time Jake threatens to go to the police with what he’s already discovered, because she knows that would drag out the traumas that she works so hard to repress. (She’s not entirely successful, of course; notice how she constantly stumbles over words like “Cross” and “father.”) And, of course, there’s that reveal scene—as well as the final, tragic confrontation that follows soon after.
I dug into the literature a bit more, and I discovered that while Cawelti was struck by how Polanski and Towne positioned Chinatown, where the final scene takes place, as “the symbolic locus of darkness, strangeness, and catastrophe,” where Jake’s pursuit of justice is crushed by the pervasive evil of Noah Cross, that would have come as no surprise to a critic like Thomas Elsaesser. In an essay called “Tales of Sound and Fury,” published two years before Chinatown came out, Elsaesser talks about classic melodrama as being set in a claustrophobic world where protagonists are constantly thwarted in their attempts to relieve their emotional pressures, let alone make their world a better place.
So let’s say Chinatown is a family melodrama. Why is there a private investigator in the center of the story? The problem with Cawelti’s theory was that he lumped several writers together into the hard-boiled detective fiction basket, assuming that Dashiell Hammett and Raymond Chandler were essentially interchangeable. But they aren’t, and from the beginning, Chandler had Philip Marlowe working the family melodrama beat.
It’s all right there in the very first Marlowe novel, The Big Sleep: “I was everything the well-dressed private eye out to be… I was calling on four million dollars.” Those millions, though, have turned the Sternwoods into a “screwy” family: Vivian, the one Marlowe gets involved with, is a compulsive gambler, and her little sister Carmen is a psychopathic nymphomaniac. And talk about repression: Vivian is actively working to keep Marlowe from discovering Carmen is responsibile for the murder he uncovers early in his investigation.
(When it comes to repression, though, the film version of The Big Sleep had to obscure even more of the novel’s details, to the point that its confused plot has become the stuff of legend. And then there’s all those wisecracks Humphrey Bogart’s Marlowe makes—”You want me to count to three or something, like a movie?”—as if the film is desperately trying to convince the audience that it’s really a detective picture.)
This isn’t an anomaly: As a character in The Lady in the Lake puts it, Marlowe associates almost exclusively with “people who are living on the raw edge of nervous collapse.” Each of his cases involves pushing those people to the brink, even if he doesn’t exactly know what’s going to be revealed. It’s almost a parody of psychiatric analysis: The traumas get identified, but instead of healing, Marlowe frequently ends up bringing more disruption and pain to his clients and their families.
It wasn’t just Marlowe, either: Ross MacDonald’s Lew Archer covered the same territory, as did other literary sleuths (and as they do to this day). Chinatown, then, wasn’t quite the reinvention of the private eye myth Cawelti claimed; there was already an established pattern of hiding family melodramas in detective stories. But Towne and Polanski pushed that template further than their predecessors, who had been bound by a Hollywood “Production Code” that formalized social conventions, ever could. The explicit links they forged between sexual abuse and capitalist political oppression continue to reverberate through our popular culture: Stieg Larsson’s The Girl Who… novels are basically a power fantasy in which Lisbeth and Blomkvist mete out the vengeance Jake never could get for Evelyn.
Ron Hogan is the founding curator of Beatrice.com, one of the first websites to focus on books and authors. Lately, he’s been reviewing science fiction and fantasy for Shelf Awareness.
Do you suppose it’s truly the case that everyone reading this blog has seen Chinatown and is happy to discover the key plot element within the first two sentences?
This isn’t a review. This is an attempt at critical analysis of a work that has been considered central to a certain kind of film since it was released, many years ago. It is impossible to discuss critically without touching on the salient events of the film.
This NO SPOILERS NO MATTER HOW OLD A PIECE OF WORK IS attitude will make it impossible to have a critical apparatus with which to examine our cultural and artistic productions.
Love, C.
I think it’s fair to discuss a famous 37 year old movie without acting as if one might ruin it for people who might be rushing to theaters this weekend to see it.
That said, spoilers don’t tend to infringe upon a person’s enjoyment of a story unfolding. If movies or books were about “what happened” they could all just be a few sentences long. See timely support for this notion here: http://slashdot.org/story/11/08/16/0237204/Do-Spoilers-Ruin-a-Good-Story-No-Say-Researchers
I LOVE pieces like this and would love to read more of them. I’d gotten distracted. :)
Foxessa @@@@@ 2: I completely agree that a critical analysis requires the flexibility to discuss details of the story…. but that’s not the issue at all. There’s a big difference between saying “NO SPOILERS NO MATTER HOW OLD A PIECE OF WORK IS” and saying, “Please give a warning so that those who wish to do so can avoid the spoiler.”
It takes a few seconds to type “spoiler warning”. And doing so doesn’t curtail detailed critical analysis in any way, shape, or form. So why is the suggestion so onerous? This “no spoiler warnings no matter what” attitude will make it impossible to have a community of discussion that’s inclusive to all levels of participation and investment within which we can all share our cultural and artistic productions.
MiaE @@@@@ 3: That said, spoilers don’t tend to infringe upon a person’s enjoyment of a story unfolding.
Well, the fact that spoilers have, in fact, infringed upon my enjoyment of certain stories throws that sweeping conclusion out the window :-) That study is dubious in the extreme. For one thing, the authors’ stated errorbars actually indicate the opposite conclusion to the one they draw in the paper. (As noted here.)
That said, I have seen Chinatown already, so I read this with great enjoyment and appreciation. Very interesting!
Foxessa @2, ITregillis @5 – The difference for me isn’t just in the age of the movie/book/whatever, but in the nature of the essay. If tor.com says “we’re going to be talking analytically about noir,” well, it’s difficult to do that without talking about endings, and so I just assumed they’d be talking about the movies entire. And I’m relieved they are. Talking about spoilers is even harder in noir than in other genres, given noir’s notorious twisty plots, and it’s especially impossible in Chinatown, which, as the essay points out, makes explicit connections between sexual abuse and capitalist abuse.
The nature of the writing seems like enough warning to me, and yes, “spoiler warning” doesn’t take long to write, but the constant insistence on it seems to foster a kind of cautiousness or timidity about really addressing the substance of the story. I’d rather see reviews labelled “spoiler-free” when applicable, and assume that spoilers are the default when we’re talking about stories, rather than the other way around.
That is an interesting observation that the family melodrama lies at the heart of many of these.
seth e. @@@@@ 6: Yes, certainly. I agree– the age of the piece is irrelevant, because the real issue is the nature of the intended discussion. I think a consistent labeling policy of any sort would be a swell thing indeed, as long as the default assumptions were well known and well understood. In that case, I wouldn’t care if the default were “spoiled” or “unspoiled”. Consistently applied, that would be fair to everybody.
(I’m just perplexed that the mere suggestion of spoiler warnings gets people so riled up. If somebody in the offline world points out that I have a simple and easy opportunity to be more courteous to the people around me — without curtailing any of my personal freedoms whatsoever! — I don’t react with spittle. But that seems to be the default response in online discussions of spoilers. I honestly don’t understand it. I don’t see this as an attempt to foster an atmosphere of timidity within critical analysis and discussion; rather, I see it akin to other trivial acts of common courtesy.)
shalter @@@@@ 7: Totally agreed. I don’t know why it never clicked for me before this. Maybe because this is the first time it was stated so clearly to me.
ITregillis@8:Exactly. It seems obvious in retrospect–the best observations usually do. And, it is not just American detectives–The Hound of the Baskervilles is steeped in family melodrama.
ITregillis @8 – -Agreed! Let’s come up with some standards and enforce them with violence all over the Internet! I anticipate no problems with this plan.
Also, I should have said earlier that the family-melodrama connection is indeed a great insight.
Oh, wow. I never thought it all the way through back to Hound of the Baskervilles, and now that you mention it, I’d give A Study in Scarlet and The Valley of Fear some props on the melodrama front as well. Thanks, Shalter! (And now I’m wondering about the psychoanalytic implications of Sherlock Holmes, “CONSULTING detective.” Maybe I should go back and read my Nicholas Meyer!)
When I first came up with this theory about Chinatown, the Elsaesser essay was tremendously helpful in terms of identifying the melodramatic structure as “increasingly desperate efforts to keep some scandal or trauma repressed, until it all comes out in an explosive outburst.” That immediately got me thinking about the ‘misdirections’ in all my favorite Marlowe and Archer stories, and the climactic outbursts, and I pretty much went from there.
(I also went on a tangent about how the concurrent rises of film noir and Technicolor melodrama in the 1940s and 1950s were likely connected to the influx of emigres from the German film industry fleeing the Nazis, and the influence of Expressionism on both genres, but the blog post was already pretty long as it was…)
seth e. @@@@@ 10:
1) Please show me where I advocated violence.
2) Given the context of our discussion, when you said: I’d rather see reviews labelled “spoiler-free” when applicable, and assume that spoilers are the default when we’re talking about stories, I assumed you were speaking specifically about Tor.com. I was responding in that context, not about the entire Internet. But if you’d rather fault me for assuming you were being reasonable, that’s your prerogative.
Given that I agreed with most of what you had to say, I’m perplexed at the apparent need to conjure a straw man. (But thank you for illustrating my point about how spoiler discussions get pointlessly heated.)
RonHogan @@@@@ 11:
I would very much like to read that tangent. It sounds fascinating!
ObSpoilerDebate: I honestly hadn’t even given the issue any thought while I was writing the blog post, mostly because of the film’s “classic” status, but I appreciate the concerns raised here, and I’ll keep them in mind for future posts!
@ITregillis: I didn’t get into it too much—I essentially left it as an open question in the “this would probably be a great subject for another research paper” vein—but it basically boiled down to Expressionism as a rejection of “realism” (which I probably should’ve called “naturalism”) as a visual style.
The visual links between Expressionism and noir were fairly well covered, but at the time I hadn’t found any great criticism that connected the thematic dots between the two. And while Douglas Sirk’s melodramas were widely recognized as incisive critiques of 1950s society, I hadn’t seen anybody connect the dots between his “unrealistic” directing style (heightened colors, sweeping music) and his background as a filmmaker in UFA in the 1930s.
@ITregillis – Whoa. I was perfectly sincere with the “agreed” part; for the rest, I was trying for friendly irony, but clearly missed by a wide margin. I apologize for the way my comment apparently came off; I wasn’t trying to be confrontational at all. That’s entirely my bad.
This settles it: no more posting in a hurry from my phone for me. Clearly it doesn’t have a good effect. My point was meant to be just that we agree.
Just a data point on the spoiler thing, spoilers have in the past lessened my enjoyment of media. I like noir, had heard the phrase “It’s Chinatown, Jake”, had heard that Chinatown was a good movie, was not aware that Chinatown qualified as noir instead of drama set in the first part of the century. I feel that people who assume that everyone who is anyone knows X already are generally fools.
I was irritated by the opening of this post and decided that the carelessness it evidenced probably meant I wasn’t missing much in my decision to skip the rest.
Foxessa@2: This may, in fact, be a critical essay. That’s fine. And when I come across a critical essay in a magazine, I can flip to some other article and not read it if it is about something which I would rather not read.
When, on the other hand, you reveal the crucial plot twist in a film within the first few words of your essay on a Web page, directly below an image which is guaranteed to draw the eye, then you are simply being inconsiderate. Quite frankly, I consider it poor form indeed, and bad style; I would hesitate, truthfully, to reveal the critical plot points of Othello within the first paragraph of an essay.
Some of us don’t consider 40 years to be all that long ago, and I can guarantee you that a significant number of the people reading this article have never seen Chinatown. And all I can say about this recent ‘study’ which purports to show that people don’t actually mind if they encounter spoilers for films before seeing them is: bollocks.
RonHogan@13: Much appreciated. Thanks.
Just to save myself an ass-whooping, let me state up front this might be spoiler-y. The (IMO) underrated sequel The Two Jakes builds on the “family” angle, but in the context of how the past affects the present. Jake Gittes finds himself trying to protect Evelyn Mulwray’s daughter, who he hasn’t seen in years and has had no contact with; the other Jake (Harvey Keitel) is trying to do the same thing, for his own reasons. For most of the movie we believe they’re working at cross purposes, and it’s only in the final scenes that we understand the truth. The final line (“The past never goes away.”) may not be up there with “It’s just…Chinatown,” but it carries its own considerable power.