This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

Chinatown is a really good film. The characters and the strange character relations are somewhat unique. Another particularly interesting element of the film is its structure, and it is discussed in Alternative Scriptwriting at some length. I’m probably inadvertantly spoiling the film for you in the rest of this post, so if you plan to see the movie (which you should) perhaps skip over this of this paragraph. The structure of Chinatown isn’t particularly noticeable,, seemingly framed almost standardly in the three acts, but then the last act of the film illustrates otherwise, revealing to the audience something classically unexpected.

Let me clarify what I’m saying about Chinatown regarding the “expected”: Jake’s actions at the end of the film are relatively congruent with the rest of his actions in the film, and perhaps even expected. I say this since he he is portrayed as flawed character in the first two acts who is often out to save his own neck and “make an honest living”, regardless of his good intentions. However, in films that are of the restorative three act structure, “good” and “bad” morals are somewhat ubiquitous in a generlised kind of way, and “good” ultimately prevails in the third act, and the protagonist restores the mess he or she has managed to create. So although Jake acts as he always has, and says nothing at the end of the film because the people he cares about are already dead, the sense of “good” or “justice” is not embraced by him.

So, the film ends with a kind of hopeless inevitability where everything is against you, even though the structure suggests (because of the norm) that the film is going to end with good prevailing where Evelyn perhaps does not die, and Jake lives or dies fighting for Evelyn and justice. Thus, although it seems unlikely that Jake can turn this situation in his favor, we (as an audience) want him to somehow end up on top. Chinatown achieves this feat by forming a balance between the characters, their implied back stories, and their actions in the film, which essentially foreshadow the end with many glimpses of the “reality” of the situation. So, the end, although unexpected, was well crafted with the rest of the story, and not merely some sort of unexpected twist or sudden event that’s simply there to make the audience say “shit, I didn’t expect that!” Instead there was a suggestion of twisted (or different) morality as a film, a sharp bite of reality. Again, I mean that in relative terms, compared to the more standard restorative three-act structure films, like Wall Street or High Fidelity. The unlikely hero is in a situation where he is unlikely to succeed but this time he actually fails; sometimes, good intentions aren’t enough. Sometimes people with large amounts of power doing “bad” things think they’re right, or that certain things are “just that way”.

On a side note, I was rewatching Chinatown with a person who hadn’t seen the film in a long time and couldn’t remember it. So, the film ended, and this person said that they had wasted her time watching a morally bankrupt film. This person felt that filmmakers have a social responsibility to make films which have a positive impact on audiences, instead of taking the audience for an unnecessary “ride”. This person said that films are entertainment, and thus they should be entertaining without misguiding the audience just to show a morally bankrupt, unexpected ending merely to have a unique film. I don’t agree with this line of thinking because [some] films need to be thought-provoking, perhaps challenging norms and reflecting other realities or potential realities in society. If one thinks that films are just for entertainment so that one feels good at the end, then that’s fine, but can Chinatown and the filmmakers be called “morally bankrupt”? I suppose it depends on your idea of morality. I think the last thing we need are films that all have the same moral standpoint that don’t even question the naive notion of a “universal” or absolute morality. Such widespread, exact, notions of morality don’t really seem to exist in the world today. Furthermore, I don’t think all films need to show “good” always prevailing, nor do they need to show characters that care most about what many (but not all) think is right.

So what does Jake do? What’s right? What is morally acceptable? Does Jake stand up for those who are already dead, for “justice”, merely to get ridiculed and killed? Does Jake stand up for Katherine when he really knows that he can’t achieve anything against the amounts of “power” he would need to oppose. Does Jake trick Evelyn’s father and take him elsewhere in the end so that he gets himself killed or does he rely on his “backup” so that both he and Evelyn can potentially survive the ordeal? Like Jake says earlier in the film regarding his time working in Chinatown: he wanted to do good by someone, but he’s convinced that he was just unlucky.

Not everyone can be Rick from Casablanca.

Again, this is a response to another comment that became a post. 

“I think terming one’s religion ‘progressive’ is more an act of seeking acceptance than anything else. Today’s society loves anything that is ‘progressive’ or ‘open minded’…but what about when these values dilute the truth because it is just easier to handle it that way?”

As much as progressive religions get accepted by people like me, I feel there would be more dismay (and anger) from the “pure” religions they were derived from. This could be a Christian fundamentalist calling another Christian not a “true Christian.” Half the Christians that come up with rubbish like “true Christian” and associated terms, are Protestant Christians and the Protestant Church exists because of a reformation; and at that time, I’m sure it would have been thought of as what people know consider “progressive.” So, instead of wine and bread being Jesus’ blood and flesh, they became a symbol for his blood and flesh. Like Shannon said, in that context, it was progressive and frowned upon by those outside of the movement, but not by those within it.

Why would people who are pushing for progressive religions actually try and do it because they are merely seeking acceptance? Wouldn’t they just pack up and have their own beliefs at home and tell their friends about it? Maybe some are looking for acceptance, but I think more are looking for harmony.

And using words like “truth” as one would use toilet paper, just makes me feel like throwing up. If someone actually believed it was truth, they wouldn’t attempt to dilute it. They must possess some doubt, otherwise they would not challenge it and they would not change it. If we are talking about absolutes, how can something you believe to be truth be easier to handle if it is “diluted” since it becomes something that is no longer the truth?

When talking about religion, relative truth only becomes false when one talks in absolutes. I really applaud those people who give anything such significant certainty about “truth” because they must have had some damn amazing experiences.

Regarding the second paragraph of James’ comment:

“This seems to tie in with an idea raised in another post of yours – loving God. “Fundamentalist’s Christians” have an idea of what is pleasing to God, and as an act of love, they want to fulfill that. They don’t think that they are earning God’s love, but are just showing him their returning love. It seems like that idea is wrong and close minded, but isn’t this just a reflection of the way love is played out in the physical world?” 

Perhaps I was implying that people are earning God’s love but didn’t say it, and it was intentional. Let’s use your reference to “fundamentalist Christians” to start. I was trying to say that when a person chooses to accept God through Jesus Christ, they thus love God and Jesus Christ and thus they believe that they receive the unconditional love from God. I also said that, it would be a fantastic feeling to have. I also said that such people follow scripture since they have the faith to believe the scripture is 100% accurate, and if they did not follow it as best as they could, they would indeed be contradicting the love they have for God. I was also implying that because you love God, he loves you back. Perhaps, in this line of Christian thinking, he loves you back anyway. That’d be great. Yet regardless of that love, if you don’t accept God and thus the Bible and Jesus Christ, he condemns you to a place where he does not reside – a place called Hell.

As much as you say that is how love is played out in real life, for some reason I think you’re wrong. Yes you try and do what you can to please someone you love and who loves you back. However even if I hate someone, I do not punish them so harshly and send them to a place like Hell which is apparently devoid of God but rather, full of evil. If I was watching someone who I loved, and they were trying their best to do what they thought was right, I would eventually help them – I would not send them to Hell. I wouldn’t turn my back on someone who doesn’t please me in the ways that I wanted but tries their best in whatever capacity they can - I would still be pleased. If I loved someone I wouldn’t turn my back on them when that person tries to do their best when my will is unclear in the midst of so many instructions on how to live life. Even if I hated a person, if I was indeed their creator, I wouldn’t be so harsh. So, these non-progressive but “pure” ideas can’t be compared to how love is played out in real life. I’m not cheating on God by thinking there is another way.

To stand up for Shannon a third time, I’d like to understand what James’ last comment actually means. Yes Shannon stated the obvious, but in a very concise way – he talks about the Protestant reformation without having to mention it. How can anyone really determine the desires of God, when they are being interpreted from a scripture? You can only answer that question after making a whole lot of assumptions which then makes your answer useless outside of that frame you began in.

Sofia Coppola on LOST IN TRANSLATION

Sofia Coppola Talks About “Lost In Translation,” Her Love Story That’s Not “Nerdy”

24fps | Lost in Translation

Filmmaker Magazine | Fall 2003: TOKYO STORY

Flak Magazine: 2004 Oscar Dialogue on Lost in Translation, 01.29.04

MovieMartyr.com – Lost in Translation

Neon Gothic: Lost in Translation

NYCFilmCritic.com: Lost in Translation

Lost in Translation Loses little!