After Walsh says that to Gittes, the lieutenant orders the crowd to “Clear the area! Get off the street! Get off the street.”
For a well-constructed plot, this film is murky on some essentials, like who actually killed Hollis Mulwray, and how, and where, and why. And why did Ida Sessions get murdered? There’s an awful lot of strings out there that are never resolved, or even attempted. I have a friend who’s in charge of water in a very ritzy suburb of L.A. who has explained to me at length how the entire subplot about stealing the water from the farmers in the valley is a complete historical mishmosh that doesn’t make a shred of sense. it’s a beautiful example of atmosphere taking over a film completely with the substance of the film disappearing–the more you think about it, the less sense the whole film makes.
I’m guessing you had the punchline to this post, and then worked your way back.
It’s been a dog’s life since I’ve seen Chinatown, but to attempt to discuss your concerns:
Cross killed Mulwray at the mansion’s salt water pond, because Mulwray learned about Cross’ plan to create a fake drought, buy up the real estate affected, then building a dam to irrigate the land, making him very, very rich and powerful. It is also likely he had him killed over his knowledge/protection of Katherine.
Ida Sessions was a loose end who tipped Jake off about the plan and the murder, so Cross had her killed too.
It’s not, nor was meant to be an accurate, historical retelling of the water wars, but it did have some historical references, so I guess it could be called “a historical mishmosh”, but it does make sense.
Chinatown isn’t style over substance, it’s underlying evil plot and the murders that occur all make sense. The substance is there too.
I wonder if Towne thought all this stuff through. My impression is that he threw all this mess against the wall, and thought, “Well, good enough.” Maybe I should read his novelization to see if he ties these loose ends together so neatly. Certainly he was arguing with Polanski as to the ending of the movie, and he lost his argument. He wanted Evelyn to live and Noah Cross to die, but later admitted that Polanski called it right. As it stands, Gittes is a busybody who makes bold guesses that are tragically mistaken, repeatedly confronting people with his rude speculations as to what went on–he’s not half as perceptive as he likes people to think he is. He’s pretty much a clueless jerk, though we tend to remember him as the movie’s hero, mostly because of Nicholson’s star quality. His character is written as confident and insightful into others’ motivations but he is consistently wrong at numerous steps along the way in the plot.
As to the Ida Sessions stuff, think this through. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If Noah Cross was about to murder Mulwray in a day or two, why hire Ida and get Gittes involved at all? Again, I think this was a brilliant move, cinematically speaking on Townes’ part, but a bonehead move on Noah Cross’s part, drawing Gittes into his murder scheme, and involving a third party, Ida Sessions, who then needs to get bumped off. If he’s going to kill Mulwray, why do it at his own home when Mulwray spends all his evenings at remote reservoirs? Or are you thinking it was an impulse murder? Highly improbable that an elderly man can drown his son-in-law in a shallow fish pond, isn’t it? And whose glasses were those in the pond? Very little adds up–Chinatown is a master class in misdirection.
IIRC, Cross wanted the murder to look like a suicide. Sessions was hired by Cross to establish that Mulwray was going to be revealed as an adulterer, so he killed himself.
The glasses were Cross’s, and they were the main clue that helped Jake figure out the murder (after a few false starts, of course). I don’t remember the details enough to draw a picture of how, exactly, the murder occurred, but at that point, I think you’ve really gone into the weeds.
As I remember it (and thanks for reminding me, I’ll give it a rewatch soon maybe), Chinatown was not the non-sensical, style over substance, schlock that you seem to believe it is. Of course there are holes and unforseeable reveals, but it’s still a fantastic film that makes sense.
And let me remind everyone, the director of the film is a child raping piece of shit and should be in prison. Never watching it is a solid choice to make.
Your friend is wrong. The movie is based loosely on the doings of William Mulholland. Mulholland and his crew did indeed steal water from the north by building a 233 mile long aqueduct system from Owens Valley to the San Fernando Valley. It was done by lying to those who would suffer the most. This led to the California Water Wars, wherein farmers and others attempted to dynamite the water line. It only took 13 years to completely drain Owens Lake. A good book on the subject.
You do realize that drowning a man in a freshwater reservoir who will show up with salt water in his lungs is a very suspicious form of suicide? Name someone who killed himself by drowning btw. I’ll wait.
That really is a fantastic book. It does touch on the water wars, but more specifically focuses on the failure of the St. Francis Dam and Mulholland’s hubris that caused him to ignore clear warning signs. That dam failure is obliquely referred to in the scenes where Mulwray opposes the construction of an unsafe dam.
Fun fact: I have a piece of the St. Francis dam here on my desk.
It’s not the most obvious method of suicide, but it is not especially rare. Just one cite of many Google provided:
Within the years 1987 to 1991, 247 people have committed suicide in the Province of Newfoundland. Of that number, 22 committed suicide by drowning, representing 8.9% of all suicides, and the fourth leading cause of suicidal death. When considering suicide in the age group of 50 years and older, (n = 68), which accounts for 27.5% of all suicides, drowning represents 25% of all suicidal deaths, and within females in this group represents the most common form of suicidal death (45.5%).
Hey, everyone. This thread is obviously provoking strong feelings, and I’ve already gotten a couple of reports. While i don’t think either of them rose to the level of requiring moderation, they were close. I’d like to request that all of you be considerate of other posters who might have other opinions. It’s fine to have string opinions about the plot, the director, etc , and to express them. But please make sure that your posts are respectful to other posters.