Chinatown Movie Analysis on Episode 311
It’s a Patreon Pick! Keithan S. is programming this week’s episode, and he’s been big on Jack Nicholson. So, Keithan thought it would make for interesting conversation to follow up Women’s Appreciation Month with the problematic Roman Polanski and Chinatown (1974).
Visiting Chinatown
Chinatown is Polanski’s 1974 throwback to the Film Noir cycle/style. Jake J.J. Gittes (Nicholson) is a private investigator specializing in infidelity cases. When Mrs. Mulwray, the wife of a local city employee, hires Jake to investigate her husband, the case seems open and shut. Then, he meets the real Mrs. Mulwray (Faye Dunaway). Now, Jake must figure out who set him up and what their endgame truly is.
This week, we spend a lot of time grappling with the problematic nature of Chinatown. The auteur theory and separation of art and author are key talking points in our Chinatown movie analysis. Dalton also has challenges us to explore what Film Noir really means. Is it a style, is it a genre or is it an amalgamation of both?
Our syllabus expansion continues this week as well, after we give our quick thumbs up/thumbs down reviews of Chinatown.
If you were hoping for unadulterated praise. Forget it. It’s Chinatown.
Supporting the GenreCast Movie Podcast on Patreon
If you’re interested in offering financial support for the show, that would be awesome. We use these funds to cover production costs and hosting and domain fees, as well as occasional events and merchandise. Support on Patreon comes with a variety of rewards and additional content, such as physical rewards, bonus shows and fun stuff and even programming opportunities.
Get in Touch!
Thanks for joining us for our Chinatown review and analysis. If you haven’t yet, you can connect with us through our various means of social media. Hit us up and let us know what you like and what you don’t like. Also, it would mean a lot if you left a review on iTunes or Stitcher after you finish subscribing.
- Follow Us on Twitter
- Subscribe and Review us on iTunes
- Listen on Stitcher Internet Radio
Arthur is a creator of content, lover of movies, and father of dogs. If you want to keep the conversation going, then click here to follow Arthur on Twitter. If you would like to keep up with what Arthur is watching, then head over to Letterboxd and give him a follow!
Seriously? If you thought that when you reviewed Chinatown it would not be studied for as long as film will be studied then you didn’t and still don’t have a clue.
Regardless of what you think of Polanski it’s still one of the greatest films of all time. If you could just have focused on the movie it might be a worth while review.
It doesn’t matter what you like or like or don’t like. Your values are irrelevant in evaluating how good or bad a work of art is.
“It never really seems to comment on much”
What???
It’s a comment on racism.
It’s a comment on the mistrust of power figures.
It’s a comment on the corruption of American ideals (especially in the time frame of the movie.)
This whole pathetic review is biased.
Do you like it or do you not?
You guys can’t admit how much it affected you because you have a predisposed idea in your head about the director.
You think you know how Polanski or anyone else felt prior to making this film.
Movies or art do not have to have empathy. They’re fiction.
“We don’t need to have a movie like this”?
“It’s a weird movie.” …. great analysis.
Of course one can separate the artist from the art. It’s YOU who CAN’T. Because you don’t get it.
You’ve jumped the shark. When you equate it to OJ Simpson you have shown your inability to analyze the movie.
If you don’t like who made the film then don’t watch it.
You don’t even analyze the movie. It’s a joke that you can talk like you know how to teach film or anything for that matter. The word “syllabus” should not be part of your linguistic repertoire.
You want to teach history (water rights…bla bla bla) go for it, but stay away from film analysis.