3 plot issues which rely on pure coincidence
-
ejlearman28 — 10 years ago(June 27, 2015 01:57 AM)
sorry I totally disagree.
Having a meeting with head of the water company and telling him everything he knows about the conspiracy makes no sense whatsoever. When gettes leaves the chairmen immediately picks up the phone and tells John Huston about it, who then sends some thugs to follow him.
What was the point of telling the chairman about the conspiracy, considering how dangerous John Huston is?
Then later, he goes to meet with John Huston at Faye Dunaway's house and tells him everything he knows and murders. Gettes unarmed and alone no back up having a meeting with a man he knows already tries to kill him and wants him dead.
Why does he go to meet John Huston when he knows his thugs are already after him?
How were those calculated deliberate mistakes meant to help him in anyway? -
ejlearman28 — 10 years ago(June 27, 2015 11:41 AM)
Ok, I'm going to check this (coz I'm a geek). I'm pretty sure Gette's met Faye Dunaway and suspected that Noah Cross had something to do with the murder of her husband which was why he confronted Yelburton about this and the water scandal.
Secondly, self-assurance or not, meeting up with Noah Cross and accusing him of murder after he's already killed Dunaway's husband, his son-in-law and employee for the water department seems like an incredible gamble.
I don't understand what he has to gain from the meeting, the only reason Noah Cross doesn't kill him or torture him is to locate his daughter, which Gettes has instructed Dunaway to meet him with later in Chinatown along with the detectives. I suppose Gettes assumes the detectives will arrest Noah Cross and rescue Dunaway and her daughter/sister and couldn't have predicted that Dunaway would panic and try to run, but to meet with Cross beforehand, given the fact that he suspects him of murder and wants to kill them all makes no sense to me at all. -
chninlp — 10 years ago(June 27, 2015 12:35 PM)
He confronted Yelburton because of the chief engineer's death following somebody posing as Hollis's wife and hiring him to spy on Hollis on suspicion of him having an affair, in addition to the fact that many thousands of gallons of water were being dumped during a drought and he reasonably believed that some sort of malfeasance was at play but wanted to find out "who put [Yelburton] up to [his role]. For Gittes there is hardly anything suspicious about Noah Cross at that point.
Secondly, Hollis was not an employee of Cross; he was his former partner.
Finally, Gittes confronts Cross because of his gullible sanguinity. He even told one of his partners earlier in the film that he wants "the big boys"; obviously Cross hired Gittes to find his daughter, Gittes recognized it and used the situation for the aforementioned reasons.
In retrospect, of course Gittes has nothing to gain from meeting Cross near the end, but the film does not defend this misstep, or the other numerous mistakes he makes throughout the film. If you're observing Gittes as a hero rather than merely the protagonist of the film, then you're a bit mistaken. -
ejlearman28 — 10 years ago(June 27, 2015 04:18 PM)
Ok, I may have been wrong about the scene with Yelburton, ( I need to now go back and watch the bloody thing!), but I'm pretty sure he'd got a little warning from Dunaway by that point about Noah Cross.
There's still some ambiguity about the confrontation with Cross, especially after the whole 'my nose, I like breathing through through it' episode, that to me suggested a massive fatalistic error of judgement going to see Cross at the scene where Dunaway's husband was killed in the pond, this is because he is unarmed and alone, and being pursued by the detectives and Cross's thugs who want to kill.
Sanguine or not, why would you go meet the guy who wants to kill you? -
ejlearman28 — 10 years ago(June 28, 2015 05:44 AM)
ok, I'm not Ed Exley's moral journey has much to do with Gettes, Gettes puts himself in an extremely precarious position on the assumption that Cross won't kill him in the house he did with Hollis.
What Gettes does realise at that point is exactly how rich and powerful Cross actually, and wrongly assumes in the end that his ex-partners on the force will listen to him at the final showdown. I don't see Cross tries to implicate in Hollis murder except with the phone scratched in the wall where the fake Mulray woman was found dead.
Gettes and his ex-partner clearly don't like each other, but I don't Cross trying to setup Gettes with fake Mulray woman's death or Hollis's murder rings true. Cross doesn't know much about Gettes or his partner, and after Dunaway's death, rather than arrest Gettes for the murders, which Cross probably wanted, they just let him go.
Regardless of this, or Gettes heroic moral journey and the quest for the truth, I still don't see how going to meet Cross alone and unarmed makes any sense. Cross did have him followed and threatened to kill him several times afterall. -
chninlp — 10 years ago(June 28, 2015 08:20 AM)
I'm not saying Exley's moral journey is similar to Gittes. I'm just saying that people praise Exley's (and White/Vincennes) character development and it can't beat Gittes.'
After Gittes meets with Cross for lunch, with Gittes briefly telling Cross about the lead investigator, Escobar (his old partner) , Cross then tips off Escobar to Ida Sessions' house with photos Gittes took of Hollis and the girl planted at her house.
More importantly, again, Gittes is not a hero at all, he is simply the main protagonist of the film.
Like I said, if you want an answer to why he confronts Cross at the end, along with the numerous other mistakes he makes in the film, listen to HIS LAST WORDS in the film. -
ejlearman28 — 10 years ago(June 28, 2015 10:19 AM)
Can't you just tell me what his last words were, whatever they were it must've been ambiguous. All I remember is Gettes saying to Cross 'what can you buy that you don't already own?' and Cross replying 'the future, Mr Gettes!'.
Off topic here, but I'd been reading Syd Field's analysis of Chinatown in his book Screenplay, who rates the film's script highly and uses it to demonstrate what makes a great film.
In the original script, Robert Towne has Gettes say to Curly in the opening scene after Curly expresses his desire to kill his wife, 'You gotta be rich to get away with murder in this town, you gotta have money, you gotta have class. What makes you think you got that kindof power?!'. This dialogue doesn't appear in the film the way it does in the script and instead is moved to some other scene, but I can't remember who says it.
The only other dialogue I remember from the end scene is Gettes screaming at Escobar in front of Cross, 'You gotta listen to me, he killed Mulray because of the water thing!', but Escobar silences him.
The films iconic and enigmatic final words are then muttered, 'It's Chinatown, Jake. Forget it.'
I think you might have given me an excuse to go back and watch dvd with the Robert Towne and David Fincher commentary, which I've been meaning to do for some time. And I also feel I've the line from rational cineophile to terminal film geek. -
MrRazorz — 9 years ago(July 19, 2016 01:28 PM)
Spacey character is contradictory, in the jail riot scene he attacks one of the prisoners who WE, the audience, and he the corrupt cop know are probably not guilty of the crime they're accused of. We see him cynically taking bribes from the start, in cahoots with the with sleazy reporter, and took a bribe of $50 to setup an actor who until his death he could care less about. I understand he feels responsible for the actor's death, it's just contrived that he pairs up with Guy Pearce who he partly blames who damaging his reputation with the TV show. I get how he should be grateful to Pearce for the Night Owl collar and publicity, but his entire position seems to switch after hearing the Rollo Tamatsi story and then Pearce asks him why he became a cop and he replies 'I don't remember'.
It's not quite as abrupt as that. Even at the start of the film, when they're setting up the "Movie Premier Pot Bust" together, Vincennes seems a little disgusted with Hudgens and the business he's in. That's also where he first becomes aware of Fleur-de-Lis, a name that comes up a little later in his work with Vice. At first he sees Fleur-de-Lis as an opportunity to "make a major case" and get himself out of Vice and back on the set of
Badge of Honor
, but that goes nowhere. But later on he hears about Fleur-de-Lis again, this time in connection with Matt Reynolds. At the time Vincennes and Hudgens are setting up Reynolds for a scandal with the D.A., which Hudgens gleefully predicts will kill Reynolds' career (even as they're lying to the kid's face about getting him a part on
Badge of Honor
) and all for a juicy tabloid story and a $50 bribe. Vincennes is clearly becoming uncomfortable with the whole business and thinks Hudgens is going tooo far, which is why he tosses the money and goes to the motel to let Reynolds off the hook. Finding Reynolds dead, he realises he was instrumental in getting the kid killed. To make matters worse, no one in Homicide seems too concerned about a gay unemployed actor getting his throat slit in a motel room. And all the while there's that damn Fleur-de-Lis thing, nagging at his detective's brain and reminding him what it's like to be a real cop
Then Exley walks into his office and raises doubts about the Nite Owl case, which was Vincennes' ticket out of Vice (in lieu of the Fleur-de-Lis case that he never got to the bottom of). Exley recalls that he got into police work to bring justice to "the guys who thought they could get away with it", but somewhere along the way he lost sight of that. Vincennes reflects that he's so up to his neck in all the corruption that he can't even remember why he became a cop, and he's had enough. Exley's offering him a chance at redemption, and he takes it. -
Fiery_Boycs — 9 years ago(October 30, 2016 08:42 PM)
Bud White found the body first, took the wallet but left the body there.
It was Exley who called in the Coroner and had the body taken away for autopsy. The Coroner would report to Exley his findings.
108 193 23 8114 246* 47.73 22 42 -
JTGleason — 10 years ago(May 08, 2015 10:18 AM)
I'm sorry to have to put it this way, but those are not coincidences. You have to put the movie on pause, or rewind it back to the parts that explain all those things after you went to the kitchen, or restroom while it was on.
For instance, Pearce partnered with Spacey to capture the three negroes, which got Spacey back onto the TV show, so he'd be the only one Pearce might now trust to help him. "Rollo Tomasi" is the made-up name Pearce gave to his father's unknown killer, which is the reason he join the PD. "Rollo Tamatas" sounds like they were talking about women's breasts. -
ejlearman28 — 10 years ago(June 26, 2015 03:41 AM)
Well you're right that I got the name wrong but wrong about the issues with the plot holes.
You should rewind the film and come back and explain to me why the following scenes happen.
I've copied links to clips I'd found on youtube, unfortunately one of them is in Spanish.
Explain why Guy Pearce and Kevin Spacey suddenly get a call about the coroner for the body Russell Crowe discovered.
https://youtu.be/vesvyPOubeo
Why Kevin Spacey who resents Guy Pearce suddenly grows a conscience and decides to help after he's already damaged his career and made enemies in the department.
https://youtu.be/0tdcuaYdTTs
Why Russell Crowe visits a bar and finds a man who tells him that his partner and the dead may have been involved in a drug deal together.
https://youtu.be/7DEyh9VNNK8?t=1h11m43s -
fredunger — 10 years ago(June 10, 2015 01:36 PM)
- Mickyfinn correctly points out that Inez admitting she lied about the timeline starts Exley on his re-investigation of the murders. That leads him to seek help from Vincennes, probably because he successfully worked with before in the original Night Owl bust.
- Vincennes didn't run into the coroner by chance. Exley specifically sent him to meet with the coroner to find out the identity of the body. Remember "You get the girl, I get the coroner?"
- White already knew that Stenzlend killed Meeks before meeting Stampanato. He only learned the motive here. Important, yes, but not game breaking. White on his own already linked Meeks to the Night Owl killing through Stenz and Susan Lefferts being there on a date.
The only real coincidence I'll agree with is White running into Lynn, Susan, Patchett and Meeks outside the liquor store. That chance meeting pretty much set everything into motion after the killings (White recognizing Susan in the morgue, learning she was Stenz's girlfriend, etc).
If that meeting doesn't occur, there's no movie after the murders lol.
-
ejlearman28 — 10 years ago(June 26, 2015 03:46 AM)
Hi, thanks for your reply but I disagree slightly with my assertion that these are coincidences.
I've copied links to clips I'd found on youtube, unfortunately one of them is in Spanish.
Explain why Guy Pearce and Kevin Spacey suddenly get a call about the coroner for the body Russell Crowe discovered. Why did Pearce get a call from the coroner about the body?
https://youtu.be/vesvyPOubeo
Why Kevin Spacey who resents Guy Pearce suddenly grows a conscience and decides to help after he's already damaged his career and made enemies in the department. REPEAT SPACEY HATES PEARCE, why is he helping him?
https://youtu.be/0tdcuaYdTTs
Why Russell Crowe visits a bar and finds a man who tells him that his partner and the dead may have been involved in a drug deal together. Who is this man and why does he know about the drug deal and Crowe's corrupt partner?
https://youtu.be/7DEyh9VNNK8?t=1h11m43s -
LordBhorak — 10 years ago(July 15, 2015 07:20 PM)
About the call from the coroner. Pearce went to the same house as Crowe did and heard that Crowe had gone "under the house", so it was Pearce, who called in the body and therefor there is no coincidence what-so-ever, that the coroner called him about his identity as Pearce had EXPLICITLY asked for the coroner to get to him as soon as he knows the identity of the guy. Did you even watch the film?
-
terry_hurley — 10 years ago(November 08, 2015 05:47 AM)
John Grisham once said that the hardest thing about writing fiction, was to try and avoid a coincidence. He said that coincidences happened all the time, in real life, but, if you include it in fiction, people will say "Oh, that was lucky!".
In terms of a real life coincidence, that really would not have been believed in ficton, I remember a news story, about a woman, married to Greek guy, living in this country. The guy kidnapped his kids, and went to live on a Greek island. the government's of both Greece and The UK could not do anything about it (Extradition laws, or some such nonsense). The wife wanted her children back. She was talking to her best friend , who was able to help. Why? Because her husband used to be in the army, and had been stationed on the Greek island that the children had been taken too. So, he had freinds in the right places, who had the skills, to be able to grab the kids back. Put that in fiction, and no one would accept that.