Past and Future Tense

Rating: 10/10 (18 June 2014)

***User reviewer Sergio_Falco ("What to say?", Sergio_Falco from Australia, May 2012) has an interesting commentary that mentions the layers of evil. Mr Ghostface ("A wonderful, classic film", Mr Ghostface from London, England, 8 October 1999) has good background info.***
Chinatown (1974, Roman Polanski), a homage to Film noir, is one of the world's great film treasures. Many reviewers describe it as one of the elite film noirs. (I would disqualify it for not belonging to the genre well enough.) "Chinatown" is often used as curriculum in film schools. This is high art, and is particularly great fun to view it on the big screen when the opportunity exists.
Robert Towne is credited with the original screenplay. Although it was inspired by the water wars that occurred in LA in the early twentieth century, it is set decades later (1937). The director, Roman Polanski, changed Towne's desired ending. The plot meanders and has holes, but there isn't a dull scene. The entire cast functions very well. Polanski makes a director's cameo that rivals any other. The supporting characters fit in effortlessly. (My favorite is John Hillerman as Yelburton.)
The principal three characters are all at a high level. I am fond of Faye Dunaway as Evelyn Mulray; same with John Houston as Noah Cross. However, Jack Nicholson is masterful as J. J. Gittes. Towne wrote the screenplay for Nicholson, and Gittes appears in every scene. Nicholson's Gittes is a smart, acerbic, dogged private investigator who breaks rules without hesitation while making his share of blunders. He is also a magnet (i.e., almost always the center of attention).
The acid-tongued Gittes is haunted by an event that is never revealed to the audience. It occurred when he was a beat cop in Chinatown. While Gittes is irked with civil servants generally (e.g., the man at the Hall of Records), he has obvious contempt for his former police colleagues. There seems to be a connection between the intensity of Gittes's loathing of each cop with that character's contribution to the conclusion. So, there's no need for us to know what happened in Chinatown previously because it is the same destination as the future.
Personally, I can't respect Towne's decision to have Gittes slapping Evelyn around before she reveals her secret. I don't think it is very challenging for a filmmaker to show a stronger man beating up a woman. On an unrelated note, it is also kind of hilarious to imagine people nonchalantly smoking everywhere in 1937, including government offices.
(BTW, "Chinatown" repeats the phrase, "as little as possible." This is in response to the question, "what did you do there?" This line can be explained by making what today is likely construed as a racist statement: A white policeman working Chinatown will find the locals so inscrutable it is impossible to know whether law enforcement is causing or preventing a crime. So, the beat cops do the least amount of policing that is required of them.)
Above all else, "Chinatown" is dazzling because of Polanski's vision. He uses the entire frame, and is conveying point of view. (My favorite image is probably the final one of Yelburton; Gittes suggests he is due for a great future and it appears the reverse is in store.) Polanski is expert level at varying the size and position of Gittes, while employing a very precise focal length. (It is worth noticing when the background is blurry.)
Polanski also employs a visual leitmotif. He frequently shoots Gittes from the back while Gittes is spying on someone else. The frequency of watching Gittes from behind, with Gittes seemingly making no effort to be discrete, makes the audience feel like a voyeur. Considering the film's pivotal surprise, the voyeur feeling takes us closer to experiencing the sordid details.
"Chinatown" is too good to miss. Cinephiles are encouraged to head over to the nearest revival theater to see it again, steering clear of whatever diminutive, maniacal, switchblade-bearing directors that are encountered.