Is Chinatown a film noir?

            While watching Roman Polanski’s Chinatown, I kept on going back and forth on whether or not it qualifies as a “film noir.”  It has several key aspects of the noir, but also lacks others and obviously was not made in the post-WWII era.

            In John G. Calweti’s “Chinatown and Generic Transformation,” he attacks the same problem that I do.  Calweti says that “there is something not quite right” about the mood generated in Chinatown, the color.  I completely agree with this assessment.  When I think of a film noir, the first things that come to my mind are black and white, darkness and night.  For instance, Alfred Hitchcock utilizes shadows in his film noir Vertigo as does Edgar Ulmer in his film noir Detour.  Seeing a movie where so many scenes are shot in daylight and feature “rich golden light” throws off the viewer.  Calweti argues that these scenes are insignificant, or “outside the world of the hard-boiled detective story.”  In some cases I agree; however, often Jack Nicholson’s character J.J. Gittes does his investigating in broad daylight.  For instance, when Gittes discovers the Noah Cross’ glasses in Evelyn Mulwray’s backyard, it is sunny outside.  This discovery is crucial to the investigation of Hollis Mulwray’s death, and proves to be the piece of evidence that convinces Gittes that Noah Cross murdered Hollis.

            Calweti states that one of the most important factors in film noir is that the protagonist is a “private investigator who occupies a marginal position with respect to the official social institution.”  These are all completely accurate characteristics of J.J. Gittes, Polanski’s protagonist.  Also, Gittes seems to be in over his head, another common element of a film noir. 

Heroes in classical Hollywood cinema are “smooth,” can save the day, and get the girl. Typical Hollywood heroes include James Bond and Indiana Jones.  They always win the fights, save the innocent bystanders, and have the charisma to win over anybody.  Gittes is the anti-hero with regards to all of these.  Gittes is not witty as shown by his telling of the Chinese joke.  Also, he is caught doing investigation early on, and his nose is cut.  While Gittes is walking around the whole movie with a large bandage covering his nose, it may be difficult for people (the audience included) to take him seriously.  When all is said and done, the girl dies and the guilty walks free, thus showing that Gittes was in over his head and did not “save the day.”

            Another recurring theme in film noirs is the dangerous woman, or the “feminine antagonist.”  For the first portion of Chinatown, the audience believes that Ida Sessions is the antagonist.  Sessions poses as Evelyn Mulwray and asks Gittes to follow Hollis Mulwray.  Thus, Sessions is the reason why Gittes follows Hollis Mulwray in the first place.  As the plot develops, it is shown that Evelyn Mulwray is the antagonist.  Although she is not the murderer, she lies to Gittes on several occasions, and she also hides, sometimes forcefully, her “daughter-sister” Katherine Cross.  At first glance Evelyn may seem to be innocent and have good intent (unlike Vera in Detour), it is clear when we see her holding Katherine that she is just looking out for herself rather than looking for justice.

Though Polanski often veers from the noir mood, it is clear that Polanski wanted the final scene to be shot in the mood of the noir.  He succeeds in doing so.  In Chinatown, it is nighttime and the audience is reminded of the corruption that is clear in the film.  After Lieutenant Escobar witness the murder of Evelyn Mulwray, and Gittes explains Noah Cross’ corruption in the Los Angeles Water Supply, Escobar fails to arrest Cross, and it is even implied that he will not follow up on any leads.  When Gittes mutters “as little as possible,” to Escobar, he is reminding both Escobar and the audience that corruption is a recurring theme in the film.  This brings the film full circle in the noir theme.  Calweti writes that in most film noirs “the police and the courts are incapable of effectively protecting the innocent bringing the guilty to appropriate justice.”  This is clear in Evelyn’s death and Noah Cross’ freedom.

It is also worth nothing, that traditional film noirs have dark, solemn moods, but Chinatown incorporates several comical scenes.  Though none of the characters laugh at Gittes’ Chinaman joke, the audience finds humor in it.  Gittes also makes other witty remarks throughout the film.  When he is eating with Noah Cross and the fish is served with their heads still on, Gittes remarks “Fine…long as you don’t serve the chicken that way.”  In most of the film noirs I have seen, the ominous mood dominates so much that I cannot recall any witty or humorous remarks.

Even if it is very difficult for me to accept a film with so much light and color as a film noir, I think Chinatown has enough key elements that it should be considered a film noir.  Its final scene and specifically the results of it, lead me to believe that Chinatown embodies even elements of the noir mood for it to be considered a film noir.

Cache

Director Michael Haneke’s Cache (2005) is an extremely discomforting, mysterious French thriller, which violates several codes and conventions of Hollywood films.  The film focuses on Georges Laurent and his family.  They receive tapes in the mail along with pictures, which imply that his family is being watched and threatened.  The film follows Georges’ quest to find who is watching him.  Georges faces both external and internal conflicts, resulting in a psychological “thriller” (although it is not always so thrilling).

The movie lacks a concrete or explanatory introduction, so the audience has no idea what they are looking at during the exposition.  The opening scene is an extremely long, boring, shot of the Laurent household.   The audience assumes that this shot is live; however, when the audience realized that the shot can be paused and rewound, and pairs that realization with the non-diagetic sound, the audience realizes they are not watching a live shot, but rather a video.  Once the audience realizes that they are seeing a video, because of Hollywood conventions, the audience expects to see who is filming this shot or how the film arrives on the Laurents’ doorstep, but Haneke refuses to give the audience that information.   This is the first instance when the audience understands that they cannot trust that camera.  This approach is unusual because in the vast majority of Hollywood movies, the camera serves as the collective eye for the audience, and they do not even think twice about trusting what the camera shows them.  After this opening scene, the audience is cynical with each new scene and asks the question, is this shot live or is another videotape?

An example of this is the collection of shots leading up to Majid’s apartment.  The first time we see Majid’s apartment is in one of the tapes sent to Georges’ home.  When Georges himself approaches the apartment, the shot is filmed from a point of view shot, in the same exact fashion that the video was filmed.  This forces the audience to step back and question what is going on?  Haven’t I seen this already?  Haneke again forces the audience to step back, thus forbidding the audience from “losing themselves in the film,” or forbidding the audience from being sutured in.

In Daniel Dayan’s writing “The Tutor-Code of Classical Cinema” he introduces the concept of “the absent-one.”  Dayan states that the“Absent one is masked, replaced by a character,”then replaced by a “false origin.”  This is the case in most movies, but in Cache, the absent-one is never replaced by a character, but rather Haneke lets the audience imagine who is watching.  In most movies where shot-reverse shot is utilized, the audience's is shown who is watching, eliminating their imagination, and thus is "at the mercy of the code."  In Cache, the audience is at the mercy of the director who forces them to use their imagination (unlike other films which don't allow the audience to use their imagination).

Haneke does what most directors are afraid of; he does not utilize the shot-reverse shot, thus avoiding an extremely common in Hollywood cinematic technique.  During Cache, the audience is often shown a shot, but the audience never sees the “absent-one,” or who is watching the shot.  An obvious example of this occurs during all the surveillance scenes  Someone obviously must be watching the Laurent family, or setting up the video camera, yet Haneke never tells us who it is.  This allows the audience's mind to wander and step back from the film.

This inclusion of the unknown absent-one can serve as a metonym for the film itself.  Georges never gets a concrete answer on who is watching his family or why they are torturing him, and the audience fully understands who the absent-one is, or why Haneke leaves them so confused and uncomfortable throughout the movie.  There is also a parallel with mistrust.  The audience finds out early that they cannot trust what is shown to them.  They must always think and analyze to decide if what they are seeing is live or if it is a video, and they also must decide what the purpose of each shot is.  Georges is also constantly questioning.  While the audience cannot trust the camera, Georges does not trust his friends who he has over for dinner, nor does he trust his wife when he leaves her in the dark on his past and most of his theories.  Because he leaves his wife in the dark, he also leaves the audience in the dark, which leaves the audience hungry for answers.  Most viewers of this movie have an extremely unsatisfying feeling at the ending of this movie.