By Jeremiah Kipp
Though he appears in just three scenes in Roman Polanski’s 1974 masterpiece Chinatown, John Huston creates one of movie history's most formidable villains: Noah Cross, the wealthy and ruthless land baron who masterminds an elaborate plot to buy up cheap desert property in the San Fernando Valley, irrigate it after bribing the water department, and sell the land for millions.
If people have trouble remembering the exact details of Cross' plot, it may be because Robert Towne's screenplay isn’t really about water corruption anyhow. It’s about evil lurking right under the sun -- a film noir told not in high contrast shadows, but in the brightness of day. The film's hero, detective Jake Gittes (Jack Nicholson), is sharply decked out in light colored white or tan suits, and for at least half the movie he has a bandage covering his nose, which is sliced up by one of the villain’s henchmen. Throughout Chinatown, the perverse exists side-by-side with the pristine, and Cross exemplifies both extremes. The father of Gittes’s client Evelyn (Faye Dunaway) is an amoral monster who recklessly destroys the lives of those around him. But as played by Huston, he’s not your typical heavy. This is due not just to Huston's cheerful demeanor, but the personal and professional associations he brings to to Cross. The role taps the power and charisma associated with John Huston, filmmaker, performer and Hollywood legend.
Huston's long directorial career began in 1941 with The Maltese Falcon -- whose hardcase hero, Sam Spade, was an antecedent of Jake Gittes -- and produced, among other classics, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) and The African Queen (1952). His private life was ripe with hush-hush affairs, drunknness and elephant hunts; yet he leavened his machismo with an affinity for poetry and art. Huston had a house in Ireland and a fondness for literary classics, adapting the richly poetic stories of Flannery O’Connor and James Joyce for the screen. The man was a sea of contradictions, and one of the most domineering spirits in Hollywood. He only needs to walk onto the screen to command it, even opposite Nicholson. And yet for all his force of personality, Huston plays Cross as a charmer -- a prosperous gentleman who invites his detective nemesis in for lunch. Throughout, he is jocular and folksy, uttering such quips as, “Of course I’m respectable. I’m old. Politicians, public buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough.”
Knowledge of Huston's filmography and private life complicates an already fascinating character. The Biblical connotations of the character's name are abundantly clear, but the actor-director's biography enriches it: Huston himself played the voice of God in his own 1966 adaptation of The Bible. Huston's adaptation of Carson McCullers' novel Reflections in a Golden Eye, starring Marlon Brando and Elizabeth Taylor, is considered a misfire, but it's also a bold portrayal of sexuality and repression, one that informs Cross' secretive past whether Huston consciously drew on it or not. When Cross asks Gittes point blank if the detective is sleeping with his daughter (“Come, come,” he smiles after posing the query) Hollywood history buffs will recall that at the time, Nicholson was attached to Huston's daughter, Angelica Huston; this bit of trivia gives the scene an extra chill -- a sense of personal intrusion.
Chinatown’s final revelations, which are far more disturbing than any water scheme, are all about personal intrusion. Cross' daughter Evelyn hates and fears her father so much -- flinching whenever his name is mentioned -- that during Cross' handful of scenes, we scrutinize every detail. That Cross invites Gittes to share a meal of fish with the heads still on offers a tiny clue into his delectations. Each line is weighted by revolting undercurrents. “You may think you know what’s going on here Mr. Gittes,” Cross says, mispronouncing the detective’s name as Gitts, “but you don’t.” By this point, Cross has recieved such a monumental buildup that Huston can conjure menace with little more than a grin.
Cross is an especially compelling role within Huston’s career because it cloaks a twisted, sinful man in the majesty of Huston’s old Hollywood charm. Cross' lust for power is conjoined with his more carnal lusts for Evelyn, and the land crimes are paralleled by crimes of a more intimate nature behind closed doors; the old man's sunny, "respectable" public image and depraved private life tease the viewer's worst case visions of just how low Hollywood power players will sink to satisfy their fantasies, and how far they'll go to acquire still more wealth.
Huston's choices as an actor mirror Polanki and Towne's theme: evil doesn't lurk in the shadows, it walks in daylight. Cross is so arrogant in his crimes, public and private, that he refuses to even acknowledge they are crimes. The land deal is merely his way of commandeering a road into the future, and as for Evelyn and the psychological burdens she has to bear for having Noah Cross as her father, and as more, he can only say, “I don’t blame myself.”
When his thugs threaten Gittes at gunpoint, Huston remains calm, as if speaking to a slightly rude dinner guest. But there’s a lack of empathy in his eyes that says everything we need to know. Polanski, who learned a little something about the nature of evil growing up Poland during WW II, lost his pregnant wife Sharon Tate to a Manson family massacre, and would subsequently relocate to Europe to escape a statuatory rape charge, doesn’t put Huston’s evil on a pedestal. Cross is often framed in long, unbroken two-shots opposite Gittes. This visual choice might have been the simple matter of not wanting to cut away from the subtleties of Nicholson and Huston's interaction; but it might just as easily have been motivated by the realization that Cross’s evil is so potent that it doesn’t need to be emphasized in macro close-ups. When Cross gives Gittes the observation that at the right time and the right place, most people are capable of anything (with Huston whispering the last word as if it were a curse), it’s in the middle of one of those master takes we rarely see anymore.
Chinatown ends tragically, not for Noah Cross or his cronies in the government and the police department, but for Gittes, who is made to see his own impotence as a detective and as a man. The hero realizes, too late, that he's uncovered a political and economic scheme that's much bigger than he is; he realizes, too late, that he can never fully untangle the complex web of desire and betrayal linking Evelyn, Noah and Evelyn’s sister (or daughter), much less set things right. The detective's cynicism pales before the old man's casual depravity. To Cross, evil is business as usual. A handshake is his kiss of death.
____________________________________
New York's Museum of Modern Art celebrates the collected output of the Huston family August 18-Sept. 22. Chinatown screens at MOMA Sept. 1 and 18. For more information, click here.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
Evil under the sun: John Huston in Chinatown
Labels:
Jeremiah Kipp
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Jeremiah, this is a marvellous vivisection of one of the greatest villains of all time. That Noah Cross is able to paint the entire film with a base coat of evil in only three scenes says a lot about the quality of Towne's writing, Polanski's direction, the other actor's performances, but most importantly John Huston's stellar performance. Chinatown is one of Hollywood's greatest achievements; ironic, really, given that it is a rather slyly vicious portrayal of said the way some businesses operate in this nearly single industry town. I mean, nobody really thinks it's all merely about the water, do they?
The film is particularly intriguing given some of the back stories that Jeremiah refers to, such as the Angelica-Jack-John triangle as well as Polanski's own soon-to-be sordid personal peccadillos. That this encourages us to see the film as a swipe at the business of show is perhaps not completely coincidental.
oops...drop "said" from my third sentence and it makes a little more sense. I hope.
The two genius touches in Huston's performance are his affability -- if you met Noah Cross on the street, you'd probably think him a much more likable fellow than Gittes -- and the fact that he gives no evidence of having any sense of right and wrong. It's all divided into two categories for this man: what I can get away with and what I can't. And he gets away with everything.
Wow -- Huston is so vivid in Chinatown I could swear he's in more than three scenes. He was robbed of an Oscar nomination in my opinion -- I haven't seen Jeff Bridges in Thunderbolt and Lightfoot, but he definitely deserved the nod over Gazzo and Strasberg in Godfather 2 and Fred Astaire in The Towering Inferno.
Since this essay deals with the real-life echoes sounding through the film, why don't we blur time as well and ponder this question a bit more:
Chinatown's master director is accused--with ample evidence--of drugging and then sodomizing (assfucking, to be specific)--a 14-year-old girl.
How does this affect the portrayals of evil in the film?
(Perhaps one key is in Hollywood's standing ovation for Roman for The Pianist--but a mixed response of boos and cheers that same night to the non-child-assfucker Michael Moore.)
Sorry to be vulgar, but language reflects the deeds. Polanski, it seems, was, at the right place and time, capable of anything. How does that affect how we now see this amazing movie?
It doesn't affect my appreciation of the film at all. It does affect my appreciation of Polanski the human being, however. Ditto w/ Woody Allen films, btw.
Tenuous connections at best, but in The Bible, Huston also voices the Serpent, and plays the original Noah. Interesting flood/drought parallels between the two Noahs, I suppose.
While I don't advocate separating the art from the artist, I do think that my own moral position on an artist's transgressions is ultimately irrelevant. In the case of Polanski, the man did survive the Holocaust and lose his pregnant wife in the most horrific way possible, both of which enrich a reading of his work as much as if not more than the whole assfucking scenario and go a long way towards, maybe not redeeming him, but at least making you look awfully glib.
"Glib"? Possibly.
I will note, however, that both of the extenuating events you mention--his pregnant wife's murder and his Holocaust experiences--were DONE TO HIM.
The child drugging/assfucking was something HE DID.
I think what people do says so much more about who they are than what happened to them does.
And I notice, all commenters here, like Hollywood on Oscar night, are willing to give Polanski a pass on what he did and focus instead on what was done to him...questionably selective at best, wouldn't you say?
Perhaps the only way out here is for art (movies) to be, aesthetically speaking, hermetically sealed from external/personal considerations.
But if we allow ANY external considerations in here, we're doing moral somersaults to avoid noticing that the childraping assfucker presents his daughterfucking protagonist so ambiguously "warm" and "charming"...
And let's not forget: Cross WINS.
And I'm glad someone brought up Woody Allen as a comparative case.
I defy ANYONE to watch Manhattan now and not feel uncomfortable watching forty-something Woody paw the 17-year-old Tracey (Mariel Hemingway).
Love the movie. Gives me the creeps now.
Sign your posts, Anonymous, when accusing art of the sins of the artist.
When Miles Davis died, one well-meaning fellow of my acquaintance was quick to mention that Davis was known to be violent to women, as if one should hear the sounds of domestic abuse in On the Corner or Kind of Blue. Frankly, that's about as meaningless a way of approaching an aesthetic experience as I can imagine.
I have watched Manhattan several times in recent years without feeling creeped out. Movie's so good, I don't allow "reality" to intrude.
Sure, Cross "wins." But do you think that the film is cheering his victory? I think you're seriously misreading it if you answer yes.
I never thought Noah Cross was charming. He always gave me the creeps because he seemed remorseless and, to use his words, capable of anything.
It's a naive assumption that evil ALWAYS looks evil. If it did, a lot fewer people would succumb to it. After all, the devil has to be seductive to get people to sell their souls. Used car salesmen have to use sweet talk to get you to drive that lemon off the lot.
As for Polanski and anonymous' favorite word, assfucking: Robert Towne wrote Chinatown, so it was his idea to have the sister/daughter subplot. Had Hal Ashby directed this film, as he did Towne's prior screenplay, it would still have that subplot and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I don't think R. Polanski, R. Kelly's predecessor, should get a pass for his horrible acts, but I also don't think Chinatown deserves to be punished because of it. If we sat here pointing out the horrible shit that talented people have done, we wouldn't be able to appreciate much of anything, artistic or otherwise. Jeremiah's commentary isn't giving Polanski "a pass;" it's commenting on a great performance in one of the best films ever made.
I just think anonymous likes to say assfucking. In the immortal words of Norman Thayer, Jr.: "it's a good word."
anonymous: “Polanski, it seems, was, at the right place and time, capable of anything. How does that affect how we now see this amazing movie?”
OK, I’ll bite. It improves it.
No, CHINATOWN is not enriched because of its director’s criminal acts, anymore than it helps that its star suffered such a traumatically duplicitous childhood or that its producer was tangentially associated to a brutal murder. To claim any of that is merely a gossipy linkage of tawdry events to the art that transcends them. I don’t look down my nose at the practice; it’s part and parcel of movie loving to expand the sketchy narratives onscreen and bleed them in with what we know (more often, think we know) of what occurred off. Certainly I’ve done so with everything from MY FAVORITE WIFE to CONTEMPT.
This isn’t actual knowledge, however, because contra your assertion I think people aren’t composed of their deeds but their perceptions; how the acts committed both by and upon them web together into the sieve through which they filter the world. It doesn’t matter whether Grant was playing against the love of his life or what infidelities wrecked Godard’s great love; whereas it’s entirely relevant that Grant so studiously practiced the playact of seduction he was comfortably sexual in the presence of his male rivals, that rigorously intellectual Godard got so flummoxed when confronted by the feminine. It’s not deeds that explain a man, but instead the worldview which permits them.
More bluntly, even though it was years before he raped the young girl, after seeing CHINATOWN (or, hell, CUL-DE-SAC) who didn’t think Polanski was capable of anything?
I remember catching up with THE TENANT on video in my teens. As a budding young filmlover, I knew about Polanski’s situation (this would have been in the mid-80s), and watched, enraptured, as this odd tale of paranoia and persecution played out. Fascinating, I thought, that Polanski could have so fearlessly laid out for all to see the confusion and trauma of his exile, the gnawing insanity brought by his guilt. I thought it a stunning paradox, an exculpatory mea culpa, the actor/director brave enough to bear responsibility for the Kafkaesque nightmare that descends upon him but self-serving to the point of insisting his is a martyr’s fate. Except, of course, I had the dates wrong; THE TENANT preceded Polanski’s infamy. No wonder Polanski seemed so oddly passive the first few years of his fugitive status; he’d already mapped the landscape before he arrived.
So Polanski is a rotten bastard who finds little to admire or defend in human nature, and believes the chaos of existence excuses him his horrible crimes. If you can’t see how that proved an invaluable factor in making CHINATOWN the masterpiece it is, especially how much it informs the film’s villain so marvelously examined in Jeremiah’s article, you need to rethink the film. (And Huston was hardly a saint himself; all manner of confessionals are criss-crossing in this bit of gumshoe.) Of all the noirs it fondly recalls then proceeds to shake up, CHINATOWN reminds me most of the sickly, foredoomed visions called up by Fritz Lang. Well, I wouldn’t have trusted Lang in a hot tub with my teenage daughter, either.
I wouldn't trust any of you bastards in a hot tub with my teenaged daughter, so don't even think about it. I've got a blade, and I ain't afraid to use it. After all, in the right time and the right place, a man's capable of anything.
Though certainly not in the same genre or cinematic weight class, Match Point reminded me of Chinatown in its mercilessly dark portrayal of a world with no tangible moral order, except that by which law-abiding, socially conditioned saps allow themselves to be constrained. The sociopath hero of Match Point transcends his low social class through modest talent and what could be called, in several senses, a killer instinct, and when his ascension seems about to be derailed, he destroys the evidence and gets away with it. A nonexistent movie titled Noah Cross: The Early Years would probably yield a similar narrative. And though Woody Allen has, to our knowledge, never done anything as revolting as what Polanski is accused of, when watching both films one does get the sense that, as commenters here like to say, in the right time and place these men might be capable of anything.
As for separating the artist and the art, I think it's an all or nothing proposition, and you have to apply it to every artist without any kind of sliding scale. Either the art has merit apart from the artist's personal morality or it doesn't, and if it does have merit, it should be appreciated (if not necessarily enjoyed) on that basis. I suppose I could start making personal moral distinctions and culling my artists that way -- removing some artists from my intellectual life because they were rotten people. For instance, I could stop listening to Frank Sinatra (friend and occasional front for murderous gangsters) or Ike Turner (psychologically tortured, beat and even raped his own wife), or reading William S. Burroughs (lifelong junkie, blew his wife's head off) or Jack Henry Abbott's In the Belly of the Beast (he was a killer when he entered prison and killed again right after his release). I could stop watching Polanski's movies. For that matter, I could cease finding anything aesthetically breathtaking in Leni Riefenstahl's documentaries because they were financed by, and helped embolden, a band of genocidal maniacs. (She was Hitler's ideological whore, but that doesn't change the fact that she was an extraordinary filmmaker -- and there would be no contemporary sports coverage without her innovations.)
Given how influential these works and artists have been -- chillingly so -- selecting some of them out on the basis of the artist's personal failings would be wrongheaded, particularly for a critic whose job consists partly of sussing out innovations and charting lines of influence over the decades. Many artists are bad people, but they produce work of great beauty and/or significance. It's just the way it works. Occasionally you find a significant artist who's said to be a pretty decent person, all things considered -- Spielberg comes to mind -- but it would be naive to expect such a thing, given that artists psychologically separate themselves from their society in order to scrutinize or challenge it, and that mindset often leads to some misguided or ugly choices, along with ones we're all glad they made. And who's to say Spielberg doesn't have a collection of human heads in his basement, arranged in his characteristically dynamic, diagonal patterns, each one haloed in bright light and angled slightly upward so that it appears to be gaping at some splendid vision?
And who's to say Spielberg doesn't have a collection of human heads in his basement, arranged in his characteristically dynamic, diagonal patterns, each one haloed in bright light and angled slightly upward so that it appears to be gaping at some splendid vision? Somehow, I'm thinking that that just might explain The Color Purple. Don't ask me how.
Occasionally you find a significant artist who's said to be a pretty decent person, all things considered -- Spielberg comes to mind
Jean Renoir would be my vote for serious artist who might also be a saint. I've never seen a second of film in which he didn't radiate the utmost in warmth and humanity.
That might well be true, Hayden, and perversely enough, it might even be a minor weakness in some of his films. His love of people has him occasionally backing off of making bold condemnations of those who might be deserving of same. Still, I'd rather a director err in this direction than the other (cynicism).
So many of the great artists have been assholes – but that’s not a plug for assholery. Then again, I’ve also heard it said that the nicest guy in Hollywood was Adam Sandler, so add that up.
In my book, Leni Riefenstahl is the greatest woman filmmaker – if that gender distinction is even worth making. Lina Wertmuller comes in second. Riefenstahl’s talent served something reprehensible and evil; and the responsibility for that sits squarely on her shoulders and should never be forgotten. But she had genius as a filmmaker. I think if she had any sense of morality at all, then it must have been stunted in infancy. She’s not so much amoral as she is pre-moral. It’s childlike – the way she conveys her perceptions; like a baby fascinated with its own fingers and toes. I don’t think she thought or cared about the implications of, say, a Nuremberg rally – she just says “look at the pretty rows of people; look at how straight the drummer boys line up; look at what spectacular numbers are here!” Olympia is one of the greatest films ever made. It’s an amazing showcase for the human form. On top of that, the sight of Jesse Owens blasting away the competition and sticking it to Hitler has got to be one of most exhilarating moments in sports.
There’s a scene in The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl that shows her editing some film the old-fashioned way. She’s completely absorbed in what she’s doing – her eyes glossed over, she can barely answer the interviewer’s questions. Some despicable act could’ve been happening right behind her and she never would’ve noticed it, or if she had noticed it she probably would’ve been mesmerized by its tactile quality merely. It was some real American Beauty type shit.
As for Polanski – he’s one of my all time favorites, with a good half dozen masterpieces under his belt: the best detective movie, the best vampire movie, the best psycho-sexual-paranoia movie, maybe the best Shakespeare adaptation, the best movie with a suspenseful game of Pick Up Stix. He’s also made some of the worst movies ever: What?
I have a very dim understanding of the rape episode. What I recall was gleaned years ago from Polanski’s autobiography, so obviously the incident was told in the most sympathetic light. All I remember is Anjelica Huston walking into Nicholson’s house with a sack of groceries. I only wish that Polanski had stayed in the U.S. afterwards and fought it out in the courts and taken his lumps. His career would have turned out much better. He’d have made several Hollywood movies by now.
There is some kind of ratio of talent/personal life at work here that affects the balance of our judgment. An artist’s life informs his work – obviously for himself, but for us also. Why else would we read the biography of an artist? Sometimes I might disapprove of someone’s private life and their talent won’t be enough to make up for it. Someone else might have so much talent that it overcomes my strongest disapproval.
Who can watch Humphrey Bogart play a paranoid so wonderfully and not think that he must have been like that just a little bit? Andy Griffith must have had a scary side to play Larry ‘Lonesome’ Rhodes in A Face in the Crowd.
The Art of a man won’t be transcendent in his own life, but it can be transcendent for us. After watching the documentary Crumb, I left the theater demoralized and depressed. I seriously doubted that Crumb’s great cartoons could redeem the miserable, sad life I saw depicted. Other times I think of poor Van Gogh (a good man.) We have his splendid art, his reputation is secure, his paintings get auctioned for millions of dollars, but a fat lot of good it did for him.
And p.s. John Huston is great and Noah Cross is as creepy as they come.
That might well be true, Hayden, and perversely enough, it might even be a minor weakness in some of his films.
I'm with you there, but I meant the man, Renoir himself, in interviews and such exudes warmth like few others. It should be said, too, that while that incapability of turning off his empathy was a drag on some films, it's the essential ingredient in his best movies. Consider the difference between Boudu Saved From Drowning and the horrible remake Down and Out In Beverly Hills. Renoir's unwillingness to condemn any of the characters makes the former a nearly-unparalleled affirmation of the goodness of life, while the latter was nothing but empty, mean-spirited bullshit.
All of which has nothing to do with John Huston or Chinatown, so I'll shut it here.
There are several additional things that could be pondered:
First, Huston's acting career really started as Huston making himself repeatedly the narrator (either symbolically or literally the voice of God) starting in about 1961-1962. Then, he acts in two very lush, extraordinarily star-studded vehicles - Casino Royale and Myra Breckinridge. Orson is also in Casino Royale, of course, as is Woody Allen.
Second, Orson makes Huston THE director par excellence in The Other Side of the Wind.
Third, Eastwood as Huston in White Hunter, Black Heart
I didn't see these things in the other comments, so let me offer a few observations for the record:
1) The line is: "You may think you know what you're dealing with, but believe me, you don't. Sit down." (That "believe me" is key to the line's meaning, and to its rhythm.)
2) To say Cross "wins" is true to some extent (he gets away with his crimes), but there's real pain and horror in his cries of "Oh Lord!" when he sees his daughter's blown-out iris. The most horrifying moment in the movie, though, is probably the way he cradles Catherine, trying to sheild her eyes from her mother's disfigured face. Like everything else about Cross, he's not simply "evil": He's "protecting" her from a reality too awful to bear. In the final exchange with Evelyn, he implores her: "She's mine, too." Evelyn replies: "She'll never know that." Now that she's in the clutches of her father/grandfather, Evelyn's desire to protect Catherine from her real paternity is probably -- tragically, ironically -- assured.
3) You probably know this, but with the talk about Polanski and Towne it should be mentioned that in Towne's screenplay Evelyn and Catherine escaped. Polanski insisted that the whole movie had to come to a head in geographical/psychological Chinatown, and therefore it must end badly. Towne was bitter about this for a long time, but when I talked to him a few years ago he said he realized that "Roman was right." If ever there was an ending that seemed (in noir tradition) to be both shocking and inevitable at the same moment, it's this one. It's also, of course, the fulfillment of Gittes's greatest fear, which he confides to Evelyn in bed -- that he tried to keep someone from being hurt and ended up making sure that she was.
P.S. If you want to see the comic flip-side of Noah Cross (or just a terrific, crazy, funny, paranoid political thriller), check out Pa Keegan, the Joe Kennedy-esque supervillain in red bikini underwear (you read that right) in Bill Richert's fantastic film of Bill "The Manchurian Candidate" Condon's "Winter Kills" (1979). This is a great movie -- and it stars a few other interesting people as well. Let's see: Jeff Bridges, Sterling Hayden, Anthony Perkins, Eli Wallach, Richard Boone, Dorothy Malone, Ralph Meeker, Belinda Bauer, Brad Dexter -- and, just for spice, Elizabeth Taylor and Toshiro Mifune. Go rent it now.
It is a classic case of trust the art and not the artist.
When viewing the film again the other day, I constantly kept analysing the script Towne and Polanski had co-written with the enlightenment of Polanski's crime a few years later. I can safely say that what Polanski has done in the past has not tarnished my viewing of the film or its messages/themes.
Post a Comment