Roman Polanski's Chinatown
James Berardinelli’s review on Roman Polanski’s Chinatown purports that the film is ‘one of the best films to emerge from the 1970s’, exploring his value judgements and sweeping generalizations but providing minimal evidence to substantiate. Berardinelli immediately introduces his review in a positive light, often adopting debateable opinions. Not only does he cite this movie as ‘the high-water point’ in both Jack Nicholson and Polanski’s careers but he also labels it the ‘finest colour entry into the film noir genre’; rarely issuing substantial evidence, his assumptions form the basis of his review wherein he renders the film in favourable light. In this regard, Berardinelli is quite acute, identifying the key ideals underlining the ‘superior
…show more content…
He cites ‘there are some surprises, one of which is significant’ but ultimately doesn’t support this claim with a sufficient example, as a result lacking substantial evidence to advocate his opinion. However, fundamentally, this may be the consequence to the prevention and preclusion of spoilers in his review. He defines Chinatown with ‘a maze of labyrinthine’ plot turns, the use of tautology redundant and unnecessarily attempting to exude sophistication. The heart of Berardinelli’s interpretation lies disarray; Berardinelli when recounting the summary of plot describes ‘Cross and some others’ as the schemers responsible for the San Fernando conspiracy. Chinatown suggests anti-capitalism, showing without a doubt that money has far more power than the government. The film indicates there is no solution where an individual is far better off serving his own interests and minding his own business than trying to beat the system. Yet, Berardinelli reasons that the ‘eventual resolution involves events that have nothing to do with the “big picture”.’ He believes the ‘big picture’ is San Fernando. Begging to differ - Cross is the ‘big picture’ – central to all mass corruption where the ‘eventual resolution’ revolves around Cross’ materialistic greed. Nothing can impede Cross’ manipulative deeds simply because ‘he owns the
He cites ‘there are some surprises, one of which is significant’ but ultimately doesn’t support this claim with a sufficient example, as a result lacking substantial evidence to advocate his opinion. However, fundamentally, this may be the consequence to the prevention and preclusion of spoilers in his review. He defines Chinatown with ‘a maze of labyrinthine’ plot turns, the use of tautology redundant and unnecessarily attempting to exude sophistication. The heart of Berardinelli’s interpretation lies disarray; Berardinelli when recounting the summary of plot describes ‘Cross and some others’ as the schemers responsible for the San Fernando conspiracy. Chinatown suggests anti-capitalism, showing without a doubt that money has far more power than the government. The film indicates there is no solution where an individual is far better off serving his own interests and minding his own business than trying to beat the system. Yet, Berardinelli reasons that the ‘eventual resolution involves events that have nothing to do with the “big picture”.’ He believes the ‘big picture’ is San Fernando. Begging to differ - Cross is the ‘big picture’ – central to all mass corruption where the ‘eventual resolution’ revolves around Cross’ materialistic greed. Nothing can impede Cross’ manipulative deeds simply because ‘he owns the