Talk:Chinatown (1974 film)

Accuracy point in Plot text

Accuracy point in the 'Plot' section The text reads: '...she tells him that Katherine is her sister and her daughter; her father raped her when she was 15.' I just viewed the film yesterday (and I will check again), but the plot at that point is more that Gittes asks her if she was raped, and Evelyn responds a moment later with a subtle but unmistakable shake of her head, suggesting it was not rape but was seduction or it was consensual. Marty55 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Good point. And it's half-sister. Sister is impossible, as she would have to be her own mother. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:50D8:B705:D849:1062 (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

saw the movie yesterday, and have to agree.

this is especially disgusting considering that this is the last movie polanski made in the US, as he was forced to leave the country after being accused and convicted of the rape of a 13-year-old girl.

implying the consent puts an unnecessary and appaling excuse to the monstrosity of the deed. Punne (talk) 08:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Plot Summary could be improved

During the last paragraph of the plot summary, the following sentences occur: "Cross has Mulvihill take the bifocals at gunpoint, and they force Gittes to drive them to the women. When they reach the Chinatown address, the police are already there and detain Gittes." Although the scenes with Gittes getting Curly to sneak him to Chinatown to avoid the police is not necessary to understand the plot, the way these sentences are presented create a bit of a logical issue. If the police (Mulvihill), force Gittes to drive to Chinatown at gunpoint, they couldn't arrive there before him, as it is implied. He also would technically already be detained, and cannot be detained while already detained. The two sentences provided either need to be altered to make sense for those who have not seen the film, as their current state creates two scenarios that cannot simultaneously exist. Justin Spinach (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Justin Spinach See Wikipedia:Be bold. If you think you can do better with the plot summary, fix it. David notMD (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Illustration of what?

From the fourth text block in the Filming section: "His favorite illustration of this was the 'parable of the hair...'" Illustration of what? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 02:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Genre

Any genre additions need references. MarnetteD|Talk 22:09, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Could use a home video releases section

Lets readers know which formats the film have been released on and if it has undergone any major restorations and whether these were scanned from the camera negative or a print. Gutten på Hemsen (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Penthouse involvement

I added Penthouse as one of the film's production companies, but my edit was reverted because another user said that: "Bob Guccione investing in the film is not the same as Penthouse being one of its production companies." That's not accurate, however. The end credits of the film literally say "A Paramount - Penthouse Presentation." Guccione was not merely an investor, Penthouse was given full and equal billing to the home studio in the end credits. You can see the credit at 4:50 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsKFwwAPJqE I also provided a link to a Vanity Fair article describing Penthouse's involvement in the film. Jamesluckard (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

But that is exactly what the source you gave said. Edits have to reflect what the source says. Opolito (talk) 06:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The primary source is the end credits of the movie itself. Wikipedia rules say the credits of a film are their own source. The end credits of Chinatown specifically say the company Penthouse produced the film with Paramount. The film's credits confirm Guccione's financial involvement was thorough his company, and not any sort of uncredited personal investment. It's no different from Playboy's investment in Polanski's Macbeth. The magazine article was just to back up Guccione's general involvement. Jamesluckard (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I found three more sources that explain things a bit more. "Long Road Productions," credited as the copyright holder for the film, was a tax shelter entity controlled jointly by Paramount and Penthouse. It was also credited on two other Paramount films at the time, The Longest Yard and The Day of the Locust. Source 1) https://thenewbev.com/blog/2017/04/a-name-for-evil/ Source 2) https://caligula.org/penthouse.html Source 3) https://variety.com/1974/film/reviews/chinatown-1200423300/ How about we just agree to have the text saying "Long Road Productions" in the infobox become a link to the Penthouse (magazine) Wikipedia page? That seems like a fair solution to me. Jamesluckard (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I can also add a bit of text into the body of the article about Guccione and Penthouse's involvement through this Long Road Productions entity, so people aren't confused why that link takes them there. Jamesluckard (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If you have no objections, I'll proceed tomorrow with linking "Long Road Productions" in the infobox to the page for "Penthouse (magazine)" and I'll add some descriptive text to the article about the joint financing between Paramount and Penthouse through that entity. Jamesluckard (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)