Talk:Chinatown (1974 film)/archive 1

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Older comments
Is it possible to add John A. Alonzo to the credits panel? He could do with a bit more recogntion seeing as he shot it!

How about an explanation of the word 'chinatown' and its significance? ZephyrAnycon 13:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is absurd. I want to find the plot of the film and am informed it involved "a vast conspiracy" and "at least one murder". Well, that's REAL helpful. Thanks.
 * Along somewhat similar lines: A swindle of the water from the farming Owens Valley to the areas that developers wanted to build tract homes on did occur — but I believe all this may have occurred in earlier decades than the movie is set.  The cars, music and clothing in the film all seem like very late 1930s.  In any case, I wonder if someone knows a bit of the actual story of the dam building and aqueducts?  Might make good background for understanding the plot.  In a word, I'm talking about the relationship between Towne's story ("Chinatown") and history. Joel Russ 14:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see the dialog between Gittes and the corrupt former Sheriff the water department hired added to quotations. Essentially Jake suggested the former Sheriff could not have known his water was turned off since he did not drink it or bath in it, and if the city had sent a note he would have to be able to read... priceless stuff.
 * I would second that. Kamagurka 00:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone note that the trivia section is taken verbatim from the imdb? Should probably be removed.74.130.112.195 00:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I took the liberty of deleting a quote that revealed a major plot element and as such would spoil the film to would-be viewers.--128.163.110.72 15:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there should be an explanation of "Chinatown", in a retrospective interview with Robert Towne he explains that the title refers to a statement made to him by a Hungarian Vice squad officer who worked in Chinatown. Towne asked the officer what he did there and he replied "as little as possible" (This line is repeated in the film by Gittes). He expalined that because of the linguistic and cultural differences of the CHinatown inhabitants, Police could never be sure if they took action on an incident whether they would be preventing or aiding the commission of a crime. This I think is a major theme in the film, that taking action or becoming involved can have tragically damaging effects. So Gittes investigations ends up leading to the tragic death of Mrs Mulwray. Pierre

Photo
The hand holding the knife belongs to Roman Polanski but his face is not shown. angela26 04:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Faye Dunaway
Nowhere does it say what part she plays. Saintmesmin (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nose-slashing effect
I've always wanted to know how the cutting of Jake's nose with the knife was accomplished. The effect seems so perfect and so seamless to me. How did Polanski do it? Robert K S (talk) 05:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * According to a Polanski interview (ca. minute 7 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDt7lXdE58A&NR=1), it was a knife with a "swiveling tip"--sounds like it was designed so that the tip would give way when Polanski yanked the knife to the side. Proooobably not worth adding to the article, but certainly interesting. Iralith (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The nose-slashed was referenced in an NCIS episode by Special Agent Anthony DiNozzo, after Corporal Damon Werth broke his nose. Is this noteworthy? 69.124.131.225 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mulwray
I am quite confused about the relationship between Mulwray and Catherine. Is he really having an affair with the daughter of his wife and his wife's father who presumably raped her?

In answer to the question about the relationship between Mulwray and Katherine: At one point Evelyn says that Mulwray comforted her after Katherine was born. Evidently this is why they fell in love, and Mulwray continued to help care for Katherine. This is why the two were seen together; their relationship is apparently innocent, but Katherine's existence is a secret, thus Mulwray was vulnerable to a scandal because he could not reveal the identity of the woman he was seen with. Kalimac (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A different view of the relationship between Mulwray and Catherine can be seen in the entire premise of the film. After Gittes is established as a P.I. we're introduced to Ida Sessions. Of course she's masquerading as Evelyn Mulwray. Hollis and Evelyn are hiding Catherine from whom? Noah Cross, who obviously has to be behind the hiring of Gittes before he officially hires Jake to "just find the girl Mr. Gittes" Cross wants to blackmail Hollis over the Alto Vallejo Dam and Reservoir. Hollis doesn't back down and seeks to fight back by proving that water is being dumped instead of being routed to help the farmers in the Valley. If Cross had known the whereabouts of Catherine at any time prior to Jake's investigation Hollis' murder he would have moved then. Jake in effect, repeats one of his biggest mistakes from the past. In trying to protect someone (Evelyn) he makes sure that she's hurt.

Reception section
How about a reception section like I see in so many other film pages? I can add it myself but I'd rather that it was created by more of an expert, thanks --BishopOcelot (talk) 01:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a "critical reception" section, we have the list of Awards for which the film was nominated, we have the present day ratings by Rotten Tomatoes and metacritic, but the missing link is the detailed language of the films contemporary critics, like was Ebert around when this film came out, or the big newspapers, I would love to read the detailed appraisals done by professional reviewers at the time the film came out. Why no "critical reception" section like most other film articles? ---Thomas 17/9/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.34.222 (talk) 01:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ending
I believe Julia Phillips wrote in You'll Never Eat Lunch in This Town Again that in at least one pre-release cut of the film there was an additional ending (intended to follow what is shown) using a series of 20-odd photos of LA over the years from the same overlook, showing the growth of the city and of the smog, thus bringing the ending out to a level a bit more on the political side of the story and less on the personal. I don't have the citation at hand, but if someone does, it might be worth mentioning. She, for one, felt it was a superior ending. - Jmabel | Talk 03:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Books will just say that it's on page 208. This book is apparently at my library so I'll try to remember to check the next time I'm there.--Rividian (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A line from the Polanski article
I am cutting this line from the Polanski article, it is not used here, and I think this article probably has more detail than the Polanski article section on Chinatown would. If it is true, it may be worth adding. I simply didn't want to throw it away. Cheers!

"Set in Los Angeles in the 1930s, the story was inspired by the historical disputes over land and water rights that had raged in southern California during the 1910s and 20s."sinneed (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've integrated it into the lede. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Explaining the Owens Valley land grab
In the main article it is mentioned that Noah Cross partners with a retirement community (Mar Vista) to buy up failed farm land in the guise of covering up his monopolistic acquisition of such a large partition of land in the Owens Valley. What I'm not sure about is how exactly does he get the land back from the Deed holders since they're in on the scam to buy up "cheap" land to resell for tens of thousands, or even millions of dollars? Why would he put the control of land into other people's hands?

I wasn't around in the 1930s, but I imagine that the land could be sold again using forged powers of attorney, or powers of attorney or deeds unwittingly signed by the elderly landowners, upon admission to Mar Vista as part of a stack of papers, for example. The residents of Mar Vista, such as Emma Dill, weren't in in it. In my home state (not California), the purchaser does not even sign the deed. Noah purchased land in the names of unknowing guests of Mar Vista to divert attention from his meddling in politics (i.e., backing the dam bond issue), to cover up his harassment of the existing owners and irrigating favored land, and to conceal his urgency to buy and so preserve bargaining power. The trick, of course, is to be sure that the elderly owner is still alive at the time of any transaction.Swinterich (talk) 06:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wasn't Jasper LaMarr Crabbe already deceased when he "bought" his land? --HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Whomever associated Jasper's name with the land purchase didn't check to make sure Jasper was still alive when they did it (or knew and didn't care). Swinterich (talk) 04:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No, In the plot, Mr Crabbe died a few days after the deed was recorded, whereupon the underemployed actress who played in the scam, feeling guilty, called Gittes and told him to look in the obituary column. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Change
Removed the phrase "It remains unclear whether the act was consensual or not; Evelyn's father later hints that it was indeed a consensual incestuous relationship by saying: "Most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they're capable of anything"." Regardless of whether the relationship was "consensual," she was underage and therefore, even if she gave consent, technically raped.


 * Gittes asks Evelyn "He raped you?" and she shakes her head "no" in the sister/daughter/sister scene. --HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm thoroughly creeped out that anyone could get 'consensual incest' from that scene! She doesn't shake her head no, she moves it convulsively to negate further discussion as she is so distressed by the thought of it- Gittes takes the hint and moves on- 'then what happened?' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.176.177 (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary
Plot summary is longer than I would prefer, even after extensive editing, but plot here is dense for the length of the film. I can see, even from viewing some of the comments on this page, that this plot confuses many on first viewing. The plot summary in its current form--and others are likely to improve it further--is a resource. Swinterich (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Shortened plot summary of May 8
This edit of the overlong plot summary was excellent, in my opinion. With a couple of small tweaks, should it be reinstated? -- LaNaranja (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree — and some of what got cut was copy I myself had written. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Audio sample
Has anybody considered putting up a sound bite of Jerry Goldsmith's music, considering it was highlighted by many filmmakers and critics and is now #9 on the American Film Institute's top 25? That might be a good addition. - Jg2904 (Talk) 20:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Overlong plot summary?
Here's a first pass at a trimmed-down plot summary, perhaps a starting point for cutting down the chubby one we have now:


 * In the 1930s, a woman hires private investigator J.J. "Jake" Gittes (Jack Nicholson) to perform matrimonial surveillance on her husband Hollis Mulwray, the chief engineer for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Gittes tails Mulwray. In a public meeting about new dam construction, Mulwray argues that the proposed dam will be physically unsound and opposes it. The tail continues, though Mulwray visits only Water and Power sites, no mistresses. He does engage in an argument with an elderly man outside the Pig 'n Whistle eatery in Hollywood.


 * Gittes's tail finally hits paydirt when he photographs Mulwray with his young mistress. The photos hit the front page of the paper the next day, and Gittes is confronted by the real Evelyn Mulwray (Faye Dunaway), who serves him with a lawsuit.  Gittes realizes he had been duped by a phony Mrs. Mulwray, and to repair his reputation, he must figure out who was behind the hiring, and why. He convinces Mrs. Mulwray that he was only unwittingly involved in her personal business and she agrees to dismiss her lawsuit.


 * Gittes looks for Mulwray at the Oak Pass reservoir but finds police detectives, including former colleague Lt. Lou Escobar (Perry Lopez), recovering a body—Hollis Mulwray. At headquarters, Evelyn falsely tells Escobar that she did hire Gittes, to put an end to rumors about Mulwray's adultery, expecting nothing to come of it.  Gittes tells her he suspects her husband was murdered.


 * Breaking into the reservoir that night, Gittes nearly drowns in water suddenly cascading down an aquaduct. Soaking wet, he is confronted by unsavory water department security chief Claude Mulvihill (Roy Jenson) with a diminutive henchman (a cameo by director Roman Polanski) who slashes Gittes's nose with a knife. Back at his office, sporting a bandage, Gittes receives a call from one Ida Sessions, identifying herself as the bogus Mrs. Mulwray. Too fearful to identify her employer, she does provide a clue: the name of one of "those people" is in that day's obituaries.


 * Gittes tells Evelyn what he thinks happened to her husband. When he notices the letter "C" on her retainer check, she nervously reveals that her maiden name was Cross and that her husband was once her father's business partner. Visiting the Department of Water and Power, Gittes recognizes photographs of the same elderly man from Mulwray's sidewalk quarrel, and learns his name: Noah Cross (John Huston). Mulwray and Cross once privately owned the water department.


 * Gittes joins Noah Cross at his estate for lunch and Cross offers to hire Gittes to find Mulwray's young mistress Katherine, who has been missing since Mulwray's death. Cross refuses to discuss his argument with Mulwray, and deflects Gittes's questions by explaining that the mistress might know how Mulwray was killed. "Just find the girl," he admonishes the P.I.


 * Gittes visits the hall of records, comparing recent land grantees with names of deceased persons in the obituary column. Then he drives to an orange grove in the northwest San Fernando Valley, and is shot at, caught and beaten by angry landowners.  They explain that the water department has been demolishing their water tanks and poisoning their wells, then they knock him out.  When he comes to, Evelyn is there to pick him up.


 * They leave and Gittes reviews the obituary column, noticing that a resident of the Mar Vista Inn, a retirement home, died two weeks ago, but "bought" acreage in the Valley only one week ago. Growers have been forced off their acreage by drought conditions and harassment by the water department, Gittes explains, depressing value. Unidentified persons are buying vast tracts "for peanuts" using the names of straw buyers: it is a ploy designed not to conserve water for city taxpayers, but to irrigate the rural valley. Because Mulwray had figured it out, he was murdered.  Evelyn and Gittes bluff their way into the Mar Vista Inn and confirm that its residents have no clue of the real estate deals; further, the Mar Vista Inn is affiliated with the Albacore Club as "sort of an unofficial charity."  Mulvihill soon arrives to escort Gittes out and they scuffle. With Mulvihill's henchmen firing at them, Gittes and Evelyn escape the Mar Vista in her car.


 * Returning to her house, they kiss and wind up in her bed. Their pillow talk is interrupted by Evelyn's telephone and she quickly hangs up and says she must leave.  Evelyn asks Gittes to wait for her there and to trust her.  She adds that Noah Cross owns the Albacore Club.


 * Gittes tails Evelyn to her butler's house; through a window he sees Evelyn comforting Katherine, Mulwray's distraught mistress. When pressed, Evelyn admits that Mulwray's mistress is her sister.  Gittes returns home and gets a mysterious call from Escobar using Ida Sessions's phone and arriving there, finds Sessions has been murdered.  Escobar explains that the coroner found salt water in Mulwray's lungs, indicating that the body was moved to the freshwater reservoir where it was found.


 * Gittes returns to Evelyn's mansion, where he discovers a pair of men's eyeglasses in her salt water garden pond. Presuming that Evelyn killed Mulwray and that the glasses had been his, Gittes confronts Evelyn.  She denies guilt and, under questioning, wavers about whether Katherine is her sister or her daughter. Gittes slaps her repeatedly until she cries out "She's my sister and my daughter!" and falteringly tells of a sexual liaison with her father at age 15. She adds that the eyeglasses are not Mulwray's because they are bifocals.  Gittes decides to help Evelyn and Katherine escape from Cross and Escobar, who now suspects Evelyn of Mulwray's murder, with Gittes as accessory.  Gittes plans for the two women to flee to Mexico through a fisherman client of his (Burt Young), and instructs Evelyn to meet him at her butler's home in Chinatown.


 * Evelyn leaves and Escobar arrives. Gittes tells Escobar that Evelyn is waiting at her maid's house in San Pedro and directs them to the fisherman's house. Gittes enters the house alone, then slips out the back door, fisherman in tow, and persuades his client to take Evelyn and Katherine to Mexico by boat.


 * Gittes arranges for Cross to meet him at Mulwray's home. Cross admits he intends to incorporate the Northwest Valley into the City of Los Angeles, then irrigate and develop it. When Gittes broaches the topic of Cross's incest with Evelyn, Cross says most people never have to acknowledge that, given the right circumstances, they are "capable of anything." When Gittes produces Cross's bifocals, physical evidence linking him to Mulwray's murder, Mulvihill appears and forces him to surrender the glasses, and to take them to Katherine. When the three reach the hiding place in Chinatown, the police are already there and arrest Gittes for withholding evidence and extortion.  Gittes protests that Cross murdered Mulwray, but Escobar has him handcuffed to a car.


 * Noah Cross approaches Katherine, explaining that he is her "grandfather." Evelyn backs him off with a small pistol, and when he is undeterred, she shoots him in the arm.  As Evelyn speeds away with Katherine, the police open fire, killing Evelyn; her body falls onto the car horn, its blare joined by Katherine's blood-curdling scream. Cross clutches Katherine and takes her away, while Gittes's associates hold him back from attacking Escobar. One of them urges, "Forget it, Jake. it's Chinatown."

Your comments/edits please. It's still too detailed, but perhaps it's a start. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's good, but it's not much shorter (1429 words versus 1570, by one counting tool). I realize it's hard to tell the complicated plot in a short space.   Will Beback    talk    09:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the count, Will Beback — how embarassing, I thought I had cut more than that. I just made some more cuts. Maybe we're a little closer now, but we still need some more. Thanks again. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort. I hate doing plot summaries. The word count using the same tool is now 1289. Unless anyone objects, I think this should replace the longer version in the article.    Will Beback    talk    21:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, I dropped back in and pared a few more slivers off. I'm not sure how much more can go piecemeal. Further cuts might have to be entire scenes/paragraphs. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One-word change is my last one. Promise. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been a week since  Will Beback 's call for objections, and since none came over seven days, I inserted the new plot summary into the article. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Plot summary
The plot summary was reworked today, essentially everything redone was reverted back. Let's talk about that here, shall we? For starters, I'd like to know why the removal of non-encyclopedic language was reverted. Next, let's discuss why the editor reverting felt the previous version of the plot summary was preferable. Discussion is preferred over edit-warring, so let's discuss, okay? Thanks. Winkelvi (talk) 03:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You weren't reverted. Some of your changes were good, some were not good. That seems reasonable to me, but of course anything is open to discussion. I checked the rule on whoever/whomever; you got it wrong. You made other errors and I naturally corrected them. If you make changes and some are not accepted, it is better to discuss them before reintroducing them. In fact, I think it's a serious breach of etiquette to do so. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You can say an editor got it wrong, but until you've actually talked about what the editor got wrong, there's been no discussion. You have a long history of edit warring and being blocked for doing so, Ring Cinema. Please discuss and let's move on from there. Reverting without discussion is really just edit warring, uncooperative editing, and possibly a form of article ownership. Let's keep this article from being a battleground, okay? Winkelvi (talk) 16:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but changes requires consensus. If we agree on changes then they are okay. I accepted some of your suggestions and not others, which is very normal. For some reason, you seem to think that all your changes should be accepted. It doesn't work that way on Wikipedia. Now, please begin the discussion. Which of your proposed changes that were not accepted would you like to discuss? I am interested in making the article as good as possible, so please suggest anything you believe will improve the article. And thank you for your attention to it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Changes require consensus? Where do you find that policy? If we agree on the changes then they are okay? Where do you find that policy? You accepted some of my suggestions and not others -- this sounds like something thinking they own the article would say. YOu want me to begin the discussion? No, you're the one who doesn't like the changes. You should be the one starting the discussion by naming the changes you think aren't advancing the evolution of the article. Which of my changes did you think were detrimental to the article? That is how you start a discussion. I don't have to suggest the changes I think would improve the article -- obviously the changes I made were changes I felt improved the article. I will be waiting for you to discuss. You're the one objecting to the changes, therefore, you are the one who needs to start the discussion (along with citing what policies support your claims about how changes in articles happen). Winkelvi (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I quote from the policy page called 'Consensus': "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." To be clear, changes are not preferred to the already-accepted text. It's really just common sense anyway. Why should your one opinion be preferred to every editor who has already worked on this page? Thank you for following the policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't change, modify, or remove material, I copy edited wording. Big difference. At this point, your objection is leading me to believe you simply didn't like the wording changes I made. You're going to have to come up with something better, because so far you haven't made a case for reverting the wording improvements I made. Winkelvi (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, you did change the text. That's what a copy edit is: changing the text. I expect you to follow the policy. If there are changes you would like to make, please discuss them and we can see what we agree on. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I have no problem agreeing with you that I don't prefer your choices. Several of your changes I preferred, as you are aware. Apart from that, I prefer the current draft, which already has a consensus. For example, you have the rule wrong on whoever/whomever. If you think something can be improved and others don't agree, you have to make your case here and gain agreement from other editors per WP:Consensus. Please state your reasons here. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It has a consensus? For what, specifically, and when? Consensus s written in stone? Where do you find that policy? I don't have a problem with my changes, you do. Be specific about what you don't like about my changes and why or move along. Stonewalling on this is ridiculous and only speak so further to what is becoming obviously ownership issues. Winkelvi (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you to make the case for your changes. In general terms, the entire article is the result of the consensus of all the editors who have contributed, of whom you are now one. As you know, change requires consensus. This is not a new article so every part has been re-written at some point, I would guess. So, if you would like to make changes to the article that are not accepted, use reason and evidence. (Bluster is not an argument.) As you know, I am open to good proposals since I accepted some of yours. I hope you are encouraged by that and will continue to bring them. However, we don't agree on everything. You got the rule wrong on whoever/whomever, for example, and I don't agree that we should misuse 'whomever'. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. I'm not making any claims. You are the one claiming my edits were not good enough, the onus is on you to prove why they were bad enough and unproductive enough to revert. You say that "In general terms, the entire article is the result of the consensus of all the editors who have contributed". That's not policy. Consensus is something else entirely. Wikipedia is meant to evolve, not stay stale and in just one condition. It's about anyone editing, not getting permission to edit from those who've already edited there. You've played this game long enough. Name something specific about why my edits were not beneficial to the article (other than "whomever") or start working in a manner that says "collegial". Your game of cat and mouse here on the talk page is long past old and obvious. Winkelvi (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that's not how it works and you don't know the policy. Your claim is that you are improving the article. This is the place to make your case that they are good. Apparently you agree that you were mistaken on 'whomever' so I take that as a sign that your edits required correction. That is what I've done. If you believe I overlooked a good edit on your part, please name it and explain why. Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Raped?
This revision was made earlier today by IP:101.119.26.199. Do other editors agree with me in that it should be reverted? –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 11:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No. When this film was made, there was still sympathy from men for fathers who did the unspeakable with their daughters and sexual relations like this were just not referred to as "rape" (even though that's what they were). While it's never said specifically in the screenplay that the daughter (Dunaway's character) was raped, she is obviously repulsed by the idea when telling Nicholson's character about having sex with her father. The sexual "relationship" was apparently not consensual, and that makes it rape. Winkelvi (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That's one or two interpretations but the plot summary should be free of interpretation to the best of our ability. Whatever basis there is for believing it is rape (and the draft screenplay contradicts the proposition) is included in the summary so we don't have to offer anything on that score. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you consider the American Film Institute a reliable source? If so, you might want to read AFI's official plot synopsis for "Chinatown" as seen here:. If AFI calls it "rape", then..... Further, you claim "the draft screenplay contradicts the proposition". I'd like to see evidence of that. Please provide it -- if you cannot, then that argument is invalid on its face. Even so, a "draft" screenplay? "Draft" usually means it was later revised and was not the finished product. That would make bringing a draft screenplay into the mix an invalid argument as well. Additionally, the "relationship" happened when Dunaway's character was only 15 years old. The law calls that kind of thing rape because of the victim's young age (back in the time when the film takes place, the age of adulthood was 21). It's rape from a legal standpoint, therefore, it's rape. Winkelvi (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 20:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We are not expected to reason whether it was *rape*, but we are expected to report on what we see and hear during the film play: nothing more is required; nothing more is permitted –&#32;


 * Sometimes even good sources are mistaken, and in this case AFI gets it wrong. Fortunately, the movie is a source for the plot summary, so we can reflect what is actually in the film. This link is to the scene, and Evelyn says, "My father and I--. Understand? Or is it too tough for you?" Perhaps AFI conflates incest and rape? I am not clear where in the film it covers Evelyn's age at the time of her daughter's birth. Maybe it's there. Also, there are definitely some amateur legal notions bandied above that are not accurate. For those interested in the draft screenplay (and I agree its importance is tangential) it is easy to find with a simple Google search, as it's been in circulation for a long time. Some might be interested in what the actors were thinking when they shot the scene. As written, Evelyn is quite clear that it was consensual, so, without good evidence that the filmmakers decided to change that, I would hesitate to state otherwise. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

How would you know whether or not my legal opinion is "amateur"? You don't know me personally, therefore, you don't know who or what I am professionally. "Perhaps" AFI conflates? AFI is a reliable source. It's used many, many times throughout Wikipedia film (and other) articles as a reliable, authoritative source and reference. You're saying they get it wrong? Based on what? Your opinion? Proof is what's needed here. I see you've neither produced nor offered the "draft" screenplay, you've only made vague references to it being available through a Google search. And a "draft" screenplay isn't the actual, final screenplay, so could it even be considered a reliable reference/source? I doubt it. I did my research to back up my facts and provided evidence of same, now it's time for you to pony up, RC. Evelyn is quite clear she is repulsed by the sexual relationship she had with her father, it's not clear at all that the sex was consensual as you claim. Even if it were, she was underage, that makes it non-consensual rape. Winkelvi (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I would say that Evelyn is ashamed of what happened with her father. Now she is more mature and she is disgusted with herself for what she did when she was younger. But that is just my interpretation. Is there some evidence that you would like to offer on this subject? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course she's ashamed. Rape victims are ashamed. They will even blame themselves at times. That doesn't mean it was consensual. But who really cares? It's a movie. A movie that AFI has in their catalog as one of the greatest American films of all time. Further, AFI (a reliable source that's referenced time and again in Wikipedia) states the "relationship" between Dunaway's character and Huston's character was incestuous rape. Reliable sources in Wikipedia. It's what's called for and what should determine the outcome here. Winkelvi (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 20:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I never knew you could conjure up a clip just like that ... discussion over and dealt with admirably. The reversion stands –&#32;

Sorry, but this is not over, and there has been no consensus yet. Consensus can take some time. Obviously, the person who put the edit in to begin with feels "raped" is right, I think "raped" is right, and two of you disagree. Two for and two against is not a consensus no matter how you look at it. You'll just have to be patient. Besides, Ring Cinema hasn't given anything substantial to back up his claim about the "draft" screenplay. Trying steamroll over this discussion is unadvisable. Winkelvi (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 21:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to apologise. An IP made a revision which has been reverted by another editor. This is Wikipedia. Get used to it! –&#32;


 * What is the relevance of the screenplay to you, Winkelvi? Are you saying you accept my argument? --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * On the subject of AFI's summary, they say that Evelyn says she was raped. That is incorrect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * In some countries it would be classified as "sex with a minor" and not as rape, unless physical force was used. The War Zone for instance depicts a sexually abusive relationship between father and daughter, but it wouldn't be classed as rape under English law. Given the variance in definitions of rape, I think we should avoid the terminology unless there is a clear indication that physical force was involved. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 22:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and the clip shows that none was. Thanks for that, Betty –&#32;

In this country (where the movie is set), it's rape. A reliable source, used for years and all over Wikipedia as a reliable source, says it's rape. Ring Cinema thinks he's more knowledgable than that particular reliable source. He's not. If he were, he'd be a reliable source. Which, I might add, is something he hasn't been able to provide yet to back up his claim about a mysterious "draft screenplay" for the film being discussed. Now he asks what relevance this alleged-existing draft screenplay has. Unless you can provide it and the text you claim exists in it, absolutely nothing, RC. A film clip? All in the eye of the viewer, and calls for interpretation (which has already been discounted). A reliable reference is what we need (and have). Unless the allegedly existing "draft" script shows up, it's the only reliable reference we have so far proving their sexual "relationship" was rape. Winkelvi (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The AFI is fine for sourcing facts, but WP:NPOV comes into play when sourcing interpretations. When sources offer an interpretation they are not always neutral no matter how reliable they are. The problem here is that the AFI is possibly using the word in the context of "statutory rape", a legal concept that may not even have been applicable during that period. Even then, if it is not clear where the abuse took place then Californian state law may not be applicable regardless. That aside, we are writing for a global audience so we should endeavor to observe WP:WORLDVIEW as much as possible, and in that spirit we should not adopt local definitions of rape, but rather abide by the global understanding of the term. Betty Logan (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, AFI is fine for sourcing facts. And the fact AFI is a source for in this case is that Dunaway's character was raped when she was a child by Huston's character. That you are trying to interpret why AFI called it rape is laughable. We don't have to worry about worldview here since AFI is recognized all over the world as a reliable reference. Winkelvi (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * No...you are pushing a point of view. The film is the primary source in this case, all secondary sources merely offer (sometimes conflicting) interpretations. Jack Gittes explicitly asks Evelyn if her father raped her and she shakes her head. There are sources that confirm this opposing interpretation: "Gittes asks if her father raped her – she shakes her head". Betty Logan (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pushing a point of view? No.  Pushing content backed up by a reliable source?  Yes.  That's what Wikipedia editors are supposed to do.  A quote from a book and author that haven't likely been vetted as a reliable source is not compelling evidence.  AFI saying it was rape is, mainly AFI is a long-used and referenced reliable source in Wikipedia.  A reliable reference is a reliable reference.  I have no doubt that with the long list of Wikipedia film articles and film celebrity articles he's worked on even Ring Cinema has previously relied on AFI as a reliable reference without once questioning the validity of that AFI reference. You can't have it both ways -- it's good one day but the next it isn't.  Either AFI is a reliable reference or it isn't.  Wikipedia history says it is.  I have no problem going with what AFI says in a plot synopsis.  I would say that even if I didn't agree with what the synopsis says.  Winkelvi (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A published book by a university professor in media analysis is not trumped by the AFI database for an interpretation of a film. And while the AFI catalog is regarded as a reliable source, Wikipedia holds scholarly sources in greater esteem than non-scholarly sources for analysis as per WP:RS. Betty Logan (talk) 01:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm starting to find this laughable. You're saying that everything in a book on using a psychological analysis technique in relation to films and written by a university professor is "scholarly" just because it's written by a university professor? All I can say is you must not have a lot of exposure to what's truly scholarly. The link you posted goes to someone's personal opinion about what happened in a movie. I went to a professional seminar recently where the tenured university professor presenting the seminar used a reference to the television show "House" as part of her presentation. We all knew it was meant to bring a little levity and not to be taken seriously because it was a reference to what someone said on a TV show. None of us thought because it was a tenured university professor giving the quote that we should see that quote as "scholarly". In a like manner, you're attributing the synopsis in the book you referenced to something "scholarly". It's the Jungian psychological analysis technique that's scholarly, not the plot synopsis as related by someone who interpreted it as they chose (not necessarily as it truly occurred). Just like the material presented in the seminar I attended was scholarly when related directly to the subject matter, not the quote from a television show. AFI has a respected reputation to maintain in the area of films and their content. The professor who wrote the book you referred to has a respected reputation to maintain in the area of psychology. When compared one against the other, I'll take AFI over the psych prof for an accurate summary of movie plots. Winkelvi (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the position the author holds is "professor of media analysis" which more than qualifies him to be capable of following the plot of a film, but where do you think the synopsis on the AFI came from? It's a "personal opinion" by someone who has seen the film, and that's the crux of the issue. The AFI catalog recruits its information from scholars working in universities as you can verify at the AFI Catalog Academic Network. That is essentially no different to a media professor relaying the events of the film in a scholarly text. In this case people can actually sit down and watch the film, and see the Evelyn character deny she was raped, so this is getting terribly silly now. The Evelyn character may have been a victim of rape, even though she denies it, or maybe not. The concept of statutory rape may be applicable, or maybe not. We have contradictory claims from two reliable sources, one stating she was raped the other stating she denies being raped. The wording as it stands now neutrally represents this ambiguous element of the plot. I am through debating it, and until someone supports your position there is nothing else to discuss. Betty Logan (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess what we have here then is a conflict of two different sources. One is already established as a reliable reference for Wikipedia purposes in regard to film, the other is written by a guy who teaches at a university in England and has a psychotherapy practice. Each disagrees with the other on whether or not Dunaway's character in the film was raped. I know which one I'd still be incluned to go with. Mostly because AFI has a history of reliability for getting it right. I've never seen AFI's credibility disputed before. Maybe an RfC would be appropriate here? Winkelvi (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 21:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC) –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 08:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An RFC isn't called for, because it's a clear-cut case of a single editor POV pushing. However, it is your prerogative to file one if you would prefer it to be settled by editors besides Ring, Gareth and myself. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi's claim that this would be classified as rape in America is bogus. It's clear from his comments that he doesn't understand the concepts involved with consent and California law. (2) AFI's summary is factually incorrect. Let's not lose sight of that. AFI says that Evelyn says she was raped. That is incorrect; she doesn't say that. So, understanding that even reliable sources can contain mistakes (Wikipedia), it's clear this particular plot summary is at variance with the film's action. I know of no evidence that supports Winkelvi's position. Can I get one clear piece of evidence from the film that backs the claim of rape? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, it's open to interpretation as to whether she was raped or not, but she certainly does not admit to being raped. We are documenting what she says, and in fact the opposite is true, she denies being raped. The nature of the relationship is ambiguous, whats she says isn't. Anyone who cares can see for themselves on Youtube. She says "My father and I....understand? Or is too tough for you". Right after the clip finishes Jack asks her if she was raped, and she shakes her head. The AFI is imposing its own interpretation and that is what we are trying to avoid. Betty Logan (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An intriguing analysis of the whole rape/incest thing: page 99. Might be useful to incorporate into a "reception/analysis" section. Betty Logan (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Could you point to an article with such a section, please? Pity that although the previous pages can be read, page 98 is not included in the review ... I wonder why ... Cheers! –&#32;
 * Most film articles have reception sections to cover critical responses, but dedicated analysis sections are relatively rare. Off hand I recall Panic Room has quite an extensive analysis section, and Gone with the Wind (film) has a rape section. Missing out pages you would like to read is kind of the point of Google Preview: it wants you to go out and buy the book! Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! –&#32;

As has been said: the character denies being raped. No, this does not prove that she was not. Yes, of course incest is something monstrous. Does this mean we should make a doubtful claim? No. Feketekave (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Fresh water / salt water
Winkelvi, do you need to have it explained to you why it's important that some water in this story is fresh and some is salt? Check the summary if it is unclear to you why this keeps coming up. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Stop |stop playing games and just say why it's important. Winkelvi (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not playing games. It's so obvious I am embarrassed for you. As the summary says, "The coroner's report found salt water in Mulwray's lungs, indicating that the body was moved after death." --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 07:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @ Winkelvi It should not be necessary to have to offer elucidation on this fundamental element of this intriguing plot to another editor, who claims he demonstrates greater intellect than his peers. Such behaviour necessitates closer scrutiny of his editing in future –&#32;


 * After the lengthy "rape" discussion above, this salt water/fresh water debate now seems like pure trolling. Frankly, this has become absurd.  Why must you have everything explained to you? --- The Old Jacobite The '45  13:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * How can someone edit the plot summary if they can't understand the plot? --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Useful source
Scene by scene analysis. –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 22:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly is –&#32;

Period
Probably we should find a way to indicate the period in the summary. 1937 seems a bit over specific and possibly inaccurate. Is there another way? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

More on the period: The "Legacy" section says, "Chinatown brought more public awareness to the land dealings and disputes over water rights which arose while drawing Los Angeles' water supply from the Owens Valley in the 1930s." In fact, the water rights in the Owens Valley were purchased in the 1910s, the decade the aqueduct was built. I changed the text. Opus131 (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The question I am asking myself is, How do we know the period of the movie? The clothes and cars and technology, I guess. So that's how the reader could get it, too. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If one were to use the physical characteristics of people, clothes, cars etc to attempt to pick a time period of a movie would have trouble just fixing where bouffant hairdos come into the historical record of the end of Russia and the beginning of the Soviet Socialists Republics of Dr. Zhivago.76.170.88.72 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

SFV; Large Orange Groves
Review the following for the absence in the filmed script: of SFV, large orange groves changing ownership; or G's detention rather than arrest.

http://www.lexwilliford.com/Workshops/Screenwriting/ChinatownShootingScript.pdf

http://home.roadrunner.com/~jhartzog/chinatownscriptfilm.html

The film is fiction although it is set in a real place and involves some real issues. The film clearly sets out that the place to be annexed is referred to as the "northwest valley", not the SFV. We are told that part of the northwest valley is in Ventura County but SFV is never mentioned. If that speculation is to persist then we can go on to speculate that the "department" of DWP that is concerned is the Water Bureau headed by a Senior Assistant General Manager - Water System rather than a chief engineer. https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/ladwp/aboutus/a-whoweare/a-wwa-ourteam?_adf.ctrl-state=8vbdemi18_21&_afrLoop=169665124390706. The head of the DWP is the general manager that at the time was routinely promoted from within in an alternating pattern from the water bureau to power bureau then repeated. The DWP has a security force that is not department segregated.

Never any mention or association of large orange groves in relation to land ownership changes in the northwest valley. The only other mention or oranges in the film is someone peeling one.

G was never arrested otherwise he would have been taken in for booking. Instead, the officer said that a charge of interfering with evidence could be made against G if he did not bring in someone.76.170.88.72 (talk) 07:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Apparently they are avocado or walnut groves. Someone should look at the pictures in the film, though. Even a shooting script is dubious. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe that the original statement in the plot of large orange groves changing ownership was being associated with the Hall of Records disclosures and that there is never any mention as to what the transferred lands are planted so all that can be definitively said about the characteristics of the land that is transferred is the transfers of the lands. We can only speculate as to what the transferred lands are planted. Nothing better for that person who suggests something to find out.76.170.88.72 (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Speculation. Some sources call them orange groves. We need a picture from the film. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When I believe something to be true I find the source to support it before declaring otherwise it is at that time nothing but speculation. Why should I put forth two statements when one will do. There have been one too many times that something popularly believed turns out to be to some degree or totally untrue. When I champion something I prefer to wait until I have found evidence of greater strength than less to support that claim instead of in some way implying that something is true based on what one may think they recall. So, if one differs in opinion about something of the claim and the source(s) are there for review; go for it. I am not challenging any one; just pushing this project along. It is known that the SFV was planted to various crops. In the City of Los Angeles there were farms/amusements of ostriches, alligators and lions; those very well could have been in the SFV. But, we are not concerned with the SFV; we are concerned with the northwestern valley as presented, especially, by the film and the script can identify in what scenes what is sought may be located. But, the claim to large orange groves was made for the lands the titles of which were recently transferred. There are only two mentions of oranges in the script none of which are associated with what is planted on the lands the titles of which have been recently transferred. The mere presence of just one orange tree in the film is not enough proof to say that the titles of those parcels recently transferred were planted to oranges. I do not dispute that there could be groves of oranges or walnuts or avocados in the northwestern valley but, again, as far as the two sources that have been provided there is no indication that the recently transferred land titles is for property to which oranges, avocadoes or walnuts are planted. There is the description of "withered pepper trees" and "a 'SOLD' sign on a drug store" but these are not orange groves. So, what is found is found. But I do hope that it is not expected for others to accept something that is speculated particularly when WP discourages that in its articles.76.170.88.72 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hope the eyeglasses have a nice journey to the women.
Gittes produces the bifocals—they belong to Cross and link him to Mulwray's murder—but Mulvihill appears and confiscates them; they then force Jake to take them to the women.

It may be thought "correct" but it also seems to mean that the glasses are to be taken to the women.76.170.88.72 (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1. Substitution of the word 'guide' for 'take' does nothing. 2. The antecedent of 'them' is the same as 'they', and both refer to the men. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

All that matters is that the glasses will not be enjoying a journey with Jake!76.170.88.72 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Perform What?
" Evelyn Mulwray (Ladd) hires private investigator J.J. "Jake" Gittes (Nicholson) to perform surveillance on her husband "

Never have heard surveillance expressed as perform. It almost gives one the feeling that surveillance might be a code word for falatio. Good thing private dick was not used.76.170.88.72 (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * English is not your first language? I'm starting to recognize something here. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What, that you have a fledging career in double entendre porn screenwriting?76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, you don't know English, so you have no basis to make a judgement. I wouldn't edit a page in your language, whatever it is. I'd suggest you edit the pages there. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is it natural for you to exhibit so much hatred toward others? You react as if someone has made a personal affront to you. You really should seek treatment for your own sake. Now, instead of making personal attacks, please stay on topic.76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggest that we focus on the edits and not the editors. WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks. We all look smaller when we diminish the other editors. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That is exactly what I called for after that vicious uncalled for attack.
 * Just the facts. You are not a native English speaker and don't know ordinary usage. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact remains that the wording as it stands sounds very double entendre. There is no escaping it. That is why the right words need to be selected instead of insisting on words that give impressions that are not appropriate for the article. 76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It's just ordinary English usage that any native speaker would recognize. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess I will just have to eliminate this article from those viewed by my children since that phrase is rather risqué. And to think, an article about a movie that is set in a place that exists and has a thriving porn industry presence. Such irony.76.170.88.72 (talk) 03:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Another editor changed the phrase, so that your children can now use this article before they watch the film. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 12:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, sometimes one just has to make things happen for all to be well in the world. Cheers!76.170.88.72 (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Evelyn role Not offered to Jane Fonda
I originally included the following as a note for the role of Evelyn cast with Faye Dunaway but Ring Cinema decided that it was trivia:

Dialogue in the play prompted Jane Fonda to say that Polanski never really offered her the part of Evelyn and that it was written for Dunaway. Citation: http://zeenews.india.com/entertainment/and-more/roman-polanski-never-offered-me-the-role-in-chinatown-jane-fonda_135862.html, first published, June 02, 2013, 11:35; viewed 7-3-2014. 76.170.88.72 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it or isn't it an anagram ? And Superintendent of the LADWP
"'''Origins: The characters Hollis Mulwray and Noah Cross are both references to the chief engineer for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, William Mulholland (1855–1935)—the name Hollis Mulwray is partially an anagram for Mulholland.

"Any word or phrase that exactly reproduces the letters in another order is an anagram. However, the goal of serious or skilled anagrammatists is to produce anagrams that in some way reflect or comment on the subject. Such an anagram may be a synonym or antonym of its subject, a parody, a criticism, or praise; e.g. William Shakespeare = I am a weakish speller" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagram

According to WP, something either is or is not an anagram. "Hollis Mulwray" does not include all the letters of "Mulholland". There can not be a partial anagram as that would invalid

the definition of an anagram in the WP article. WP does not encourage inaccurate claims or statements. All that can be said accurately about "Hollis Mulwray" and "Mulholland" is that it is an "attempt" at an anagram since the article does not define what would be called an attempted anagram. If there is a term for an attempted anagram that would be helpful to make the statement true as regards an attempted anagram. But then there is always the question about ordinary language. WP articles should not include inaccuracies.

William Mulholland was the superintendent and chief engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Both, the Bureau of Water had a chief engineer as well as the Bureau of Power had a chief engineer. The title of superintendent could very well be a carry over from when water service in Los Angeles was a private company that in the latter years was led by Mulholland. After Mulholland resigned from the department the title of superintendent would be changed to the current title of general manager. The general manager would not be designated as the chief engineer although it was from within the department that the general managers were promoted and usually would have held a higher echelon position within either bureau which would have needed an engineering background.

superintendent and chief engineer:

http://hist20mulholland.weebly.com/;

http://www.laalmanac.com/history/hi06de.html;

http://www.socalhistory.org/biographies/william-mulholland.html.76.170.88.72 (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

POV ? And if not, where is the source ? Noah/flood/dual characteristics
"'''Both the characters Hollis Mulwray and Noah Cross allude to Los Angeles and water. Hollis Mulwray is an attempt at an anagram of "William Mulholland" (1855–1935), the superintendent and chief engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The name Noah is a reference to a flood, to suggest the conflict between good and evil in Mulholland.

Obviously if it remains w/o a source it is POVspeculation although it could have great appeal and acceptance. Is this a comment in an interview with someone associated with the project? It would seem that the association of Noah/flood could be clearly speculated that it has an association with the St. Francis Dam Disaster since it did result in a flood by a failed dam. But, I digress, that is speculation.

"For reasons of engineering and safety, Mulwray opposes the dam that Cross and the city want, arguing he will not repeat the previous mistake as when the dam he designed failed."

"The incident effectively ended Mulholland's career."

It did end his career. He resigned the following day without being asked and his resignation letter shows an uncharacteristically very wobbly signature.76.170.88.72 (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)