I don't get it

>Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown.

Forget it user, it's Yea Forums

The sequel was even worse

>Forget it, Jake. It's Chinatown too

>took the first movie's advice literally and didn't realize the second was a sequel

confusing as FUCK

and the third...
>Forget it Jakey it's still chinatown

Gittes’s nose is an important detail: double-barreled (as noses are), two nostrils, one of which gets cut. You breathe through it and you stick it into things (and Gittes makes a joke about sticking it into a woman). The cutting of Gittes’s nose is important not only because it marks Gittes for the rest of the film, but because the nasty little hood who cuts Gittes is played by Polanski himself, brandishing a triangular knife like those that dominated his first feature whose title seems to fit this film as well, Knife in the Water.

In other words, I think that with Gittes’s nose we come very close to some of the themes that centrally concern Polanski. I do not wish to play the simple minded “Freudian,” but this is a film full of phallic symbols (that nose, the camera, cars, guns, knives, hats, cigarettes—you name it). It is “a phallic film” in the largest sense (that was not intended as a joke!). That is, Polanski’s hero pokes into things. He is intrusive in his manners, his occupation, his body - every way you can think of.

Although we do not learn it until near the end, this is also “an Oedipal film,” in both a particular sense - the tyrannical father is also his daughter’s mate - and a very general sense: this is a film about generations and generating life. It is about water as a source of life and woman as the source of life. To some extent they are equated because the father owns both. The film is “triangular.” In a way, Polanski seems to be asking (in this film as in his others and in his life), the same question Macbeth asks (and Polanski filmed Macbeth): Can a man have both sexual and social power? Can a man be both a father and a mate? How far can a man of power and achievements reach into a situation, a woman, the next generation, the future, and own them?

Attached: source.gif (500x213, 1010K)

This is actually interesting

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_(1974_film)#Plot

Basically they were drying out the land so it could be bought for peanuts.

obviously i understood that as they were saying it quite explicitly over and over, but what was with all the references to Chinatown and the "as little as possible" line?

This is the most pseud shit I have ever read and I have done papers on Roger Ebert.

Try LA Confidential

>done papers on roger ebert
what did he mean by this

Jake used to work around Chinatown when he was still apart of the police force. He quickly learned that it was better not to get involved with most matters with the Chinese since they (the cops) didn't really know the language or the culture. He tried to help a girl but just ended up making things worse.

Which is exactly what the outcome of the whole film is. If Jake hadn't had got involved, everything would've turned out for the better. His partner telling him "It's Chinatown" is to remind him that this is completely beyond his control and there's nothing he can do about it at this point.

I wrote a 20 page essay on the validity of counter-criticism and used it as an excuse to shit on Ebert in particular.

why would you want to poop on roger ebert, user, wouldn't that just be a mess?

Based film.