from the "Film Noir is the New Black" dept.

The Tuesday before last, I saw Chinatown at the Acoma Arts Center. The showing was part of a series of films from various decades of the 20th century.

It had the makings of a classic sketch about film buffs. It didn't disappoint.

While we waited for our friends, other filmgoers arrived, and went in. It was too warm for black turtleneck sweaters, but narrow black-framed glasses were still very much in evidence. (Yes, I used to have a pair, but crushed them with my bony arse, and now have Flexon 'memory metal' ones).

The centre is a former church hall, complete with a stage and two-level auditorium. Before going in, I feared that we might be sitting on stackable church hall seating for the two hours or so we were due to be there. Thankfully, they had cinema-style seating, however, they were so narrow, I think they were designed by United Airlines.

You know you're at a 'film festival', when they need someone to get up on stage and talk about the movie, before they show it.

I think the print of the film they were using was a original. It had all those scratches and lines on it, as it ran, and to start with, it was looking kinda dark. This later turned out to be the way that the film was shot.

Boy was it a great story! Directed by Roman Polanski, and starring Jack Nicholson at a time when he was still acting, and not just playing "Jack Nicholson" in every movie.

Set in LA in the 1930's, it was so reminiscent of a lot of Humphrey Bogart movies in it's story,directorial style and photography. It's no coincidence that John Huston" was acting in it. He directed a lot of Bogart's films of this genre.

The whole thing took it's sweet time getting going, but as I see it, that's just part of the Bogart film style that they were going for. In the end, it was a mighty fine film, with - as I've said - Nicholson actually acting instead of doing a Sean Connery, and playing himself. The ending was, shall we say, less than jolly.

Post-Match Punditry
After the film was over, our compare popped back up on stage, and announced that people could leave if they wanted, but if they stayed, we'd be discussing the film. This then, was where the Trendy Glasses Brigade went into overdrive. The group of people I was with stayed, so I got to experience the full "I know more about film than you do" contest that broke out amongst the buffs.

I had a good time, believe me, and I didn't mind a bit of discussion about the film, but some people were taking things a little too seriously.

Maybe it's just me, but I found the use of the word 'juxtaposition', when talking about 1930's L.A. architecture a bit much. We're not talking about top-flight Art Deco buildings, it was all relatively dull ranch houses, for God's sake! From what I could tell, everything was pretty much where I'd have expected it to be, and that ain't juxtapositioned!

Some unseen tosser* in the balcony, said that the use of a lot of frosted glass (in the internal office windows) was a metaphor for ice and/or cold water. I suggested, in a discussion about the discussion and how prentious some of the film buffs were being, that perhaps it was just possible ... hang on to your hats here kids... that it wasn't a metaphor for anything, and was just to give people some privacy in their office. I suggested that sometimes, a glass of water, is just a glass of water, and not a metaphor for the suffering of the heroine of the film.

*A derisory British term, with the same meaning as the term 'wanker' - go look it up, if you're not sure, I can't be arsed explaining.