The Writer Speaks: Robert Towne Part 1 

I first saw Chinatown in 1976 - it was at Hull University Cinema club. I didn't get all of the plot at that time - that was my problem . I've seen this movie maybe 50 times since and I hold it high as my Favourite Movie - beautiful writing, a plot within a plot which seems to expand in dimension and touch : an incredibly deep, well-thought plot structure. Anyone who's tried to write like this will know how so very difficult it is. A master. A fantastic credit to the Hollywood system.

Thank you! I did a masterclass with Robert in 2006. He's great! 👍

His energy could cure insomnia..

I love this man's facial expressions and his introspection.

The fishing Towne describes is depicted, more or less, in the movie Stromboli with Ingrid Bergman. The audio is very low. He speaks quietly and it is difficult to hear him. Whoever is recording these, please make sure the audio signal is sufficient. Thank you for posting.

Great interview that didn't dwell on Chinatown, fine movie though it is :-)

This is actually good ASMR

Waiting for part 2!

Great interview

Audio is too low. Otherwise great interview!

Great interview. Would love to see Part 2. Will it be posted soon?

Oh man. Really love to listen to Robert Towne but the audio is just too low because he is a soft-spoken speaker anyway. But thanks for the captioning.

When is part 2 posted?

@4:19--Towne knows his San Pedro history; citing the internment of J-Americans during WWII. This helps explain his feel for subterranean political currents as seen in "Chinatown." Who wants my screenplay that dramatizes without sentimentality the teenage cohort at Tule Lake Concentration Camp that spent their entire high school years there?

Screenwriter and ASMR guru

SPOILERS: CHINATOWN Having seen Chinatown many times, and having seen a couple versions of the script, there are questions I’d like to ask Towne: -At the hall of records, the perfectly cast snotty bureaucrat of a clerk says that part of the Valley (presumably the San Fernando Valley, a phrase I don’t think is ever used in the film) is in Ventura County, which has never been true. Writing error, or done intentionally, to make the clerk seem even more snotty? -In one version of the script (which I think was filmed, but not used), Evelyn, immediately after revealing the truth about Katherine, makes reference to the dam disaster and some kind of mental breakdown on her father’s part. The line, “The dam broke”, appears to have more than one meaning. She very briefly suggests that she had to care for him, and their relationship became like that of spouses. Was this description meant to reflect reality, or just the still-traumatized Evelyn’s distorted interpretation of what happened? Is Evelyn excusing her father or blaming herself? Did he simply not understand what he was doing , or did he just not care? Cross being what he was, I suspect this was a twisted mix of mental breakdown, already being 100% self serving, and already being someone who lived to abuse power, be it political or interpersonal. Cross later avoids answering Gittes’s question as to whether or not he blames Evelyn with an arguably true observation about humans in general (“capable of anything”), but it evades the issue and reflects exactly the kind of muddled assessment of his own culpability that one would expect from Cross. -In the final cut. Gittes, in a question phrased as a statement, says, right after the big revelation, “He raped you” Evelyn responds by shaking her head. Does the head shake mean, “No. It wasn’t rape”?, or, “I don’t want to talk about it”, or, “It’s complicated”? I think that Evelyn, an at least partially brainwashed fifteen year old in a nightmare situation, was very much raped, and could not possibly have consented, but may not realize that, especially if she had, at the time, even the least bit of conflicted feelings about what happened, helped along by her father’s twisted spin on the matter. -Evelyn seems to have had genuine affection and appreciation for Hollis-but while she often appears to be someone who is just barely holding herself together, and I get why she wouldn’t be entirely surprised by his death, she never appears grief stricken or immediately shook up by it. Does Evelyn not actually care about Hollis? Is she too preoccupied to grieve? Has trauma left her somewhat detached from her emotions, or is she just very good at keeping herself ever so barely under control? She very quickly ends up in bed with Gittes. Did abuse teach her that sex is the appropriate response to unpleasant emotion? What was the nature of her indiscretions while married to Hollis. Was Hollis more of a surrogate father than husband? -Gittes appears to be very much the proverbial idealist found just below the surface of many apparent cynics. Is that why Gittes, after many smart moves, makes the not at all smart move of meeting Cross alone, and of letting Cross know that he has the one known piece of physical evidence on his person? With any other writer, I would assume that this is a monumental error. Given that this is the work of Towne (and maybe Polanski), I’m more inclined to think that this is a reflection of Gittes being a mix of jaded and wide-eyed innocent. The catharsis he imagines he’ll get from this confrontation with evil blinds him to what an incredible strategic blunder it is. I would love for Towne to address this. BTW, I don’t think allowing Cross to take the bifocals helps Cross get away with it all. Cross’ style, the physical might involved in drowning Hollis, and the stupid sloppiness of not realizing the bifocals were missing, and not finding and retrieving the bifocals indicates to me that Claude did the dirty work while Cross probably went inside and poured himself a drink. In the unlikely event that someone were to take the fall for Hollis’s murder, the someone would be Claude, or some other sap-maybe even Gittes. Also: from the second Gittes, in the final scene, starts trying to tell Escobar what happened, it’s clear that Gittes could show verifiable film of the murder, and nothing would happen to Cross. It’s likely none of Cross’ henchman would be in trouble either. When Cross tells Evelyn what a “highly disturbed woman” she is, he’s the most powerful man in the city, announcing to the cops and others present what the official narrative is going to be. One more observation about the film’s relentless focus on moral murkiness: Evelyn’s fate being foreshadowed by Gittes description of whatever happened previously in Chinatown, and by the appearance of Curly’s wife displaying the limits of Gittes’s pat reasoning in the barber shop scene about just uncovering the truth, and not being in control of whether justice is done. The Curly situation is a repeat of the Chinatown scenario of never knowing if you’re combatting evil or helping it along. Did Gittes nobly expose the dalliance of a no-good two-timing wife? Or did an abused woman have one moment of respite exposed by Gittes, bringing on more abuse? Interesting that Curly, who’s deep in debt to Gittes for a service that’s caused nothing but trouble, has to ask Gittes for forgiveness of what he owes, in exchange for a trip that’s more dangerous than Curly can possibly know. How exactly is Gittes different from the banker? Finally, a point about screenwriting. One of the challenges is to very briefly convey the spirit of characters, wardrobe, setting; etc without, on the page, micro-managing the experts who bring those elements to life. One great example of this in Chinatown is with the scene in which Gittes first meets Cross. The very brief exterior setting description begins with, “It is California in miniature.” Brilliant! Communicates the vision in a way that allows the other creatives to be truly creative. Almost as good as the first sentence about Max Bialystock in The Producers: “Max Bialystock is a big baby.” The dialogue and actor directions take care of the rest.

Hi, are you guys at The Foundation still responding to posts on this?

Too many ads. Out of here at 7:00.

The interviewer is weak. A missed opportunity. Name dropping constantly. And I like Towne. Let's see what part 2 is about. I hope it is about the craft of writing!

They should not have put decaf in his cup...stil,a genious

I can’t hear this.

cant hear it

Barely audible, alas. Bad marks for the production skills of the Writers Guild Foundation, who should have brought along someone from the sound Soundman’s Guild. BOO! Towne is a brilliant writer however, so those of us who are also writers will still struggle to try to hear what he has to say.

Say what you want about de Niro being as good an actor as he used to be, but in the Irishman, when he's recounting his life of crime, he's got that exact same voice, he just nailed that old man whistlin' shyness and stumbling hesitation, like he doesn't have enough breath and time to tell his whole life, so he's rushing and fallin'... This has just stroke me. De Niro still got it, if the role worths it.

AUDio!!!!!!!

If you want to know how NOT to write a screenplay, watch his movie "Personal Best." One of the top ten worst movies.

Terrible audio

POOR AUDIO

he's fried

I can't listen to this drivel.