Introduction
Water has always been one of the most critical resources in the Los Angeles area, which is characterized by barren, desert-like landscapes. In fact, it was so significant that it sparked a series of conflicts and political controversies in the early 20th century, commonly known as the California Water Wars. The movie Chinatown (1974), directed by Roman Polanski and starring Jack Nicholson, depicts these events through a fictional lens, combining truth and creative vision.
Nevertheless, the film is subject to substantial criticism regarding historical accuracy. The current paper employs the analytic book Water and Los Angeles: A Tale of Three Rivers, written by Deverell and Sitton in 2017, to cross-compare the movie’s events with historical realities. The authors quote the film to draw parallels with the California Water Wars, such as “Without water the dust will rise and cover us as though we’d never existed,” highlighting the causes of the conflict (Deverell and Sitton 2017, 17). Ultimately, the present essay argues that Chinatown is not historically accurate because it substitutes real-world figures with fictitious alternatives, stretches facts, and has a different setting.
Overview of Events and Historical Context
To confirm the paper’s central thesis, it is essential to review the primary historical events of the California Water Wars and compare them with those in the film. Multiple elements and sub-topics encompass the LA-Owens Valley conflict, including political controversies, rural-urban conflict, pervasive corruption among Los Angeles elites, and the city’s thirst for water. This never-ending quest for water is central to both the historical record and the movie.
In 1899, the newspaper Los Angeles Times issued an article proclaiming, “We already own the water, the only point is, who shall control the supply?” (Deverell and Sitton 2017, 19). In the subsequent 30 years, the city experienced the rise of prominent figures, such as William Mulholland (chief engineer of the water department), the construction of the aqueduct to transfer water from the Owens River, and the failure of the St. Francis Dam. Ultimately, modern Los Angeles grew through the lies of the Los Angeles, Colorado, and Owens Rivers, but also stripped thousands of people of their homes, causing evacuations because of total conflicts.
Movie Context
Consequently, it is imperative to discuss the movie’s central plot lines and themes to understand its connection to the historical record. Chinatown roughly follows the history of the LA-Owens Valley water war, but it also incorporates an intriguing detective narrative, intense personal drama, and classical elements of neo-noir style. The protagonist, Jake Gittes, is a private detective who, through a series of events, begins investigating the death of Hollis Mulwray, the chief engineer at the Department of Water and Power.
During his inquiries, Gittes uncovers Noah Cross’s plan to control the area’s water resources and enrich himself through fraud. Namely, Cross uses the pretext of drought and other fraudulent tactics to devalue the land in the Northwest Valley, buy the property, develop it, and then sell it again. It is a multi-layered plan that the protagonist and the viewers gradually understand, as Gittes ponders, “Somebody’s dumping tons of water out of the city reservoirs when we’re supposedly in the middle of a drought.”
Another crucial element of the plot is the personal drama surrounding Gittes and Evelyn Mulwray, the wife of the deceased Hollis Mulwray and the daughter/rape victim of Noah Cross. She is the client who hires Gittes to investigate her husband’s death, ultimately trying to save her own daughter, Katherine, and take revenge on Noah Cross. While this drama is not directly connected to the LA-Owens Valley water wars, it is symbolic and critical to the plot, arguably overshadowing the actual water resources storyline. Evelyn’s quote to describe Katherine, “She’s my sister and my daughter,” explains the horrors that she went through because of Noah Cross, who represents the evil of Los Angeles. The movie ends grimly both for Evelyn Mulwray and Gittes, who find themselves unable to change the corrupted nature of the business elites, as exhibited by the last line of the movie, “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”
Analysis
Setting and Narrative
Starting the analysis of Chinatown’s historical accuracy, the first notable difference is the setting. Namely, the film’s events take place in 1937, while the LA-Owens Valley water war dates back to 1902. Between 1902 and 1908, William Mulholland and Frederick Eaton, also an engineer and the mayor of Los Angeles, completed planning the aqueduct. By 1928, with the collapse of the St. Francis Dam, the core events of the California Water Wars had already been completed.
On the other hand, Chinatown tells this story in the late 1930s – arguably 25 years after it actually happened. While it might not seem like a drastic change initially, it is critical to understand that the historical implications of the 1900s and the 1930s (the Great Depression) are fundamentally different. As Deverell and Sitton note in their 2013 article, Searching for the Truth in Chinatown, “The distinctions between rich and poor stand out sharper. The Depression setting helps create characters, too.” In other words, the authors deliberately chose a different setting to advance the narrative rather than adhering to historical accuracy.
Another critical difference in the setting is that Chinatown does not directly describe the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct but instead focuses on a more general plan to redistribute water resources and resell developed land in the Northwest Valley. In fact, the term “aqueduct” is mentioned only once in the script, when Noah Cross reveals his plans to Gittes at the end of the movie: “There’ll be ten million to build an aqueduct and reservoir.”
Therefore, the authors shift the focus from the core event of the California Wars to a multi-layered plan by Noah Cross that aligns with their vision of the film. This change highlights the significance of the characters’ personal drama in the noir setting, while water resources play a secondary, contextual role that moves the plot forward. It also works better in the setting of the Great Depression, with an extensive focus on corruption and the irredeemable evil of the Los Angeles elites. At the same time, the actual events had more complex causes. Ultimately, the setting and narrative of Chinatown differ significantly from those of its historical counterparts, which is the first critical support for the paper’s thesis.
Fictitious Figures
Secondly, the movie uses a large variety of fictitious characters, only some of whom have a historical basis. First, the protagonist, Jake Gittes, and the film’s femme fatale, Evelyn Mulwray, are entirely fictitious. They are arguably the two most important characters in the film, alongside Noah Cross, and they have no historical counterparts or role in the actual events of the California Water Wars.
Next, William Mulholland – the most significant figure in the historical record – is reflected both in the antagonist and the murdered Hollis Mulwray. Just like Noah Cross, he is depicted as “Bold, smart, self-made, and gruff” and, just like Mulwray, “Mulholland knew more about the city’s watercourses and water needs than anyone” (Deverell and Sitton 2017, 12). In this sense, the authors used two fictitious figures to depict Mulholland, which was a brilliant decision given the chief engineer’s controversial character. Yet, this approach is excellent in the context of a movie but lacks historical accuracy. Ultimately, the addition of fictive characters and frivolous interpretations of historical figures supports the argument that Chinatown is not a historically reliable source.
Stretched Facts
Finally, and most importantly, while Chinatown explores the story of the LA-Owens Valley conflict, it stretches multiple facts to fit the narrative and captivate viewers. For example, the Northwest Valley in the film represents both the San Fernando Valley and the Owens Valley, distorting the historical events. It is significant because it does not reveal the actual location, which the fraudulent schemes of Los Angeles elites (San Fernando Mission Land Company) have ruined.
As Spilman writes in the 1912 booklet, The Conspiracy: An Exposure of the Owens River Water and San Fernando Land Frauds, “The San Fernando valley contains 112,640 acres, and Messrs. Otis and Sherman <…> bought at about the same price practically all of the remainder of the valley” (Deverell and Sitton 2017, 38). This scheme of buying cheap land and selling it after redevelopment/irrigation is central both to Chinatown and the historical record. In this sense, omitting names and substituting facts significantly hinders the movie’s credibility as an accurate representation of events.
Another crucial element in the narrative is drought, which incentivizes the water resource project in both the movie and historical events. However, the authors of Chinatown depict it “as a myth generated by the elite conspiracy” and “man-made” (Deverell and Sitton 2013, 6). In reality, no substantial evidence exists that water was deliberately drained to achieve outcomes similar to a natural disaster. Furthermore, the threat of an actual drought was a genuine concern that incentivized several projects.
In 1931, F. E. Waymouth explained in the article Colorado River Aqueduct, “The 1893–1904 drought was more severe than the present one. It would be bold to assume that others, still more severe, will not occur in the future” (Deverell and Sitton 2017, 92). While there is some evidence of water dumping and of fear-mongering articles published by H. G. Otis, owner of the Los Angeles Times and a shareholder of the San Fernando Mission Land Company, the movie downplays the actual threat of drought. This decision emphasizes pervasive corruption in Los Angeles, fitting the narrative.
Research Significance
As seen in the examples, Chinatown has many fictive elements that make it more compelling as an artistic work but less reliable as a historical account. Stretched facts, in particular, might present inaccurate information that viewers would perceive as the truth unless they conduct their own research. In other words, Chinatown presents a believable narrative that can be easily interpreted as a historical record. However, different names, labels, and distorted representations of events create a false understanding of what actually happened.
The present research is significant because it illuminates the complexity of historical issues, transparently conveying that Chinatown is a work of art that should not be treated as an archive entry. The actual events of the LA-Owens Valley complex involved multiple and distinct tactics and motivations, some of which were genuine efforts to help people in Los Angeles and to develop more effective water distribution strategies. Ultimately, Chinatown is a feature movie that follows its premise and, as Deverell and Sitton note, “Better yet to sit back and watch the film, eat some popcorn,” but not to interpret it as a historical record.
Conclusion
Based on the in-depth analysis, the paper has confirmed that while Chinatown is a brilliant movie, it is not historically accurate. Namely, it uses a different setting during the Great Depression, introduces fictitious characters, and stretches the facts. The film is based on real-life events but interprets them in a particular way to create the most compelling work of art possible. It introduces many themes, including corruption, greed, drama, and vice, and emphasizes them to fit the neo-noir movie’s narrative.
At the same time, the reality is significantly more complex and morally ambiguous, ultimately implying that Chinatown is not historically accurate. In summary, the authors succeeded in creating a brilliant work of art and an account that presents rough facts about the California Water Wars. However, it would be disingenuous to label the movie a historically reliable source given its frivolous interpretation of actual events.