Directors Else & Harrar (1997) paint a negative image of water engineer Mulholland in their movie Cadillac Desert: Mulholland's Dream. The film signals it will show both sides of the debate on the controversial figure, with the constant appearance of Catherine Mulholland, granddaughter of the engineer and his biographer. However, she is the only one who is supportive of Mulholland; all of the other testimonials, as well as the narrator, paint the engineer in undesirable colors.
For example, the film introduces the choice of San Fernando Valley as the route of the aqueduct as a shady real estate deal, sponsored by a syndicate of the California wealthy. There is not even a suggestion that since the Owens Valley location is North of Los Angeles, the aqueduct course through San Fernando was the shortest way. Ultimately, this route choice may have been an engineering decision, but the viewer would never know that.
Furthermore, the directors’ option for a testimony of Chinatown’s screenwriter is very telling. Robert Towne uses strong words such as “incestuous cabal” (Else & Harrar, 1997), but he is hardly an expert on engineering or economics. Towne is a professional storyteller, and he has earned money and received accolades for painting a bleak picture of Mulholland in the 1974 movie.
Ulin, (2013), in his article There It Is. Take It, does not provide an alternate insight into the history of the Los Angeles Aqueduct. His view on Mulholland does not even attempt to convey impartiality. Ulin’s (2013) vocabulary is reminiscent of Marxist historians, as he tells of “rapacious capitalism,” “cabal of civic leaders,” and Mulholland’s “cronies.” Moreover, the author regularly sidelines the history of the aqueduct in favor of rambling about the “Teapot Dome scandal” and fiction novels by Mary Austin and Raymond Chandler. These subjects have little to no correlation with the Mulholland tale but serve as a dark background that permeates the whole article. Even the interesting and carefully chosen photographs of the article are accompanied by Ulin’s dark fiction: the famous Mulholland speech “There it is – take it” is not seen as a selfless message to the people of Los Angeles, but as a hidden code to the ‘cabal-syndicate-mafia’ of real estate cronies.
On the other hand, Bachrach (2013), in her article Villain and Visionary, does try to ‘balance the scale’ and mentions that the aqueduct made the great city of Los Angeles possible. The author posits that Owens Valley landowners were, according to a 2007 economic study, “fairly compensated for their land in successful transfers of resources” (Bachrach, 2013). The approach is different from both the movie and the Ulin article, which indicate that Owens Valley ranchers were unfairly treated. There was no land-grabbing or water-stealing: the Los Angeles Department of Water bought the land and the water rights from the farmers of a small and impoverished town – a fact conveniently forgotten or glanced over by detractors.
References
Bachrach, E. (2013, Fall). Villain and Visionary. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from
http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2013/09/villain-and-visionary/
Else, J., & Harrar, L. (Directors). (1997). Cadillac Desert: Mulholland's Dream [Video file].
United States: Homevision / KTEH / PBS / Columbia. Retrieved June 10, 2016, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpaC4R6cU1o
Ulin, D. L. (2013, Fall). There It Is. Take It. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from
http://www.boomcalifornia.com/2013/09/there-it-is-take-it/
