CHANGELING ***

jolie-changelingset

CHRISTINE COLLINS lived in LOS ANGELES in 1928. She was a supervisor for the local telephone company. One night when she returned from an uncharacteristic evening shift, she discovered that her nine year old son WALTER had vanished.

CHANGELING is the true story reflecting the mysterious circumstances surrounding Walter’s disappearance and how they impacted Ms. Collins, who is portrayed unforgettably by ANGELINA JOLIE.

JOHN MALKOVICH is Christine’s avenging angel, the REVEREND GUSTAV BRIEGLEB. The very first glimpse of him is a radio broadcast sermon that he gives in front of an enormous audience. In it, he denounces the LOS ANGELES police department as the most corrupt, vicious, venomous trash that he has ever come across…and he receives thunderous applause for it.

That particular speech elicits chills. JOHN MALKOVICH is beginning to appear in films a fair amount as of late. It’s exciting to remember how brilliant he’s capable of being.

The Reverend understands immediately that the LAPD are at the root of Christine’s problems in terms of either finding Walter or discovering what actually happened to him. His decency and concern for her as a human being are in stark contrast to the way Christine is being treated by others.

Eighty years ago, it was perfectly acceptable to label women as “hysterical.” The prevailing wisdom was that they have all of these hormones coursing through their bodies at any given time – making them unstable, irrational, overly emotional, uncontrollable…

Christine finds it incredibly difficult – as a single female raising her small son alone – to find anyone to take her concerns seriously.

There is an extraordinary performance that is key to this dark destructive tale: JASON BUTLER HARNER as GORDON NORTHCOTT.

He is a major player in the events that unfold. He’s like shimmering lightning in a clear glass bottle. Sometimes you want to squash Northcott like a particularly annoying bug. In other instances, you can feel the incredible pain and anguish he is experiencing – and your heart goes out to him momentarily.

Mr. Harner adds many colours and nuances to this man. It’s definitely towering substantial work that can not be overlooked in any respect.

The art direction is fabulous. It is an extremely detailed and authentic recreation of glittering golden age LOS ANGELES. The clothing is a perfect representation of the era.

J. MICHAEL STRACZYNSKI’S screenplay draws you in despite the story’s beautiful bleakness. There is a small thread of glorious hope that runs through the entire narrative, culminating in an ending that is realistic without being downbeat.

This is easily the best film that CLINT EASTWOOD has made since PLAY MISTY FOR ME. UNFORGIVEN, MYSTIC RIVER, FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA are all overrated and utterly lifeless. MILLION DOLLAR BABY was substantially good.

Aside from MISTY, CHANGELING is better than all of them.

Mr. Eastwood’s direction is so skilled and utterly truthful. He displays a polish and an easily comprehensible flow of hard to face realities. He also employs a feminist stance that I didn’t think he was capable of.

At the centre of this brooding gothic piece is the exceptional work of ANGELINA JOLIE. This is the finest performance I have ever seen her give in a theatrical motion picture (seeing as GIA was technically for HBO).

There is a great fire and determination deep inside Christine. You also sense that she has the grace to overcome any obstacle. But that does not become apparent until things turn very rough for her and almost all of her hope is gone. ANGELINA does have a few big star quality OSCAR moments. But they’re all finely modulated and discreetly placed.

Christine is a soft spoken, well bred middle class woman. She is not the tough, unstoppable babe that we’re used to seeing in an ANGELINA JOLIE movie. That is what makes her presence even more powerful and extraordinary.

There is a situation that illustrates this well approximately half way through the picture.

Christine meets a prostitute named CAROL DEXTER (AMY RYAN doing some extremely impressive acting) who is also being persecuted by the LAPD. She goes to thank Carol for standing up for her and taking her side when she desperately desired some badly needed support.

For her part, Carol could do nothing less. “FUCK THEM and the horses they rode in on.”

Christine is so shocked that she blinks profusely. “I don’t think that that’s the kind of language that a lady should be using.”

Carol replies, “No, in some situations that’s exactly the kind of language a lady should be using.”

Some time later, a known harasser arrives to force Christine into giving up and forgetting about the issues that she can not walk away from. But she will not go gently into that good night.

Instead of letting the bully have his way with her, she looks at him with deadly calm midnight blue eyes and states ferociously, “FUCK YOU and the horse you rode in on.”

CHANGELING is a finely crafted work of art – soulful, deep, compelling, suspenseful – with excellent acting and superb direction.

Some days I am very proud to be a woman…

8 Responses to “CHANGELING ***”

  1. “CHANGELING is a finely crafted work of art – soulful, deep, compelling, suspenseful – with excellent acting and superb direction.” Sold.

    I gotta make a plan to see this sooner. It really has gotten a mixed bag of reviews, but every time I read a positive one like your wonderful review, I am reminded of why I wanted to see it in the first place.

  2. Thanks so much, baby boy.

    I actually only saw CHANGELING because I was out shopping Thursday and I always stop in for a movie at that mall (which is my absolute favourite). Out of the two enormous theatre complexes in that lovely joint, it seemed the most promising by far.

    But be warned that despite its great artistry CHANGELING is a hard sit. It has some pretty gruesome disturbing subject matter and it’s heartwrenchingly sad.

    Clint doesn’t pull any punches. But he doesn’t dwell on anything horrific either. Though it touches on many of the same themes, this is a film that is far superior to MYSTIC RIVER (which, to my mind, only had two great things going for it – the superb performances of SEAN PENN and LAURA LINNEY).

    If you can get past that, then you’re home free, Nicky – and you’ll be amply rewarded.

    Normally I embrace darkness. Sometimes it can be a bit much. It’s not overwhelming in this instance. But that’s probably why I gave it three stars instead of four.

    If ANGELINA doesn’t get nominated for this, then we’ll know that the ACADEMY just doesn’t want to deal with her megawatt celebrity right now.

    She was SPECTACULAR…

  3. I won’t read a word here because I need to write down my own thoughts, but I’ll give fair warning that I’m in utter disagreement with your star rating here!

    We’ll see what happens after I write. This is definitely not one of those movies where I think, “How could anybody like it?”, just one that I know didn’t work for me in my own picky ways. And Jolie wasn’t even the major problem…this time.

    Back for more soon…

  4. WOW. Interesting, Danny.

    CHANGELING is a powerful piece. Well done IMO. But I don’t think people coming into it will understand how harsh some of it is. It is mostly stuff that we’ve all seen before.

    However, I think that because it’s all based on fact that definitely adds to the gruesome, disturbing element. It’s certainly a film you can admire – not really love.

    Plus I don’t think you can say (by virtue of the events) that you actually enjoyed it. Some of it’s a rough ride. But I give Clint enormous credit for that ending.

    “And JOLIE wasn’t even the major problem…this time.”

    Ha ha hah.

    Well, I certainly know how you feel about her…

  5. Well you’ve now seen what my full thoughts were on this, and indeed they went the other way. But as it happened, it seems you enjoyed most of the few elements about which I was indifferent.

    “He also employs a feminist stance that I didn’t think he was capable of.”

    Now there’s an interesting point. As a block-headed alpha male, it seems that went completely over my head, even though it went right to the heart of you and Sam’s wife.

    Regarding Harner, I do agree that he ended up being a fairly interesting character. His first scene (at the truck) was quite chilling, as was the one in the courtroom. Outside of that I mostly found him overplaying his hand, acting too creepy or drunk or something. Of course he was a psycho, so…

    And why did he have a framed photo of him and his accomplice kid mounted on the wall? Just so that people wouldn’t think he’s a serial killer if they showed up and saw bloody hatchets everywhere? Annoying details like that…

  6. Yeah, I know, Danny…

    In terms of CHANGELING, we are far apart in some aspects and in rather large agreement on others.

    For an alpha male, you are DEFINITELY no blockhead, my darling. Don’t sell yourself short…

    But it was fairly obvious to me that one of the major problems that Christine had directly related to the fact that she was a woman.

    Her concerns were not addressed properly or taken seriously because she was female – supposedly hysterical, overemotional, unstable. They thought that they could get away with railroading her.

    They were wrong. But that would NEVER have been done to a man in that particular era.

    All of that was a long, slow process – and if you read feminist history (or various works by BETTY FRIEDAN, GLORIA STEINEM or SUSAN FALUDI) you can see how the wheel went round.

    Just because women got the vote (in many countries around the world) during the late teens/early 20s of the 20th century didn’t mean automatic acceptance of equality.

    HELL NO. That struggle is STILL going on.

    There was no reliable contraception till the 60s…and even that can fail if you’re not careful. The majority of women could only be teachers, nurses, office workers, flight attendants, models, actors etc. There were always a few females outside of the mainstream that did their own thing regardless.

    But it was rare.

    Until the 60s it was assumed that women would automatically give up any career they had when they got married. It was also an unspoken deal that, up until that time, that most women attended college as a sort of “finishing school” or to meet Mr. Right.

    Women with serious ambitions that wanted to tackle more than being wives and mothers had a pretty rough road until the 70s. These battles are ongoing and they’ve never really stopped.

    Society is not perfect. I think that men have been shortchanged in lots of ways, too. But I don’t think men have ever been given the shaft deliberately the way women have. If there are any situations that are comparable, they’re not coming to mind.

    **********SPOILERS**************

    But I did LOVE that part where Christine confronted Northcott in jail. He was obviously a disturbed lunatic. He told her in court that he cared about her and admired her. Felt a kinship with her. Said that he would never hurt Walter.

    Then, years later, he tells her to come to the prison where he’s about to be executed because he did kill Walter. Then, once she’s there, he claims that he only said that because he was sure that she wouldn’t show up and that he wasn’t about to lie and go to hell for it.

    I was just ECSTATIC about how she threw him up against the wall and started beating the hell out of him: “WHERE IS MY SON? TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM. WHERE IS MY SON?!”

    I’m telling you, Danny…

    I’m like a lion with the people I care for. That sonofabitch would’ve had EVERY BONE IN HIS BODY BROKEN if I had been there. I would’ve wiped the floor clean with him.

    May God have mercy on his wretched soul.

    As for the picture…

    Well, of course Northcott was a psycho. No one in their right mind could’ve done what he did.

    But people that sick can be unbelievably crafty.

    This whole thing reminds me of that other real life case that was equally disgusting and heartwrenching – that Paul Bernardo/Karla Homolka thing that happened in Ontario in the 90s. Two attractive blond young people that were married to each other.

    Bernardo raped a bunch of women and terrorized them. But after he wed Homolka, they killed two young girls (in two separate incidents) after confining them in their house for days on end.

    Like Northcott and that boy, the girls were likely lured into their car because Homolka was there and they thought it was safe to approach it. Also: they almost didn’t get arrested because the police investigators saw wedding photos and pictures of them all over the house and felt that they were too clean cut and “normal looking” to be responsible for those horrific crimes.

    This is why I’m in favour of capital punishment in some cases. There are people that don’t deserve to live. You can’t rehabilitate them and you can’t let them out.

    So why should they take up space?

    But I guess it is what it is. You’ll never be able to eradicate all of the evil in this world.

    Sad but true…

  7. Important historical points, and I agree with all. Certainly Christine was abused because they thought she was a flighty, weak-willed woman. She got ‘em.

    Jeez, that Ontario case was really sick. But I would imagine it was probably in a more residential area that they lived? I don’t know, the picture on the wall at the ranch just seemed so out of place, and the cop who DID see it obviously didn’t accept it as anything normal. But your point is solid anyway.

    I could have done without the blood-splattering ax chops as well, but that’s just me.

  8. “Certainly Christine was abused because they thought that she was a flighty, weak willed woman. She got ‘em.”

    LOVE that, Danny. Absolutely pure dead brilliance, as the Brits say.

    Personally, I don’t dig gore in film either. That’s only one of the reasons why horror will never be my genre of choice.

    Yeah, that Ontario case took place in Scarborough, which is right outside of Toronto. There are wack jobs as well as people that are tremendously ill and capable of anything EVERYWHERE. The most frightening principle (as brought home in the Bernardo/Homolka case) is that even very attractive individuals who seem completely ordinary and upright can be involved in the most terrible horrific crimes that you could ever imagine in your natural life.

    It’s not always the scary looking people that do monstrous things.

    Can’t judge a book by its cover. Unfortunately.

Leave a Reply