free counter with statistics Changeling | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

changeling1.jpg

Now She’s Feeling More Alone Than She Ever Has Before


Changeling / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | October 31, 2008 | Comments (26)


Clint Eastwood has been directing films since the early 1970s, but it’s only in the past few years that his name has come to represent a specific brand or mindset when it comes to storytelling: You know that, with an Eastwood film, you’re going to get something austere, old-school, and pretty straightforward. The man makes gorgeous, fastidious movies that hit all the beats in a fairly predictable order, but that devotion to an economical, often subdued style tends to make the stories somehow a bit too simple for such a gifted director. It’s no accident that the best films of his later period — from 1992’s Unforgiven to 2003’s Mystic River — deal with moral complexity and narrative ambiguity in a way that often eludes his other films; though they’re still competent, thoughtful, and well-made, they lack the thrust of greatness. That’s the unfortunate case with Eastwood’s latest, Changeling, a sprawling and well-acted drama that nevertheless comes down a little too firmly in its moral certainty and the alignment of good versus evil, and in doing so sacrifices a compelling story for a merely interesting one. It’s not that the film is a failure; it’s just that the film winds up falling short of that standard Eastwood has so clearly set for himself.

After a brief title sequence that culminates with the phrase, “A true story,” Eastwood’s film opens in 1928 Los Angeles, where Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) is a single mother working to raise her 9-year-old, Walter (Gattlin Griffith), while holding down a managerial job at Pacific Telephone and Telegraph. Eastwood’s attention to detail is evident from the beginning, from the cable cars to the use of older L.A. neighborhoods and sets to create a period atmosphere, and the colors are all washed out like old photographs. The formal and unflashy framing from director of photography Tom Stern, who’s worked with Eastwood many times, helps set the mood of cold quality, of a good story that’s still got a layer of emotion removed. Christine is a strong but quiet woman who loves her son, but when she’s called into the office on her day off, she has to leave him home alone for a few hours, and she returns to find that he’s gone. Jolie is wonderful and more than a little heartbreaking in these first few hours after Walter’s disappearance, as her demeanor slides from worry to despair to barely restrained panic; the phone call she makes to the police to report Walter, only to be told that she has to wait 24 hours before a report can be filed, is gut-wrenching.

But this is also where the film begins to chart its course through relatively clear waters when it comes to the plight of Christine and her fight against fate and the world around her. After months of searching, the LAPD receives a tip about a boy in Illinois that matches Walter’s description and has the kid shipped home. They proudly present him to Christine, but she knows instantly that the boy isn’t her son. Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan), a hard-driving man who doesn’t want to see the department face any more public scrutiny after a rash of public relations problems, assures Christine that she’s just in shock and should take the boy on a “trial basis.” Jones is written and played as a department toady and total ass, and while it’s not likely (or even necessary) he’d ever be a likeable character, it’s still the first of many instances in which the film shores up any doubt or conflict on Christine’s part. She refuses to acknowledge the boy is hers, though she takes him in for a while in order to try and figure out a way to prove it to a police force that seems more and more monolithically evil instead of believably corrupt.

The rest of the film meanders among the disparate plots of Christine’s ongoing crusade to keep the police looking for her son; the LAPD’s continued refusal to grant Christine any kind of hearing or say in the matter; and a public outcry against the department’s tyranny led by the Rev. Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich) from St. Paul’s Presbyterian. J. Michael Straczynski’s screenplay is phenomenally researched, so much so that the film rightly earns its title as a true story instead of merely being based on one, but there’s a lack of suspense permeating the film that’s almost maddening. It’s not as if Eastwood isn’t able to technically balance the storylines: He does, and the best one involves a detective named Lester Ybarrra (Michael Kelly) who pursues his own angle in the Collins case. It’s just that by making Jones and the various cop cronies so blandly bad, he can’t capitalize on Christine’s genuine good. Worse, he passes up a real chance to investigate the paranoia Christine must have felt not when her world fell apart but when the authorities told her it had been put back together. She has only one confrontation with her replacement son in which she asks him who he is and where he came from, but she never goes further than that, and she additionally avoids any kind of “mission” against the police, despite the fact that they’re painting her as a lying and unstable woman in the press. It’s not that Christine doesn’t fight; it’s that she doesn’t seem concerned with the right enemy.

Charged with carrying the film, Jolie is admirably tough and resilient in the role, though she looks more drawn and gaunt than ever, almost skeletal and certainly more worn than her 33 years. Everyone else in the film lands squarely within a comfortable zone of performances that feel real enough to give the film credibility but not genuine enough to bring the characters to life. The good guys and the bad are easy to spot and never forced to do much. At one point it feels like Walter’s disappearance is just a Macguffin to let Eastwood casually explore a time period he still thinks on fondly, and that’s not enough to make the movie worth it. It doesn’t even feel possible to damn the film with faint praise, since Eastwood the technician is still in fine form, from the cross-cutting in certain flashbacks or montages to the way he clearly takes pleasure in the textures of certain shots, like one in which a series of umbrellas deflect the rain. That’s probably the best way to summarize the film: Eastwood throws a lot of plot and emotion at the screen, but he also throws up enough of a shield to keep anything from truly connecting.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


The Ten Most Unusually Hot Celebrity Women | Pajiba's Favorite Craptastic Horror Films



Comments

HELLO ... hello ... lo ... lo ...

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 24, 2008 9:32 PM

Kind of a downer. I wanted the movie to be more than what it seems to be. Oh well.

Posted by: Matthew Wolfe at October 24, 2008 9:36 PM

So does she take anything off?No skin no way!

Posted by: pasadenamike at October 24, 2008 10:17 PM

I haven't seen it, and I probably won't get around to it in the near future. There are too many other interesting things coming out that will claim my designated theater dollars.

So, yeah, I'm just here to acknowledge the use of Ben Folds lyrics.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at October 24, 2008 10:50 PM

Well I'm totally flaccid. But thanks for trying, Clint.

Posted by: Goldie at October 24, 2008 10:54 PM

Lord, strike me down if you must. But you could not pay me to give a hoot about a 'child in peril' film. Never. Does anyone else feel this way? Is anyone else sick of getting dagger-eyes from smug beasts who think they're better than you for caring more about video screen characters than you do? Should we form an alliance?

Posted by: Jo 'Mama' Besser at October 24, 2008 11:45 PM

Going to wait for either a DVD or DirecTV viewing. My short-term curiousity over this was limited to interest in a spoiler on the fate of the real Walter, which simple Googling of Walter Collins took care of...pretty fucked up stuff.

Only one Walter I care about at this point, and he's a loony in a basement with a cow.

Posted by: hugeinjapan at October 25, 2008 1:57 AM

I was waiting for the review of this movie, not because I have any interest or intent to see it, now or ever, but because of the striking dichotomies regarding the main subject that have invaded my brain over the last few days, via the DVR'd media I try so hard to help avoid the commercial breaks, which, nevertheless, do come across at times and still instigate me at my most basic level, wherein I can no longer ignore certain spots I stumble upon that catch my attention whether I want them to or not.

Since the subject is Clint Eastwood himself, and I'm inexplicably awake at almost 3:00 in the morning, I'll waste this space to share my random, yet alcohol-free, thoughts with anyone who still gives a rat's ass:

I personally thought Clint should have flat-out retired after Unforgiven, leaving his acting and directing career intact, hopefully even managing to exclude the awful Every Which Way You Can Milk a Franchise shit that occupied a good part of a decade of his career. But I'm just being petty and snarky here and wouldn't post just to trash the old man.

Thing is, 'Entertainment Tonight' showed a preview from Gran Torino, starring a grizzly, sick and pathetic old man trying to keep the peace among the 'foreigner' neighbors he hates, and basically telling the antagonistic "other" ethnic gang, who are obviously the bad people in this story, to "get off my fucking lawn or I'll blow your ass away."

Now, while I didn't hear him use those exact same words, allofasudden I'm goose-pimply, and energized, and ready to watch this old man kick some REAL ass, JUST from the preview I saw.

That's where I lose all objectivity and reason: Eastwood's directing efforts have sometimes borderline disgusted me, as in his lame attempts in totally trashing both "Midnight In the Garden of Good and Evil" and "Mystic River" adaptations, sucking the very life out of their literary counterparts and leaving everyone wondering, "Why the fuck did they let Clint Eastwood direct this??"

THEN I see the 'Gran Torino' preview and realize, "Oh, hell yeah, I'm ready to see Clint kicking some more ass, I'm so glad he's still around."

It's a dichotomy, people, how can I justify it?

Posted by: TMax at October 25, 2008 3:30 AM

I don't know if I'll be able to watch Jeffrey Donovan in anything again without feeling like it's just another undercover Michael Westen job.

Posted by: Mimi at October 25, 2008 4:42 AM

I don't know, from personal experience, cops especially rotten/incompetent/bad cops, aren't particularly nuanced creatures.
Maybe Eastwood knew EXACTLY how he wanted to present them.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 25, 2008 7:53 AM

I'm still not sold on Clint Eastwood as a prolific director, especially when it comes to his later movies. His movies aren't bad, and he's got the technical/mood elements down. But, the performances are usually over-dramatized, and the bulk of the stories are the characters brooding over Internal Conflicts. In itself, introspection is not a bad thing, but he almost lets it take over the movie and become the plot. (See Mystic River, where I knew the ending twenty minutes and still had to suffer through two hours of people staring moodily into space and Sean Penn doing his crazy-face yelling thing - I'm sorry "Oscar-worthy performance".) I'm all for well-developed characters, but Eastwood's movies' endings are pretty predictable, and all you're left with is the characters' Sad Thoughts for two hours. (Even in Million Dollar Baby, the ending lost any kind of emotional impact it could've had because it took so long to get there that you're just tired at the end.) I've also never been able to get behind his female characters - they never seem believable and seem to get the brunt of the Tragic Events.

In Mystic River, I knew the ending twenty minutes and still had to suffer through two hours of people staring moodily into space and Sean Penn doing his crazy-face yelling thing. (I'm sorry "Oscar-worthy performance".) As to Million Dollar Baby, the ending was so stretched out, the ending lost any kind of emotional impact it could've had.

Posted by: LB at October 25, 2008 8:34 AM

I've been waiting for a long time for this, but: In any normal hospital, if you pulled the life-support plug on a patient without authorization, 82 kinds of hell would break loose -- sirens and alarums and people come running.

Is that what happened at the end of "Million-Dollar Baby"?

Thanks for helping me suspend my disbelief, Clint.

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 25, 2008 12:15 PM

I've heard really mixed reviews about Jolie's acting in this. But the consensus seems to be that her entire performance is trying too hard to be Oscar bait, and that she's just too much for this part. Personally, I always find her beauty a little too cartoonish to be taken seriously--kind of like watching Jessica Rabbit in a drama. She's gorgeous, yes, but always distracting. And her lips freak the hell out of me.

Posted by: figgy at October 25, 2008 3:07 PM

A.J. is only 33 years old? Holy shit.... she do look used hard and put up wet, don't she?

Posted by: Cletus at October 25, 2008 3:32 PM

Cletus , having 15 children to cart around will do that to a person...

Posted by: figgy at October 25, 2008 9:58 PM

I notice every time I see a photo of her and Pitt together, he's looking off into the distance with what the veterans call the "1,000-yard stare," like he's looking for someone to come rescue him from the succubus attached to his dick. Maybe that's why he looks like he's having such a good time with the Ocean's movies and "Burn After Reading," he's free of that blood-sucker for a few weeks.

I'm sure she eats raw puppies for breakfast, which may explain why she wants to whelp a litter. What I can't understand is why she's still so bony.

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 25, 2008 10:42 PM

What I can't understand is why she's still so bony.

Buc, I think she doesn't so much "eat" them as she sucks out their souls and feeds on it. Whatever fat she happens to absorb goes right to her lips.

Posted by: figgy at October 26, 2008 1:22 PM

Wow, is this an actual movie review, instead of a political ball-busting every other comment?

Posted by: Jesse Jackson at October 26, 2008 1:48 PM

Heh, good one, figgy.

They should cast her in the live action remake of "The Corpse Bride." (Tagline: "She's hot. She's sexy. She's dead.")

Posted by: bucdaddy at October 26, 2008 4:30 PM

Wow. Lotta Mystic River hate going around these parts.

Which is a shame, because I thought it was a fantastic movie. Yes, Penn overacted in parts, as is his wont, but overall I thought the performances were subtle and very well done, I loved the camera work, and basically just thought it was overall a great goddamn flick. Ah, well.

Posted by: TK at October 26, 2008 6:14 PM

People seem to be increasingly weary of the hammyness and just plain disregard for the material that these Oscar baiters are putting out.

And yes it IS disrespect for the material when you make it about *your* method and stomp over everybody else.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at October 26, 2008 6:44 PM

LB: A "prolific director" is one who makes lots of movies. It's got nothing to do with whether those movies are any good.

Posted by: Ned at October 27, 2008 9:04 AM

The best part of the film is definitely the segment that takes place in the mental hospital. Overall, I'd say it's a movie worth seeing.

Posted by: Ginger at October 27, 2008 2:19 PM

Is it just me or did that scene from the previews where Angelina beats her chest in anguish and screams "I want MY son!" turn anyone else off to this film? Not that I don't have any care in the world that such a beautiful lady is upset about something, but rather I'm a male, unmarried in my mid twenties and have no rugrats of my own to claim. The whole "parent tortured over their missing offspring" element is completely lost on me, and I've seen it enough times without anything in my own life to relate to it that it's becoming a tired and rote plot device for me.

I partially blame Fox News and the "missing white girl" news cycle, (seriously guys where the fuck IS Natalie Holloway?) and maybe I'm a cold hearted bastard, but I just can't get worked up emotionally about someone else's missing kids any longer. Hopefully things change when I've got anklebiters of my own but until then, this kind of storytelling is lost on me.

Posted by: Roaddog at October 27, 2008 3:17 PM

Not gonna lie. I didn't read the review. I just have to tell you how in love I am with the title of the review.

Posted by: Evil Beet at October 28, 2008 2:22 AM

Roaddog - I can think of nothing worse than losing a child. By "losing" I mean either having that child disappear (extraordinarily unlikely) or having something more mundane and likely, but equally terrible, happen to him or her (car accident, cancer, collateral damage in Iraq, etc.). I do think that the fear surrounding missing children distorts how infrequently it happens, but even as a young kid I could identify with how torturous it must be to not know where a loved one is and worry about their being cold, hungry, hurt, etc. and being able to do nothing to help him or her.

That being said, at the age of 12 I watched "Where the Red Fern Grows" without shedding a tear or, frankly, having a second thought about the whole thing. Different strokes.

Posted by: samantha t at October 28, 2008 10:53 AM