Changeling is an interesting true story. A woman in the late 1920s, a single mother with a low-end (but rising) management job at the phone company, comes home one day after being called unexpectedly into work on an off day and finds that her son is missing. Five months or so later, her son is returned
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
When the trailers started coming out, and seemed to be giving away every aspect and plot twist of the story, I was really hoping that there would be a further plot twist and the kid really _would_ turn out to be her son and she was actually crazy.
Just another idea to stick in the vault, I guess.
The funniest error I’ve ever seen on MCN: the title “Voynaristic Reviews: High School Musical 3,” followed by the opening paragraph: “It’s difficult to imagine an American filmmaker more ideally suited to tell this bit of arcana. Clint Eastwood is a storyteller (a quality in short supply of late) that savors the nuances of a yarn.”
I just considered whether a spoiler warning was needed after reading your comment, J-mc… but the movie makes it pretty clear pretty quickly.
As did the trailer, which aligns with your comment “What is the point? I’m not sure Eastwood/Straczynski ever figured it out.” It looks like a movie in which stuff happens to no particular end.
The whole “woman loses her son” aspect is just the entry point for a film that is about the corruption of the police department (and the lengths they will go to break down a woman for their own gains) and a serial killer that is able to operate because the LAPD was too busy locking up women for not accepting things like their missing child being returned to them…but isn’t their child.
Zzzzzzzz…
POSSIBLE SPOILER
And do you really think that the serial killer was getting away with it for a while because of the Jolie story… or was it because boys run away, were even less traceable back then, and it wasn’t seen as a priority for that reason?
There was a doc on TV the other night about human traficking that still goes on with, mostly, young girls in this country. Lots of it. And the police still won’t quickly investigate missing persons. But it doesn’t seem to be because of corruption.
Wouldn’t the police in Changeling LOVE to find a serial killer in order to show how smart they were? Wouldn’t that have been a better story than her falsely recovered child?
END SPOILERS
Sorry… just not willing to make excuses for the lack of any real dramatic weight in this movie.
CONTINUING SPOILERS
I think the police would have loved to find a serial killer, but too much of their power was spent “taking out the competition” as they show in that montage. There weren’t enough policemen dispatched to do real police work and were instead spending their time returning a missing kid who wasn’t really the missing kid. If they had continued to search for Jolie’s kid, perhaps they would have found the serial killer. The point was that the police department gave up on the case as soon as the kid was returned because they got their photo op, but they probably gave up way before then.
And yes, there is still a waiting period for the police today which is precisely what makes this story relevant to today. Also, the idea of a parent losing their child and being told that they are crazy repeatedly by people in power, that deals with a lot of frustration that people feel today with bureaucracy and red tape.
I can’t tell you that you should have FELT more when watching the film, but I definitely was moved by parts of it. I don’t think it’s a perfect film – the ending drags quite a bit – but I was intrigued by it. I just don’t remember the last Lifetime film that involved serial killers, but maybe I should watch more Lifetime if the films are as good as this one.
Hmmmm, I guess this is a movie I’m going to need to see a second time to understand why people think it’s so bad…
WRONG!
Jefferey Donovan OWNED.
Liked this a lot more than D-Po, though given Clint’s reputation as a master of the understated, thought a lot of this was pitched at roughly the subtlety range of the white-trash family scenes in M$B that seem to bother a lot of people so much. The bad guys are often well into Snidely Whiplash/Simon Legree territory, though I didn’t feel it hurt the integrity of the story or the filmmaking. Others will surely disagree — the fairly crowded matinee I caught had some scattered bad laughter, though most of it from one creepy guy who laughed heartily at inappropriate dramatic bits throughout.
I don’t know how DP gets that Jolie was “a bland of piece of bread,” as I thought she was pretty riveting throughout, and is obviously completely magnetic on screen doing just about anything. I’ll go with DP on Malkovich, who was just kinda goofy here, and even I haven’t decided if that Norcott dude is some new ACTING GENIUS or just giving a completely ridiculous performance.
And hey, WHO WAS THAT LARRY MILLER LOOKING GOOD COP WHO SOLVED THE INITAL CRIME? THAT GUY RULED. And did anyone notice THE JUDGE IN THE ONE CASE IS LOOKS EXACTLY LIKE JOHN MCCAIN? That seemed to get a bad laugh.
It really is kind of a “Mystic River” redux, down to the flashback reveals, musical cues, and big emotional outburts. If anything, it’s lacking that coincidence-laden potboiler structure that bothers some about MR…
I certainly liked it… definitely need to dwell on it a little more, as I agree with some of Dave’s complaints but think he’s being way too hard.
“John Malkovich can do little wrong for me”
Have you not seen Colour Me Kubrick? Ugh. Such a terribly unfunny and excruciating experience that movie was.
Naturally – as I don’t live in LA or NY – I have yet to see this movie so I have nothing at all to say on the way. Tralala.
on the way? On the matter.
Just wait till it goes national on Halloween.
Overblown tripe + Oscar-Whoring = Box Office Poison.
Hyperbole and misinformation, Chucky.
really nice movie
i love it too and its wallpaper also photos
http://movies.iexplorehere.com/review/778/Changeling.html
just a good movie
http://movies.iexplorehere.com/review/778/Changeling.html