Reviews are coming in for Changeling, the new film from Clint Eastwood.

Or is it called The Exchange? Apparently there's some confusion over which name Eastwood will stick with.

Here's the Cinematical review.

John Malkovich plays a Presbyterian minister? Cool.

I'm not a big fan of Angelina, but this trailer looks impressive.

I saw the (new?) trailer on the big screen last night and was surprised by how emotionally engaged I got. I fear the film as a whole could be pretty devastating. I wonder how I would have reacted if I had seen the film a few years ago, BEFORE I had kids.

In the meantime, Kyle Smith isn't impressed:

Clint Eastwood spent the 60s and 70s making westerns, military movies and cop movies. Now he’s making anti-westerns, anti-war pictures and…guess what? His latest is an anti-cop picture, “Changeling,” which I saw this morning in its North American debut, I think, at the New York Film Festival. This Angelina Jolie-starrer is about a single mom in 1928 LA whose son disappears. The cops find her son in Illinois and return the boy to her–only she says it’s not her son. What gives? The police are corrupt.

I do find the references to Bette Davis and Joan Crawford movies interesting, though.

Wow, Karina Longworth doesn't seem to have cared for it either:

The LAPD is corrupt –– so corrupt that the holiest man in town is John Malkovich. So when Angie’s son goes missing, they give her back a “fake boy,” and the evil detective (Jeffrey Donovan) can’t figure out if the ensuing scandal means he should have an Irish accent or not.

We drink every time Angelina hysterically proclaims, “He’s not my son!” We get very drunk, and this may be why we can’t figure out why Clint Eastwood made a cheap-looking Lifetime movie that eventually turns into an “And justice for all!” episode of SVU. Just when the drinking game is starting to get really out of control, there’s a twist so shocking that it’s punctuated by two inches of ash falling off a policeman’s cigarette … in slow motion.

Hmmm. That's two "Lifetime" references in a row, now.

And now David Poland invokes the L-word:

It would be hard to be more surprised and sad about how terrible Changeling is.

I mean... Lifetime... at best.

I am a big, big Eastwood fan. But when he misses, man oh man oh man...

Brutal.

In related news, I just got a pass to this, today.

I've noticed that about 80% of the time, I disagree with David Poland so much that I tense up and and shake. So that means there's about an 80% chance I'll like this movie? You're better with numbers than I am, Peter....

I just find it interesting that the reviews coming out of Cannes five months ago seemed to be pretty good, but over the last few weeks, the reviews coming out of New York and elsewhere seem to be rather negative -- and from all over the cultural-political map.

Well, maybe it is a terrible movie. I haven't seen it yet. And I don't know if David Poland, Karina Longworth, and Kyle Smith are a representative sample of "all over the cultural-political map." OTOH, in the spirit of the supposed purpose of this board, "Arts and Faith," I note Becky Garrison's comments on God's Politics, who gives some thought to the film's portrayal of crusading pastor Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich). At least, it would seem here's one film in which the clergyman is not flat out corrupt, insane, the villain, or stupid.

however, the clergyman is being played by the malkovich who, with his odd/ unique/ affected vocal delivery, i find generally kind of creepy or smarmy (and don't get me wrong, i generally enjoy him in his various roles, whether in of mice and men, dangerous liaisons, being john malkovich or even con air) - neither of which, i would think, would really play well for the character...then again, i haven't seen the movie.

Heh, yeah, as Karina said above: "The LAPD is corrupt –– so corrupt that the holiest man in town is John Malkovich."

Thanks for the link, BethR. It sort-of makes a point that I don't recall seeing addressed in any of the reviews etc. that I've read so far, namely that this story takes place only eight years or so after women got the vote. That would certainly have implications for the social standing of a character like Jolie's, versus the all-male establishment that she's up against.

Yikes. Now Christopher Orr calls it "may be the worst movie of the year":

This is, to put it mildly, a fantastical story, the kind of dark, absurdist allegory that we might have expected to ooze from the pen of Kafka. It is also, remarkably, a true (or at least trueish) story, as the film announces in its opening moments. But it is not enough to declare such improbable material historically accurate and leave it at that. It is Eastwood's burden to make it feel true, to overcome our skepticism at its innate outlandishness, and in this, Changeling is a singular failure. Scene after scene, twist after twist--and this is a film of many twists--rings false. I have been a fan (and defender) of Eastwood for as long as I can remember, but Changeling is a genuine stinker.

[ snip ]

By the time it's over, Changeling has proven itself not merely a contender for the worst film of the year, but a contender for the worst domestic tragedy, the worst conspiracy thriller, the worst serial killer flick, and the worst courtroom drama. It is that rare movie which, long after you think it's exhausted the possibilities, keeps discovering new ways to fail.

You mean it might be worse than Miracle at St. Anna? Yowzah.

He almost sold me on the movie right there...

Just came back from it. While I wouldn't say it's the year's strongest film, it's very good at what it is. Yes, it could have been a TV movie, but it's not: It's sumptuously filmed, very well performed, and ... deeply Christian.

There, I said it. I think this is one of the most potent treatments of certain elements of our faith that I can remember seeing -- a love that pursues at all costs, injustice fought, a man who lays down his life for a friend, talk of family reunion both here and in the hereafter, and the final word of the movie, which captures the Christian experience.

Is the movie foremost a religious parable? No, but it's all the better for that. It's sumptuously filmed by Tom Stern, who also shot Things We Lost in the Fire and some of Eastwood's more recent films. I did think it had a possible end point about 30 minutes before the conclusion, but I didn't mind those extra 30 minutes, which bring closure to the courtroom drama and include a payoff in the film's closing moments that was tremendously powerful for me, although I'm not sure everyone will share that experience.

One thing that did not blow me away was the much discussed Angelina Jolie performance. She's fine; don't get me wrong. I didn't think she was better than "good," however, nor do I think she needed to be for the film to succeed.

This one definitely got to me.

EDIT: BTW, Anne Thompson saw the film again recently and blogged about her continued positive response to it. As I've mentioned before, she's a Christian. I like to add that little tidbit whenever I agree with her.

Really? (About Anne Thompson, I mean.) I did not know that. Huh.

I saw the film tonight and thought it was "okay", and I'm surprised to see just HOW negative the reaction has been in some quarters, especially in the last few weeks. Yes, the movie had people laughing at certain points that were actually pretty serious, but only in the first half-hour or so, when the sheer absurdity of what Jolie's character is about to go through is still just sinking in.

FWIW, towards the end of the film I was beginning to get a The Wrong Man vibe. I.e., I was beginning to be reminded of Hitchcock's movie, also based on a true story, in which someone is unjustly accused of something and punished and traumatized for it, and then the REAL culprit is found ... or so we assume, but there remains some ambiguity over whether this second person is any "guiltier" than the first person. (The analogy isn't exact, since no one believes that Jolie's character has committed a crime, but if you see both films, you'll know what I mean.)

I am dying to see the bonus features on the DVD, because I hope one of them will be devoted to the film's recreation of the urban landscapes of the past. Most of the film takes place in Los Angeles in 1928, but there is an establishing shot of Vancouver (dated September 20, 1928) that I'd like to know more about (and at least one of the special-effects companies listed in the end credits is based in Vancouver, so who knows? maybe they got to do that shot, and maybe they knew how to keep it "real").

Yes, she wrote "I am a Christian" once on one of her blog posts, back when she was still with the Hollywood Reporter, IIRC. I think she made the comment in reference to her view of "Babel," or another film written by Guillermo Arriaga. I flagged the comment here at A&F, but doubt I could find it quickly enough to justify the effort. You'll just have to take my word for it.

So, Peter, what did you think of Eastwood's treatment of faith in this movie? I felt, I guess, a false pride that the socially conscious hero was a Presbyterian minister. My theology is such that I think a pastor has no place railing against police corruption from the pulpit -- if he wants to do so as a private citizen, that's fine, but to throw his weight around as a pastor bothers me. Still, I was heartened to see a Protestant, and Presbyterian no less, played as moral hero in the film.

Thinking of how Eastwood has handled faith in some of his recent films, it's always been steeped in Catholicism -- ideas of guilt and redemption, or lack thereof. And penance of a sort. Here we listen as a criminal discusses not wanting to go to hell, and as others wish that upon him, but what does it say that the most fervently religious dialogue in the film comes from the mouth of someone who's probably insane? I don't think that's the sum of the matter; it's a jaded take. There are those other ideas mentioned in my previous post that drive the plot, and there's the minister.

Part of what has me dwelling on this is that I saw the Grand Torino preview before Changeling, and again, there's Eastwood giving a man of the cloth a hard time, tossing out supposedly (to him) unanswerable questions and conundrums. Eastwood seems preoccupied with faith questions, but quick to play the guy who challenges religious authority figures. That aspect is largely missing in Changeling, and I thought the movie was better for it.

Christian wrote:
: So, Peter, what did you think of Eastwood's treatment of faith in this movie? I felt, I guess, a false pride that the socially conscious hero was a Presbyterian minister. My theology is such that I think a pastor has no place railing against police corruption from the pulpit -- if he wants to do so as a private citizen, that's fine, but to throw his weight around as a pastor bothers me.

Yeah. It irked me a little when he began one of his radio broadcasts by saying "I'm bringing you the word of God" and then he went STRAIGHT into talking about police corruption etc. It didn't help that we basically never see him preach any sort of religious message. The character, as a character within the movie, exists entirely as a social activist, who happens to have a patina of moral legitimacy thanks to his religious affiliation.

Still, a hero is better than a villain, and all that.

: Here we listen as a criminal discusses not wanting to go to hell, and as others wish that upon him, but what does it say that the most fervently religious dialogue in the film comes from the mouth of someone who's probably insane?

Yeah. And Jolie's response to him, in one key scene, is kind of interesting too, in that regard. Do you think she ever learns to forgive him, as arguably she should?

Good question. She does seem to be at peace at the end of the film, and that last line resonated for me. But I think that had a lot to do with the other family's outcome with their son than it did with repentance or a change of heart on her part.

Wow. The female "geezer" makes a very interesting criticism starting around the 4:30 mark.

In what I can only guess is a technical glitch, Roger Ebert's review of this film makes a reference to John Wayne Gacy, and the words "John Wayne" are hyperlinked to other articles about the actor on the Roger Ebert site.

Changeling: I Want MY Angelina Jolie Back
I have not been kind to Changeling, the Angelina Jolie-starring, Clint Eastwood-directed Oscar bait which opens wide today –– but admittedly, I also haven’t taken it very seriously. After seeing the supposed true-to-life drama at the New York Film Festival last month, I made the snap judgment that the film didn’t deserve my time –– it was such a silly, blatant exercise in statuette fishing, I thought, that the energy that I could expend detailing all its faults and falsehoods would be much better spent elsewhere. And certainly, plenty of other critics have covered some of the film’s key problematic factors. Dana Stevens‘ review pretty much sums it up, whether she’s citing Eastwood’s “clomping heavy-handedness” or his need to create a “deeply phony moral universe” in which to surround his victim-as-martyr manipulation shtick, which “keeps us at a stately remove, presenting Christine’s suffering as a kind of religious tableau.” But it was a throwaway line in A.O. Scott’s NYT review that made me realize that Changeling isn’t just a bad film –– it’s the final sign in a long line of them that Angelina Jolie, as we once knew her, has ceased to exist. That’s worth a minute or two. . . .
After noting that “something essential is missing, not only from [Jolie's] performance but also from the film as a whole,” Scott runs down a bit of the plot and eventually gets to the matter of Christine’s incarceration in the police-controlled mental hospital, “where she meets Amy Ryan, who is to this movie more or less what Ms. Jolie was to Girl, Interrupted.”
I’ve pulled this line out of context; in the review, it’s in parentheses at the end of a paragraph, as if it’s an aside, as if this isn’t the only thing about this movie that could potentially even matter. Because Scott is right: In Changeling, Angelina Jolie cedes the Angelina Jolie role to Amy Ryan so that she can take the ill-fitting Winona Ryder role: the frightened, sexless, allegedly sympathetic but ultimately boring, straight woman who can’t take control of a desperate situation until a much stronger woman shows her how it’s done. . . .
Karina Longworth, SpoutBlog, October 31

Marcia (female "geezer") is the one who's more on the money this time. It does try to tell too many stories. And (not really a spoiler because it's not in the movie, but I'll black it out just in case) the thought of the killer living with his mother who took part in the killings would have really been an interesting contrast.

I liked Jolie's and Jeffrey Donovan's performances. Malkovich's not so much. But it never seemed ready to end -- or perhaps it kept seeming ready to end and never did. There are 3 or 4 places where you could have run credits if you wanted to. The last 15 minutes or so are very anticlimactic, which really knocks down any power the film might have had.

I didn't mind the anticlimactic bits so much, myself. Life is like that. It almost reminded me of Zodiac, though Eastwood's film as a whole was definitely not made with Fincher's skill or thematic intrigue.

Jonathan Rosenbaum:

Far be it for me to invent wimpy liberal alibis for police corruption in 1928 Los Angeles, punitive electroshock, a pederast serial killer, and cosmic injustice in general, but the main thing wrong with Clint Eastwood’s view of evil in this movie is how childish it seems. I don’t care if he’s 78 and apparently has some fixation about innocent boys abducted by sex maniacs; even if the plot periodically suggests a remake of Mystic River, the cackling villains belong in a Hopalong Cassidy western, not to mention Dirty Harry. . . .

There may be some here

The view of evil is where I finally came up with something to say in my review. I see it as a comparison of Northcott (the serial killer) and Capt. Jones et al. in the corrupt police system. Northcott is portrayed as having some sort of mental defect which does not excuse him, but does mitigate at some level. He knows he has done terrible things and fears judgment and Hell. You almost have sympathy for him as he mounts the scaffold. The police and hospital folk on the other hand are uncaring bastards who seek their own gain without regard for damage it may cause others. There is not the hint of remorse or repentance. Which evil is deeper?

Darrel Manson wrote:
: The police and hospital folk on the other hand are uncaring bastards who seek their own gain without regard for damage it may cause others. There is not the hint of remorse or repentance.

But isn't that part of Rosenbaum's (and others') criticism of the film? That they have not even a "hint" of redeeming qualities? That they are portrayed in such starkly black-and-white terms?

Far be it from me to defend the film, but I think we're meant to see the chief, captain, doctor in pretty black and white terms. I wish Jolie's character had a bit more shading in it. Certainly I wish Malkovich's character had -- well, any kind of character. It probably says something that the most nuanced character doesn't show up until about 2/3 through the film. So yeah, there are a lot of cartoonish, one dimensional characters. That doesn't mean they can't be used to show some level of reality; it's just less effective than it could be.

Yes! Right with you on this, Christian. I thought it was deeply moving, harrowing at times. From some of the reviews I've read, I went to it expecting an overlong, meandering, but beautifully filmed stinker. And it's not. I don't think this is Eastwood's best - he could have done with keeping the story a little tighter (largely by giving us a little less of Gordon Northcott) but then at the same time I like the way he gave the story some space so it didn't feel rushed and breathless. I don't think it's easy filming true stories, because they don't always conveniently fall into a nice tidy structure. And this is very true to the facts, apparently. Screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski says 95% of it is straight from the historical documents. Figures like that always need to be taken with a pinch of salt (Rev. Briegleb is apparently an amalgam of the real man and his good friend Shuler from a nearby Methodist church - who had a radio ministry, whereas Briegleb didn't - and with whom he campaigned against corruption), but it is interesting to see where lines of dialogue have come out of his source data.

Now I'll read the rest of the topic and find that I've repeated what others have said...

Having read more posts now, I do agree that most characters are rather black or white. I guess when you're trying hard to stay close to what's in the documents, you don't get to see the complexities and shadings. All you see are official reports and witness statements, and such documents tend to be starkly for or against a particular person. The most interesting character (in terms of what you see on screen) is, I think, Carol, the Amy Ryan character, who is, I believe, largely invented. Straczynski says the bit he had to invent was what happened in the hospital. Does this suggest that a screenwriter telling a true story should be more inventive and less constrained by documented facts? If he'd gone the other way and invented lots, he would have been criticised for it.

When Ron Howard was lined up to direct this, he asked for two revisions of the screenplay. But when Eastwood came in instead, he felt that the first draft was better and used it as the shooting script. Maybe a little too hands-off at that point?

Didn't Straczynski say that he invented what happened to Collins in the psycopathic ward, based on documents of what happened to others there during that time? I'm not sure the Ryan character is a composite, although if she is, I would think that her treatment, like that of Collins, is based on what some patients actually did experience. That's taking the screenwriter at his word, however; I haven't seen the source documents, of course.

I watched this movie again Friday night, and I liked it very much again. Jolie does say, "He's not my son" and variants of that over and over again -- Spoutblog, I think, suggested making a drinking game based on those utterances -- but she repeats herself because no one's listening to her. I'm not sure such repetition is problematic in that instance, although a bit more nuance in Jolie's dialogue wouldn't have hurt.

I remain ambivalent about Jolie's performance, while deeply admiring the overall film. However, when the film ended, the first thing my wife said to me was, "Angeline Jolie was marvelous!" FWIW.

Looking again at the production notes, I think I misconstrued what was said. The notes talk briefly about Amy Ryan as Carol Dexter, referring to her as one of Dr. Steel's patients, and then goes on to talk about composite characters (including Det. Ybarra, who I thought was a good character). I think I read it as meaning that these included Carol Dexter. But it doesn't mean that at all. So you're right.

I'm glad you still liked it on second viewing.

From the thread on Gran Torino

In many ways I like the fact that Eastwood operates like this. As a writer (though not a screenwriter), I don't like the way studios rip a screenplay out of the hands of the poor person who's laboured over it for months, and give to a series of script doctors who trample the original vision to a pulp.

On the other hand, if Eastwood is always doing this, does it suggest that he is incapable of seeing the faults or that he is unwilling to challenge the writer? I know that while I may feel very precious about something I've worked long and hard over, there will always be things that can be improved. That's why we have editors.

I stand by my opinion that Changeling is good, but not the brilliant film it could have been, and wonder again how much better it could have been if Eastwood had asked Straczynski to pare it down a little here and there. And will Gran Torino have the same problems?

Incidentally, anyone know what church was used for St. Paul’s and Westlake Presbyterian?

I thought I recognised it, but then wondered whether it was faulty memory. Back in 1993 I went to a Congregational Church in LA that I think was at least similar. I forget what it was called (First Congregational or something forgettable I imagine). I'd be interested to know if it's one of those memory tricks that happen from time to time.

(Something similar happened when I first saw Back to the Future, not long after my first visit to the USA. There was a jolt of recognition seeing the JC Penney and car park, but then I realised that all such places look the same. I'm a little embarrassed to admit it now.)

By the way, I was surprised to see Eastwood also wrote the score. It's obviously not at the level of Shore or Desplat or Williams, but it was effective without being intrusive. I was impressed at him doing it.

Eastwood has written the scores for many, if not most, of his films. He even volunteered to write the score for Grace Is Gone, a film directed by someone ELSE, after he saw a rough cut (or earlier version) of it.

As soon as I'd posted that comment I thought that I really should have checked before posting. So now don't I look stupid? Can't believe I've never noticed before.