The way I saw it, Changeling felt like a strange love child born out of both the acting style of Angelina Jolie‘s earlier works, i.e., Girl, Interrupted and a visual tale of desperate humanization that Clint Eastwood has begun to constantly barrage our theaters with. Changeling is the story of a mother whose child is kidnapped and when the corrupt police force of L.A., California is slandered by the cities local radio reverend (John Malkovich), they suddenly happen to find her son. Only problem here is, she claims this boy to be someone else. In a nutshell, the story explores criminal activities of the Los Angeles police force in the 1920′s by means of putting a woman in dire trouble. Throughout this true story you’ll find yourself questioning every character. Is the mother sane? Can we trust the Reverend? Who is this mysterious child?
Clint Eastwood’s style of directing, love it or hate it, does do something extraordinary every time. The cinematography in his films is gorgeous and Changeling isn’t one to miss if you enjoy a film that’s good looking. Set in the late 1920′s, Changeling has a tinge of sepia gold light that seems to gloss every character and set throughout the film. It’s very reminiscent of newborn Hollywood, the days before money-hungry movie pushers released 3 to 4 films in a week because they knew our teenage populace would shell out their parents’ hard-earned money to see them. The camera angles and shot progressions are focused and controlled. It really shows how much Clint Eastwood has learned as a director since making Play Misty for Me or Sudden Impact (not that those are bad movies).
As for the acting in Changeling, I was very unimpressed. It was very upsetting to me to see the script of author J. Michael Straczynski turn out the way it did. Angelina Jolie seems to feel that if she cries through enough of the dialogue, she will win an Oscar. This may be true, but does she deserve it? I think not. Watching her acting was my main turn-off from the film. She cries, a lot. When she isn’t crying, she’s acting shy. In a lot of ways, it’s a re-hash job of her previous works (since she’s always trying to entice) but in reality, she plays a single mother in the 1920′s working a modest job in order to support herself and child. How can you bite your lip at every guy that walks down the street with that sort of role? All I guess I’m trying to say is that her acting bored me. In fact, if not for John Malkovich I would have most likely lost any interest in the characters of the film. Though he does drive most of the actions in the film due to the nature of his character, John Malkovich also does a modest job of acting. I’ve always liked his style of acting because he seems to try something new every time. In Changeling, Malkovich plays an activist reverend with a grudge against the L.A. Police force. He wants to see justice brought forth, and it’s not just a religious front.
To summarize, Changeling was worth my time, not because of Jolie’s acting and the fact that she is nominated for best actress in the Academy Awards, but because Eastwood really does know how to direct a good film. Tom Stern does a fine job of creating well-developed imagery through his cinematography. A worthy “must see” if you’re looking for a 1920′s mystery in the vein of Mystic River.
Drama/History/Mystery
Rated R
DVD Release Date: 2/17/09
[...] CHANGELING [...]