THE STORY – After Christine’s son goes missing, she reaches out to the LAPD to find him, but when they try to pass off an impostor as her son to quiet public protests, she refuses to accept him or give up hope.
THE CAST – Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Jeffrey Donovan, Colm Feore, Michael Kelly, Jason Butler Harner, Gattlin Griffith & Eddie Alderson
THE TEAM – Clint Eastwood (Director) & J. Michael Straczynski (Writer)
THE RUNNING TIME – 141 Minutes
Tracking Clint Eastwood’s career has always been a fascinating journey, particularly his work behind the camera. On-screen, he has continued to fit a rather narrow definition of the leading-man archetype. He’s stern, cold, and always a symbol of masculinity. Even if that portrait is somewhat shaded by inner turmoil, like “Unforgiven” or “Million Dollar Baby,” there is still a defining image of him as an actor that has rarely strayed from those familiar lines. His efforts as a filmmaker have been far more diverse. He’ll take on subject matter that appeals to more feminine sensibilities, like “The Bridges of Madison County.” He’ll make a World War II film that dares to empathize with the perspective of an American enemy in “Letter from Iwo Jima.” And in “Changeling,” he focuses on a female-led period piece that acts as both an intense character drama and a heightened political indictment. It’s what makes this film another example of Eastwood’s intriguing instincts as a director. This piece sometimes struggles under the weight of its story, but a commanding central performance is sure to keep one engaged throughout.
Set in 1929, the film follows Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie), a mother living a modest existence in Los Angeles. She works as the manager of a switchboard operation and has few concerns in her life outside of her, Walter (Gattlin Griffith). When forced into work one day, she leaves Walter alone at home. Upon returning that evening, Walter is nowhere to be found. Christine reaches out to the police as the manhunt begins to find her child. Suddenly, news breaks that what seemed impossible has happened: Walter has been found. However, their reunion at the train station is soured when Christine gazes upon the child, and can plainly see that this boy is not her son. She protests, but Captain Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) and Chief Davis (Colm Feore) insist she is making psychological excuses and won’t admit any error. This leads her to launch a crusade to expose the police force’s incompetence, aided by Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich), who uses his sermons to chastise the department for its failures. The police have their own form of retaliation, having Christine secretly committed to a mental institution until she retracts her hostile statements. But she refuses in the face of such opposition, continuing to push for the search for her son to continue. Even more dramatic developments in the case soon come to light, revealing a more widespread evil and the monumental collapse of these political structures, which failed to prevent it.
There’s no question that the film’s greatest asset is Jolie’s performance. It’s a role that requires a great deal of heightened stakes to be portrayed, and there is certainly a fair amount of high-pitched screaming with literal plate throwing that colors these histrionics that can be displayed here. However, much of her performance is underscored with a more subtle terror, an undying fear regarding the fate of her child and the fragile emotional state she must navigate when her crusade begins. The uneasy tremble she displays when the police walk into her job when they believe they found her son is such an impactful moment, as you see the dread that comes from bracing for the worst news, to the exhalation of relief when she first believes her son has been found alive. It’s a treacherous emotional journey she’s on that never falters, and her expressive eyes capture a wide range of concern and determination in the face of extraordinary circumstances. It’s the kind of performance that may carry hallmarks of a predictable outline, but Jolie manages to bring a powerful interiority that is wholly captivating.
Her performance is an essential anchor for a story that’s an expansive web of twists and turns, at times daunting in its scope. The screenplay by J. Michael Straczynski unfolds in a way that escalates tension as the narrative keeps finding new avenues to explore. What begins as a mystery thriller morphs into a psychological drama when Christine enters the mental hospital, then into a dark true-crime exposé as a suspected serial killer enters the fray, and finally into a courtroom drama. Not to mention the social justice aspect that aims to take a critical look at police corruption. What begins as a fairly engaging procedural ends up shifting tone so many times that it’s difficult to stay consistently engrossed. Ultimately, the storytelling meanders so much that momentum becomes very sluggish towards the end. It’s not that there isn’t a clear goal in mind for this tale or its characters, but more so, the ungainly switches in subject matter regarding the true impression one should take from Christine’s plight are too broad and lacking definition. On their own, these separate threads would be captivating, but when strung together, the pacing becomes sluggish.
The strength of the script often dictates Eastwood’s hand as a director, but even though it may not be the strongest foundation he has to stand on here, it’s more solid than some others he has given. He understands how to tap into the mysterious elements quite well, particularly through noirish cinematography that captures ominous shots, such as Walter standing in what will be Christine’s final view of her son. As with many of Tom Stern’s efforts, the darker parts can become a bit too overwhelming, but it once again plays into the shift in tone as the story gets more disturbing. The power of Eastwood’s filmmaking lies in how unobtrusive it can be while still feeling natural to its environment. He establishes a faithful recreation of Los Angeles but allows the scenes to maintain a natural presence. He is not obsessed with grandiose gestures, sweeping camera work, or distinctive blocking, but instead chooses to inhabit the more grounded spaces these characters inhabit. Even his score still has that recognizable pattern of a few notes strung together as if he’s tinkering with a piano in his basement. He still struggles to overcome the dull spots, and it’s certainly not his most accomplished directorial feat. Yet he serves the material well enough to highlight the film’s strengths.
While it makes sense for Jolie to be the main showcase of talent in the film, she’s also the only member of the ensemble who makes such a positive impression. Malkovich will always bring his own amount of alluring screen presence, but his inclusion within the narrative feels underdeveloped for the brief time he’s seen. He gives a serviceable performance, limited by the role’s constraints. Donovan and Feore can get a bit hammy in their portrayals of cartoonish villains, though Donovan does so more. They are part of a pattern of over-the-top antagonists that can be partly excused by the time period, but ultimately are not as effective as the main role. Denis O’Hare shows up as the head doctor of the mental facility and delivers a solid if one-note characterization of a slimy medical professional. Jason Butler Harner shows up as the suspected killer in the third act and definitely gives off more manic energy. Still, it’s inconsistent in its execution, mostly because it’s another aspect that bloats the story. Even Amy Ryan is woefully underused as a companion found during Christine’s hospital stay. The cast has many talented players who are either offering overly broad interpretations or serving thin material with little to elevate it beyond the page.
What ultimately holds “Changeling” back from being a stronger film is its unwieldy storytelling that attempts to cram too many meandering avenues into a single trajectory. Taken in isolation, these are all appealing facets of the narrative, but the transitions between them are far too clunky and don’t create a natural rhythm. It’s easy to become restless with the unfolding events and wish for a more compact execution. However, the filmmaking does its best to navigate these waters, and Jolie’s central performance nearly compensates for the whole enterprise due to her sensational portrayal. It may not be in the upper echelon of Eastwood’s filmography, but it’s an endearing representation of his varied tastes, which have always been appreciated.
