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.
Stevens, and Stephanie Zacharek, and Ella Taylor are among the many critics who have noted that Jolie is essentially miscast in the role of Christine Collins, a fragile woman who hides her slightly hunched, rail-thin frame behind flowing layers and a giant cloche hat. Jolie’s strength, her sex appeal, the almost otherworldly confidence that makes her so genuinely fun to watch as a blockbuster anchor –– there’s room for none of that to shine through in this dreary story of a single mother who is suckered into an LAPD conspiracy, and yet manages to stay weepily polite about it for a good 80% of the film, even when dragged into the loony bin. It’s who she meets when she gets to said institution that really throws the split between the Angelina Jolie who wants an Oscar now, and the Angelina Jolie who won an Oscar eight years ago –– and trumped her own victory headline before the night was out by kissing her brother –– into sharp relief. 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.
In Girl, Interrupted, Jolie was just supposed to set up the pins of Ryder’s long-nurtured Oscar-baiting vanity project so that the lead actress (and at the time, much bigger star) could knock them down. It didn’t work that way, and really Ryder should have known better than to assume that her comparatively prim self-consciousness would have a chance up against the larger-than-life Jolie in the much flashier role. Jon Voight’s daughter had been slowly building an image for several years as uncomfortable Hollywood royalty, rebelling via the usual means –– tattoos, knives, bisexuality, a foolish lack of filter and willingness to promote her own libertinism — but the added spotlight afforded by the run-up to the Girl, Interrupted Oscar suddenly made her growing pains seem glamorous. Her tough girl hedonism and its extreme difference from co-star Ryder’s boyish, non-threatening, very early-90s sexuality made the latter seem outmoded.
Amy Ryan, already an established character actress and Oscar nominee, will probably not see the same bump in celebrity, but her character plays the same catalyst role as Jolie’s in Interrupted, and the performance similarly cracks Changeling wide open. She plays mouthy, ballsy (but kind-hearted!) prostitute Carol who imparts on Christine the learned wisdom that she’ll need to survive in This Place while upholding little interest in self-preservation. To her captors, she telegraphs the illusion that she cannot be contained, but Christine understands that her new friend’s rebellion is actually a kind of theater, and what’s more, it’s more often than not selfless–Carol acts up to distract attenton away from Christine, and ultimately, offers herself to up to punishments so that Christine will be spared. We thus understand that Christine is victim of the system, the one who doesn’t belong in This Place, while Carol — even if she’s innocent of the psychiatric charges against her — has no normal life to go back to. She has nothing to lose, and so she’ll go through everything and anything so that our heroine can’t come out free.
One wants to be upset at Jolie for going for the bloodless supposed Oscar sure thing at the expense of playing to what we perceive as her strengths, as if her own experience netting a statuette should have taught her the folly of such a thing. The “old” Angelina would never have done such a thing, we sniff. As if the “old” Angelina Jolie — the tattooed man-eater, the weird girl on the cover of MAXIM who seemed to be enacting the revenge of the teenage outcast –– ever really meant as much as she seemed to mean, for awhile, just by virtue of existing. Nowadays, it’s almost impossible to remember that this woman once seemed like a loose-canon anecdote to the industry of celebrity, before she became its chief moving cog.
The fact is, Angelina Jolie has become such a huge star, she’s so overseen, that now it’s as if she can’t be seen. And so she can front a disposable film like Wanted on bad girl autopilot and rack up the box office victory, and no one comments on her performance because she has become so practiced at that kind of role that there’s no longer anything to say. It’s east to forget that Jolie is only now typecasted because she was somehow able to invent a new type of type. What made Jolie initially impressive and exciting––that she was simultaneously scary and sexy, smart and strong, unpredictable but in control––has been flattened down into the Angelina Jolie brand, and that brand has become a summer blockbuster mainstay. She’ll never be able to impress us with it again. And yet, when she deviates from her persona––on the rare occasions when she dares to actually show up and try––it’s read as desperate Oscar baiting. It’s a no win.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t complain. There’s a scene in Changeling where, in a desperate, futile gesture, Jolie hurls a plate of macaroni at a wall (yes, it’s that kind of film) and shrieks, “I want MY son back!” It’s hard to watch the film and not think, “I want MY Angelina Jolie back!”
OMG, GROW UP! The woman is 33 yrs old. She’s not some angst ridden teen-ager anymore. She’s a decent, dedicated partner, actress and mother and yet she’s so much more then that. Stop trying to hold this woman to 1998. It’s clear that there are so many people who are stuck in their own lives and wand Jolie to be the same way.
Girl Interrupted doesn’t exist anymore . And guess what? It was a character in a MOVIE she played.!! You clearly can’t distinguish between the person and the character on film. Therefore, you’re already seeing her on the screen as Angelina Jolie and not an actress playing a role. That’s your issue not hers.
Your review is well, eh, not that great for what I think is a really great film, although I haven’t seen it yet and I can’t wait. I just love how all of these opines come out about how Jolie wants an oscar. How the heck do you know what she wants? You are creating that she wants an oscar. I’m with Jolie and she says she wanted to work with Clint Eastwood, who wouldn’t? Jolie doesn’t need your ransacked critiques to bring her down. You’ve got your opine, it’s expressed and it’s meh. I’ll take my own opine any day. I give it a thumbs up - the movie looks awesome and Jolie gets to show her range of talent - that she can play serious dramatic roles and fantasy sexy villain or heroine roles. She is damn good that’s all there is to it. It would be cool if she won an oscar, and if she does, she very well deserves it.
You know what I find sad in all of this? that serious movie criticism is going down the drain and it is turning into these rants based on mindless, silliness and tabloid-ly wastes of time.
The more negative stuff (like this) I read, the more I am convinced that Angelina delivered a powerful performance. Every person that I have spoken to has nothing but raves on the film and on Jolie’s performance and even those people that did not like the film say that she was very good in it, even if the film was flawed.
@Pamgela: 1. This is not a review. 2. How can you think a movie is really great if you haven’t seen it?
I have to agree here, Angela is an actor, she acts the part that is written. Too often, people attribute a story line to the actor. As if the actor wrote the story themselves.
I never expect an actor to act the same in any movie. I, actually, despise it when the studios obsessively type cast actors. I love to see actors do different types of roles. I think the problem is that, for you, maybe the characters she has played in the past, has given you a sort of super hero role model that you looked up too. The only problem is that it was a character in a script. It’s not her actual personality.
I have watched the film and I think is good, riveting and with a great sense of justice. At the end, everyone in my theater gave a round of applause and I heard some people crying because they were deeply moved by Christine Collins. I don’t think anyone who is NOT a mother, > 30 can really relate to this kind of film, I thought that Jolie was very convincing because any mother who loses her child would go insane.
I would go watch it and formulate my own conclusions, because I have yet to see a review that does not sound more like silly rant by people that have no set foot in a film making course or bloggers with a mask of critics. The person that wrote this article is an Angelina Jolie hater, I have read her other rants against AJ already, so of course no one who loves serious films, like those made in the 30’s and 40’s should give credence to something like this.
This sounds like a personal problem. Solution? Don’t go to her movies anymore and don’t review them.
The entire story fascinates me. It sounds so bizarre it is crazy to think it is based on real events
[...] • Boy…Karina Longworth really doesn’t like Angelina Jolie’s work in “Changeling.” [Spout Blog] [...]
Count me in with the sentiments and critiques by the other posters of your opinion. I won’t itemize the half wrong and half right that you got of Angelina Jolie. But Angelina desperate for an Oscar? That’s your and certain others’ projections. If she was chasing Oscar, she wouldn’t do action films. Angelina Jolie is still spontaneous when it comes to choosing her projects, balancing intense films like Gia with brain-on-automatic films like Gone in 60 Seconds. She chose Kung Fu Panda and Wanted in between A Mighty Heart and Changeling - the same year of her mother’s death - so that she wouldn’t end up in bed with the sheets pulled over her head. If Angelina wanted an Oscar, she would have been calculating about her career path. Sasha Stone of Awards Daily got it right, Angelina makes movies to fund her UNHCR humanitarian projects, her fans, and to please herself.
I’ve been following Angelina Jolie’s activities ever since she adopted Maddox and became UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador. I find it extremely interesting, as a feminist of the old school in the 1970s, that her severest critics are other women - often for contradictory reasons.
THANK YOU! great article. To the other commentators; Think, but don’t hurt yourself now.
@HaddeY: Typically smug - THINK what that says about you. But don’t hurt yourself now.
Angelina Jolie. Yawn. The only thing more monotonous was watching Clint pimp the movie by fawning over Jolie’s beauty. Bo-ring.
Great review. Honest. Clear. To the point. But you know what? It’s like the Emperor’s new Clothes.
Funny how outraged people can become over the review of a performance.
So by your rationale, she should stick to playing weirdos?
Now, that WOULD be typecasting.
She’s a mother to several young children; for her to prattle around snogging relatives and playing with knives would be, how do you say… irresponsible.
Do you think the same of Johnny Depp for giving up his ‘wild’ lifestyle in order to provide a stable environment for his young children?
It’s called maturity, and it is vital when you have children.