MovieChat Forums > cinemacynic > Replies
cinemacynic's Replies
I would say Summer to Christmas. When Edward arrives, Kim is going camping with some of her friends and she wouldn't be able to do that during the school year.
The movie skips over Halloween but by the end of it, we're at Christmas so I think a safe assumption would be August-December.
As this is my all-time favourite movie, there is very little I would change about it. To me, it's perfect.
But I do have a few minor things in mind that I would change:
-More screentime with the Inventor, which was actually the intention of the filmmakers. Vincent Price was supposed to have a much larger role in the film but he was so ill at the time they had to cut down his screentime pretty significantly. He's such an interesting and enigmatic character, I can't help but wonder what his other scenes would have entailed. Sadly, we'll never know what they were.
-I could have done without the sexual humour with Joyce. However, it's only a few minutes of runtime out of the entire film and the rest is so good I can forgive it. Also, the scene in the hair salon actually causes some drama/conflict to happen towards the end of the film so it wasn't completely unnecessary.
Otherwise, nothing. I wouldn't change a thing about it. It's pretty much perfect. It's the only movie aside from The Wizard of Oz that I can give a perfect 10/10.
I just realized two things:
1) The Wizard of Oz has a LOT of double-casting in it. I.E same actors playing different characters in the same film. In Frank Morgan's case, that number is doubled.
2) You don't see double-casting in a lot of movies nowadays so this must be a thing of the past. I wonder why they did it. Was it cheaper to have the same actor play multiple roles or more efficient? I wonder.
I totally agree. As much as I love this movie I always find myself fast-forwarding through this part. No disrespect to Bert Lahr or any of the people who wrote the song. I just feel it slows the movie down considerably. It also fails the "scene importance" test. I.E if you cut this number out of the film, it doesn't change anything about the plot.
I tried to send you a private message but apparently, my account is too new as well. Are you comfortable giving me your email address here?
I should preface this by saying that I absolutely adore The Shining. I've probably watched it at least a dozen times and every time I do I notice something that I didn't before. It's just an absolute masterpiece from beginning to end.
However, I don't agree with how Stanley Kubrick treated Shelley Duvall. I understand what he was trying to do (get the best performance out of Shelley Duvall as possible) but I don't think his methods were morally correct. Shelley was very disturbed during and after working on this film and it's something that she's never quite recovered from. There is such a thing as going too far when it comes to trying to realize your vision as a filmmaker and unfortunately, I think Kubrick did cross that line a bit while making this film.
But all that being said, he is still one of my all-time favourite Directors and I do think Shelley's performance turned out great, despite what she went through during the making of it.
Now, should Jack Nicholson have stepped in and try to support Shelley? Probably. But what you have to understand is that the film was hard on everyone involved, not just Shelley. And that does include Kubrick himself to some extent. He suffered too because he was such a meticulous perfectionist. That's why the film holds the world record for the highest number of takes for a scene: 127.
But back to Nicholson. It's possible that Jack could have been going through his own problems/struggles on set and that, combined with trying to have enough energy just to get through the day and stay in character (days on a film set can be as long as eighteen hours sometimes) maybe he just didn't have it in him to help Shelley out. Or he may have wanted to confront Kubrick about it, but couldn't find the right time or place to do so. None of us were there. We don't know what was going on.
It was a very difficult process for all involved, so frankly its a miracle that the film turned out as good as it did.
Hey now, let's just say they're both great films and leave it at that.
Absolutely idiotic question. Has nothing to do with the film or the story. It is not relevant in any way whatsoever.
Next.
Nah, if anything Denny was just an enabler for Jim's behavior. You can tell he looks very conflicted when Kim is telling him to turn around. Maybe a part of him actually wanted to, but Jim is his best friend (or so we assume anyway) so he would probably listen to Jim first before Kim. That and like another person already said, he probably didn't want to get arrested just like the other characters. Suzanne also appears very nervous and conflicted in this scene but she doesn't say anything.
That said, I do like the moment where Denny starts saying something like "Jesus. Maybe she (Kim) was right about you-" but then Jim cuts him off. (In the scene right before he starts driving drunk and almost hits Kevin.) That to me indicates that he's gone through some character development and is beginning to see Jim's flaws, despite what a minor character he is.
While we're on the subject of Kim and Jim's friends, anyone else find it weird that Suzanne totally disappears after the robbery scene? We never see her again.
I've always thought it was kind of smart of the film to introduce him as just a "regular" teenage boy because at first we have no reason to suspect that he's going to end up as the villain in the end. Sure, he's a bit cocky and arrogant, but he doesn't do anything too devious until the robbery scene. This sort of drives home the point that anyone can be "a bad guy" even the blonde, popular jock. Real monsters are deceiving.
It's good to be back :)
Oh, wow thank you for that compliment :) Yes I was very passionate in those days, even if I didn't yet completely understand how films were made. I'm just realizing that I am a whopping two years late on this thread. I do apologize! If I had known people were still active here, I definitely would have come around sooner. I just assumed that the gang on the IMDB forums had all gone their separate ways.
Anyway! Did you get the new Changeling blu-ray release that came out last year? I did. It looks absolutely phenomenal! There's such a difference in picture quality, compared to the DVD version. It's awesome. And there's BTS features on it as well.
Also, I heard there might be a remake coming out in 2020. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on that. I know I have a few of my own. Perhaps a subject for a different thread?
Yes! it took me a while but I'm finally here :) I remember you as well! So good to see a familiar name active again on this thread!
You're very welcome! And thank you. Working in film has given me such an appreciation for the craft that I never thought possible. I absolutely love it.
If you ever want to catch up in PM's my inbox is open to you :)
If you ever get one, it is worth every penny. I promise. I'll be honest with you, the first two scenes (car accident and opening credits) for whatever reason still look a little grainy/blurry however once the movie starts to settle in, it looks fantastic. Especially the darker/scarier parts. They've cleaned it up really nicely. Also, there are tons of bonus features that come with the disc that the DVD didn't have. So it's definitely worth checking out, if you ever get a player. (I should mention that if you have a PlayStation 3 or 4, they can also play blu-rays. That's how I watched The Changeling, actually.)
At age eight, most children have begun (if they haven't already) to realize what's real and what's pretend. They (should) have enough maturity and intelligence to determine as much, anyway. But in all things risky or potentially dangerous, film productions will always err on the side of caution. After all, no life is worth ruining for the sake of a fictional story.
Let's suppose that Way was a little smarter and more emotionally mature than Lloyd was but because he was still only eight and definitely a minor in the eyes of Actor Union laws, the utmost caution would be exercised around him. And everyone in the production would do their best to make him as comfortable as possible.
It would have almost certainly been a private blocking (dry rehearsal) between himself, the unknown actor who played his father, Peter Medak (Director), the DP (director of photography), the 1st Assistant Director, the camera operator and of course, Voldi Way's parents who were legally required to be on set with him at all times.
Up until rehearsals, the crew would be allowed on set for the sake of setting up and lighting the scene. But once those cameras start rolling, the set would then be completely shut off to anyone except the individuals mentioned above. Because of their tendency to be shy or nervous, child actors can get easily overwhelmed when there are too many people on set and so it was absolutely VITAL that only key personnel were allowed in there during the filming of such a dramatic and difficult scene. Children also do not have very long attention spans, so the room would have had to have been cleared of all distractions so that Way could focus on his performance. Minimize noise, get rid of any equipment that wasn't needed, etc.
As for the actual staging of the drowning itself, I agree that the best approach would have been to turn it into a game. "Can you show me how long you can lay still with your eyes open?" Peter Medak might have said to him, for example. He may have even promised some kind of reward for Way if he gave a really good performance. Children are thankfully very easily persuaded so I'm sure it wasn't too hard to convince him to pretend to be drowned.
After all, children love to play pretend.
I for one, think he did an amazing job with this scene and I absolutely believe it when I watch it. It really does look like he is being drowned and fighting for his life. A brutal and uncompromising scene. One that has stuck with me for years.
Oh my! There's some new and really interesting discussions on this thread. It's been quite a while since I was last here and I'm very happy to see people are still having thought-provoking conversations about this amazing film. (I used to be "Sewaat". I don't know if anyone remembers me.)
There is something that I'd like to add onto the above subject that may be of interest (if anyone is still watching this thread, that is):
I work in film production now. And from what I understand, the protocol for working with child actors on set, especially in horror, is to shield and protect them as much as possible from physical, emotional or psychological harm. The kind of trauma that could emerge from doing a scene as intense as this one is nothing to scoff at. And if not handled properly, children can and WILL be affected by performing in these kinds of scenes, almost certainly for the rest of their lives, even if they don't remember it.
When they were filming The Shining (a movie I would put right next to The Changeling as it's equal) Stanley Kubrick and co. were extremely careful not to let young Danny Lloyd (the child actor playing Danny) realize that what they were working on was in fact, a horror film. And he was none the wiser about it until he had grown up.
However, the main difference between Danny Lloyd and Voldi Way (the actor playing Joseph in the drowning scene) is their age. Lloyd was only five years old, so of course he would have had to have been well catered to in order to prevent any kind of trauma from occurring. This is understandable, especially for a child that young.
But Way was eight years old when they filmed The Changeling. He had an extra three years of emotional maturity on Lloyd. Not much, but there was probably just enough age and wisdom there for him to avoid being traumatized for life. (They did have a child psychologist on set, btw. I'm not sure if it was just for the duration of shooting that one scene or the other scenes that involved child actors, but I know they did.)
(Continued in the next post below.)
Ehhhh that's a bit debatable. The thing that I loved about Vincent Price's character in this movie was how different he was from the typical "mad scientist" cliche so that doesn't really resonate with me. But I see where you're going with that.
I mean, this is a fantasy film after all, so it's kinda silly to question it. Kind of like westerns, actually.
Someone else on this thread said something similar but the thing is, I don't think (originally) Edward was supposed to be as complex as he was. Because even the first drawing of him had those scissors hands attached to his wrists so it wasn't like it they were unintentional. I'm actually not even sure if they were ever meant to be temporary because I think initially, the Inventor was thinking: "Wouldn't it be nice to have a machine here that was actually alive?" (hence the cookie heart metaphor). And that was probably as far as the idea went, at that point.
But as Edward got closer and closer to being finished, I'm thinking the Inventor ended up changing his mind and decided to make him more like a regular person and eventually, have regular hands. Which he did make for him, except it was of course, too late.
You know it's funny, I've been watching this film for years. But only recently I've realized that there is no doubt that Jim's father was cruel and/or abusive to him. It's so clear, especially from the way Jim talks about him. Plus, it makes a lot of sense when you think about why Jim is the way he is, as a person. Where do you think he learned all of that shitty behavior from? It's so obvious, I'm stunned I never realized it earlier.
I'm honestly a little surprised that we never saw Jim's father, considering he actually played somewhat of a crucial role when it came to the burglary scene and the aftermath.
"My old man thinks he's retarded, otherwise (Edward) would still be in jail!" That's a pretty damn crucial plot element and yet we never see this guy. What gives?
As much as I hate Jim (because it's his fault the neighbourhood starts to turn against Edward) I can see where you're going with this. I don't know if it would have been necessary to the plot of the film to have Jim make amends with his father, but I would have liked to have seen at least one scene with him.
Hoo boy I am YEARS late to this thread, but yes. I concur with the last response. I saw his character as morally grey, meaning that he wasn't really bad or good. He was just doing what he thought would be right. Hell, his final words are "It was the only way" meaning that he felt justified in his actions right until the very end. So far, this has been my favourite of Vincent Price's performances. I'm steadily catching up on watching his best films. I've only got a couple more to go I think. But I doubt any of them will top this one.
I really enjoyed the movie as a whole, honestly. It was far better than I thought it was going to be and pretty damn scary for 1960. Thoroughly impressed.
That answer works too!