Hope I'm doing this right ;p
This is the discussion thread for At The Movies. The Changeling is my pick for a film to watch over the next two weeks.
Anyone can participate, but if you'd like to join our (very loosely structured and non-demanding) group, feel free to read about it and sign up here:
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/597e25e78d005c00119f15f8/ATM-A-film-discussion-group-Information-Sign-Up-and-Roster
Have fun!
I'm sorry. I tried to watch it. I even spent some time to find link to watch it online that are not blocked. I watched the movie for a couple of minutes. The first scene was good. Devastating and gripping. I almost felt the sorrow of the main guy. Having his family killed in front of his eyes and all, while he was trapped in a phonebooth. Great direction.
However, after he played the piano in the newly purchased house I realized that it's a horror movie and I don't like horror movies. On top of that it's the haunted house genre, which I dislike even more. So, when he stopped playing the piano and left, the piano played a note by itself, I rolled my eyes, cringed for awhile, then proceed to pause the movie.
Well, that was it.
Thanks for playing anyway, Action. I had a similar experience watching the first few minutes of your choice. But hey, at least we tried, even if our tastes are very dissimilar. E for Effort, I say.
shareThat's so dumb. Just because (you think) you don't like horror movies doesn't mean you couldn't possibly like any horror movie.
shareI can handle horror movies in general like Saw, The Rite or most recently Split. It just "haunted house" sub-genre of horror which I just can't. Some people consider superheroes silly, well I consider haunted houses silly. I mean, it's a house. And a piano that can play a note by itself. What's next? Doors that closes themselves? Lights that turn on and off erratically? Oh, boy....
Some people can dislike superhero movies, why can't I do the same for haunted house movies?
This one of my favorite horror movies of all time.
The main reason-it's simple.
It doesn't need blood and killers and a lot of special effects to be good.
It relies on the story and the actors.
Its got some great scenes. The scene in the bedroom where the little girl sees the Joseph's body is outstanding.
The scene where Scott first sees what happened and of course the wet ball coming down the steps after it
was dropped in the river.
I felt Scott became obsessed at trying to find out what was going on. Since Joseph was communicating with him
because of what happened to his daughter. This was kind of a way for him to help put to rest the memory of his daughter.
My favorite ghost story movie - actually saw it in the theater back in 1980.
shareMine too. I somehow missed this in the theater.
I'd love to see this on the big screen, as well as many others. No doubt your initial experience has stayed with you even later, seeing it on a small screen.
Do you remember what it was like for you, seeing it back in 1980? Obviously it made an impact.
I was 17 and went with another guy and two girls. I remember one of the girls had her hands over her eyes through the scarier scenes and the other almost screamed during the wheelchair scene. It was an older dark theater which has been replaced by a Cineplex now. Great memories.
The producer of this movie was able to get two actors of great quality (Scott and Douglas) to act in a low budget Canadian film. This was unusual in 1980. The producer was a guy named Garth Drabinsky who went to jail a few years ago for financial fraud.
Very interesting to hear your first experience with this film, in a theatre. Thank you for describing it.
I've only seen it streamed online, and the wheelchair scene seemed hokey to me, as was the medal scene, but I wonder if it'd have been different if I'd seen it in a theatre, back when.
Hadn't realised this was a low-budget Canadian film or knew anything about the producer, Garth Drabinsky. Given it was a low-budget film, IMO they knocked it out of the park.
One of my favourites horror/ghost story movies as well. The only one that tops it is the original The Haunting.
For me a truly stand-out scene was when George C was lying in bed crying, no longer able to hide or stuff down or contain the profound grief he felt at the double loss of his wife and child. As if that wasn't bad enough, he witnessed it, helpless to do anything to stop it. At first he could bury it well enough with practical matters -- packing, the move, finding a place to live. But that night, alone, finally alone with just his thoughts.… The one tear either rolling down the side of his face or pooling in a corner.
Brilliantly acted, written, and directed. So raw, so real. And then, the sound. He must have even felt grateful for it on some level.
Also loved the first thing he did was to get a plumber over, because who wouldn't first think it was the pipes, or furnace, or something sensible and practical? Was it you who said you liked this film because George C reacted in ways you would have done? Or maybe it was Hownos, or someone else. In any event, I felt the same way.
Scott's expression when he sees the wet ball bouncing down the stairs is excellent.
Agree he became obsessed trying to figure out what was really going on, but then I'd have done the same, even if my child hadn't been tragically killed.
I think it was you and I who discussed that he did what we would do and we agreed we would do
just what he did.
That scene with Scott in bed was very good. You felt that with all that had happened this maybe was
the first time he was able to let his emotions go.
I think the obsession was his way of getting his mind off of what happened.
If he could figure out why this spirit was trying to contact him he could bring peace to it and maybe himself
It must have been the two of us talking about that.
Good point about the obsession being a way of getting his mind away from the pain of his grief.
I loved the clothes in this movie. George C Scott plays a composer so he gets to wear a rust colored corduroy jacket with leather elbow patches- the professor look. Trisha Van Devere wears this beautiful formal dress that has a spiderweb lace inset for a scene at the opera. Anyway, the late seventies and the forties are the best fashion decades, in my opinion, so I really liked he way this movie looks. The house that they used is ideal, the woodwork is so beautiful. The story is simple, as godewey said above, but it's good. There are some parts that I think were in there because it was a trendy topic at the time, but seem pretty far fetched to me in 2017. The whole séance scene is a kind of wacky but I know that it was sort of a popular belief back then. It's a supernatural movie so you have to suspend disbelief. My favorite part of the movie- it has Melvyn Douglas! It's a pleasure to watch him in anything, his part was too small but he's a legend. He still had that great voice. Also there was Madeline Sherwood. I've always liked her a lot (by the way, she was blacklisted) and she was also only in the movie for a short time but at least we got a couple of scenes with a terrific actor. SPOILER: I thought it was kind of unfair that the Senator had to die. He had nothing to do with the death of the real Joseph Carmichael. It seemed like he genuinely loved his murderer father but the ghost wanted revenge? That doesn't seem fair.
shareI think the Senator knew or at least suspected that he was a changeling
shareI'm with you.
He would have been about 6 when this happened. He would have 100% known what had happened.
Yeah, he knew he wasn't Joseph Carmichael but still he was an orphaned little boy. The defense of his dad seemed genuine and I think that's why John just walks out. He didn't give the Senator a big fight after John confronted him. The senator says something like, "I loved my father. He was a good man." Then John sees the Senator is authentic and he leaves.
I know, it's me, I totally want the Senator to be good because it's Melvyn Douglas!
Do you remember the timeline of when that house was sold ?
They ran through who owned the house and when.
What I'm trying to remember if Melvyn Douglas ever lived in that house as a boy.
Ehh, first the Carmichaels, then the couple with the little girl who got killed by the coal cart. I don't think they went into who owned or lived in the house after that, but believe Trish's character or historical society lady mentioned prior renters or owners, and that it'd been empty for a while.
I'm pretty sure the senator lived there at some point after he was brought back from Europe.
Why would he? He may have had some buried or vague memories of being an orphan, which we were shown surfacing when GCS's character confronted him with the medal at the airport, which clearly unsettled him. But why would he have any reason to think he was a changeling, or replacement child?
shareWhy do you think that they were so against people staying in the house ?
He had that lady call him when Scott rented the house. Melvyn didn't want anybody in that house for some reason.
I thought it was primarily because they knew the house was haunted by Joseph. Historical society woman definitely had a connection with the senator, and was trying to protect him and his reputation (?) in some manner. Or did he help fund the historical society and she feared losing his financial support? Not sure.
You do have a good point about the senator not wanting the house to be rented. Oh! It just occurred to me, I wonder if Senator Carmichael himself encountered Joseph when he was a child, like Cora (?) did, which triggered vague and uneasy memories he'd had before and after he was adopted, which he then buried.
It was obvious in the scene at the airport seeing George C with the medal set him off and upset him. I just don't see how and why he'd have ever put it together that Carmichael Sr. murdered his own child and replaced him.
This is what I was getting at.
If "new" Joseph lived in that house he would have had to seen the ghost.
Maybe even the same thing Scott saw. That is why the Senator was so against anybody being in that house.
When he saw Scott at the airport all those memories came back.
Maybe that is why his family moved in the first place. Over time he forgot about it then it all came back
to him when Scott confronted him.
Aha, I missed where you were headed. He may have seen, and heard, the same things Scott saw, or his father did, and that's why they moved. Don't know.
I got so curious last night, I watched it again. Halfway, and then fell asleep so I don't know what other clues were given.
I did find out that the house had last been occupied 12 years before it was given to the historical society. Historical society woman (HSW) told Scott that, and "No one's been able to live in it. The house doesn't want anyone there." She also said the senator was on their board of directors.
Carmichael Sr., as far as I know, sold the house to the Bernards, whose daughter ran out into the street and was hit by the coal cart and died, in 1909. After that, the house was either sold to or rented to a series of people, until around 1968, when it was donated to the historical society.
Trisha's character couldn't find any records for the occupants of the house prior to 1920. *Something* happened to those records. HSW is the only likely culprit, doing it as a favour because the senator sat on their board.
So he obviously knew the house was haunted, whether or not he actually saw Joseph himself, and either feared it'd reflect poorly on the family name, OR increase the chances of someone finding out what happened to the real Joseph. I'm not sure which it is.
I've never thought to particularly notice the costuming. Will have to pay closer attention to it next time I see it. I do agree that overall the clothes of the 40s and 70s are excellent, in general.
Did you know there was no house, and all of it was done on sound stages, with the exteriors of the house being only a shell or front? They did a *great* job. Until I read that, I thought it was filmed on location of an actual house. Must have cost them a lot to build those sets. The woodwork is indeed beautiful, as are all the rest of the details.
A lot of even current fans found the seance scene to be chilling or compelling. Can't say as I did, but I did think it was logical that a professor would go to someone at a university to find answers, pragmatic answer having failed him.
I don't know either actor you mentioned, or what parts they played. Would have to look them up. The only actor in it I thought wasn't especially good was Trish Van Devere.
I agree about the senator. He sensed or had vague memories about something, probably his adoption and arriving at the house. The memories began to resurface when George C confronted him with the medal at the airport. But he wasn't responsible for his father murdering his own flesh and blood son, so he could retain the inheritance.
I have a couple of criticisms, as much as I like the film and think overall it's very effective. One is the above, another is how could a parent capable of murdering their own child for money become a decent enough father to a changeling to engender that kind of love and loyalty? I also hated the scene where the footage of the medal being dragged down into the earth was reversed. I know, it was 1980, special effects were anything but developed, but to me it was impossibly hokey and unnecessary.
There were a couple of silly special effects. The necklace scene and the loud banging noise situation dated the movie.
Wow, I can't believe that house was a set. I loved the entrance doors. They were beautiful with those porthole windows. The bookcases were incredible. I thought it was weird that the bookcases didn't contain many books.
I was okay with the banging noise, but that necklace, ugh. They should have thought of another way to show that. It's not like there weren't other ways.
I was surprised and disappointed it wasn't shot in a real house. It was so beautiful. Yes, the entry doors and the stained glass windows, and the bookcases. I didn't think it was odd the bookcases didn't have books because its last residents were years earlier, and they'd probably rented it furnished, as George C did.
Yes, good point!
shareI'm going to repeat myself, but I liked the seanse. I think it was the rhythm of the automatic writing /or whatever you call it/ coupled with the somewhat detached way the medium was speaking. It had a nice build to it, I think.
I also liked the reversed footage medalion scene. But I always find tricks like that neat, so it definitely is a matter of personal taste I feel.
What I didn't like was the sound recording of the seanse, with the voice of the little kid captured. This is to be expected in a ghost film, but it irked me for some reason.
So you "manned up" and saw it, yay! I liked the way they handled the automatic writing and the medium's monotone. But I didn't find any of it scary.
For me it was so obvious the necklace was filmed being pulled down into the earth and then reversed to make it seem like it was coming up out of the ground, it irked me and pulled me out of the movie.
I found it tense, not scary either. I wasn't frightened by any of it honestly. It was more tragic and a bit horrific, but not horrifying.
It was very obvious what they did, but as I said, I enjoy seeing these little tricks in movies. It takes me out of the movie as well, but I don't mind it so much.
The only part I found horrifying was when they showed Joseph being drowned by his father. It was very realistic and I wondered what it was like for the child who played Joseph to do a scene like that.
shareThat was an excellent scene! I always wonder how the actors play scenes like that, since I'm a bit afraid of being under water. Just the real world mechanics of it make my hair stand on end.
share"Just the real world mechanics of it make my hair stand on end."
Mine as well. It's one thing if the actor is an adult, but for a child to play such a violent and disturbing scene, I have to wonder how they pulled this off without causing any sort of trauma to him.
I really hope they turned the whole thing into a game of some sort. The child doesn't have to know what the film context is, so it can be approached as just splashing about in a tub.
That would have been the best way to handle it, although he was submerged and struggling. No doubt he later saw the film, but hopefully the way he was directed on set was in some kind of playful way, and after the fact, it didn't matter to him.
shareOh 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.)
I remember you, Sewatt! Nice to see you found your way to MovieChat :)
Thanks for the insight on how these things were handled, and congrats on your job in film production!
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 :)
Welcome back :)
It's wonderful you're working in film! Seemed to me, back on IMDb, that's where you belonged, so I'm happy to hear you're there, and loving it.
Wish you'd been here when we did the At The Movies viewing of it, but what's most important is you're here now 😊
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?
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.
I liked the séance scene. I've seen some where all they do is chant and moan. I thought it was well done compared to some.
It was popular back then. Remember everything about ESP and psychic phenomena in the 70's ?
It was everywhere. Movies and TV. Didn't they actually have shows about people with ESP?
I don't think he knew about what his father did but he had to know that he wasn't the real son.
He would have had to change his name to Joseph. Not to mention people would have talking about him being cured.
Yes, there's no question that the Senator knew he wasn't Joseph but he may not have known the extent of the crime. It really seemed like he didn't when he was talking to John. He definitely knew he was assuming another person's identity. He would have had to lie about the cure, no doubt. But truly, isn't he a victim of the father as much as the original Joseph.
I was pretty little in the 70s but I remember that all the supernatural stuff was pretty popular. I remember my friend's mom doing astrology charts and people talking about stuff like that. My friends who had older sisters and brothers had Quiji(sp?) boards. It was a thing for sure.
Now I'm going to have to watch it again! Last time I saw it was 6-9 months ago. I want to see if there's any clear indication the senator knew he was a replacement for Joseph.
shareI agree. He was a victim. He didn't ask to be brought into this situation.
Why would he say anything. He was an orphan brought into a family of wealth and prestige not to
mention he was just a child. After while it was just normal.
Ah yes, the Ouija board. Those were fun times.
The Girl With ESP, The Girl With Something Extra, The Sixth Sense with Gary Collins are ones I remember.(barely)
Sometime today I'm going to watch the remaining half and see if I can pick up any other hints. I agree Joseph2 was also a victim. Even if he had some recall about being adopted and whooshed away from the orphanage, and then plopped down into a foreign environment when he was, puzzlingly, suddenly called Joseph, he had nothing whatsoever to do with the murder of Joseph1, or even covering up for it.
I'd like to know if there were any hints that Joseph2 lived in the house afterwards, and saw Joseph1's apparition. The senator obviously knew something was going on in the house, but did he have reason to believe his father murdered his own son and he was the replacement? I don't know.
Someone on the old IMDb boards suggested a prequil, which I'd *love* to see, if it were well done. What happened with Cora? Obviously she'd discovered Joseph's room, as a child discovering a house would, and be attracted to his room on the uppermost and remote storey would, where it was evident another child had lived. But what did she see or experience? Why did she run out in front of that coal cart to begin with? Was it because Joseph's "ghost" scared her after befriending her? Or was it for some other reason?
It had to have been the Bernards who boarded up Joseph1's room, as Cora's workbook was dated 1909. Why did they board it up? Because they knew Cora had seen Joseph and he had something to do with her death? If so, what, and why?
Great points Cat.
I would have to rewatch this and pay special attention to the dates to see if was determined if
J2 lived in this house at anytime.
It was definitely eluded to that Cora had to have seen something. Not a just a coincidence.
A prequel would make sense. I fear it is now to late. Would have been great back in the day.
I would think if they did it now it wouldn't have the same feel.
All these questions is what makes this such a great movie.
I didn't get a chance to watch the rest yesterday, but will today.
Yes, Cora was in his room and obviously spent some time there, so she had to have seen or heard something. The film also eludes that her death was caused by her reacting to Joseph. Maybe that day was the first time he showed himself to her, in the same vision he showed GCS, which scared her so badly she ran out of the house and into the street.
No doubt you're right about it being too late for a prequel. It didn't make enough of a splash when it was released to warrant one, let alone now. All the same, personally I'd love to see one! Amongst many other questions I'd love answers to, I'd like to know why -- and when -- the records for the house were missing all the way up to 1920, 11 years after the Bernards left. What happened after they left? A lot of fun material to work with.
Just finished watching, and have some answers.
Carmichael Sr. bought the house in 1899, and sold it 1906. He spirited J2 away to Switzerland immediately after murdering J1, not returning until 1918, after WWI ended. So J2 never was in the house.
Curiously, Claire could find the records on the house from 1920-1967, but said nothing strange happened there during that time. An architect bought it in 1965, and sold it in 1967. At that point it was given to the historical society, courtesy of the Carmichael Foundation.
Drmccormack was right, when GCS confronted J2 in his office, he could see J2 did not know he was a changeling and his father had murdered J1. He even apologized to him.
So I don't know why J2 didn't want anyone living in the house, unless the architect & family saw or experienced J1 in some way after they bought it, and started talking about it.
Just a note of interest, Cora's workbook was dated January 4, 1909, and she ran out into the street on February 15th. Could be she left her workbook there, never returning for it for over a month, because J1 scared her.
Wow.
Great work Cat.
It is strange that he wanted nobody in the house without knowing what his father had done.
I'm sure he would have had to hear the stories about what was happening in that house.
Also strange that nothing happened for nearly 50 years. Was J1 waiting for the right person
to help him?
With what he knew about what had happened to him and hearing the stories makes me
believe he had to suspect something. Not necessarily the murder but something.
Makes you wonder that maybe on the 15th she went back for her notebook and saw him.
Thanks, Dewey. It was fun.
Yes, very strange. Also, if he really didn't want people living in the house, why didn't he buy it back long before 1967? He had the money. As far as the film goes, all we know for sure is J1 showed himself to Cora and John. Later to Claire and J2. Cora's family knew something, or they wouldn't have boarded up his room. Architect & Family may have experienced something, but nothing was mentioned to make that clear enough.
Good thought. She could have gone back f or her notebook, maybe thinking it was safe, and then he scared her very badly. Funny, before noticing this I'd imagined he'd befriended her at first, and later went into a rage that scared her into the street. Oh right, he killed her too! Not such a sympathetic character after all, little Joseph.
I was thinking maybe that's why he only showed himself to the little girl, the Architect and family
and to Scott.
The little girl was a child, the Architect had children and Scott just lost a child.
He was trying to communicate with them because of the children.
The people who stayed there in between maybe didn't have kids.
For some reason he wouldn't or couldn't.
You're right about Joseph. He was a bit of a pistol wasn't he.
Seems hard to believe that no one who lived in the house for those 50 years had any kids until the architect.
A bit of a pistol, LOL! You're a master of understatement, you are.
Well done compared to some, sure. But I still don't get why so many thought it was an especially effective and chilling scene. I may be jaded :)
I think I recall shows about people with ESP. Definitely movies and TV, but then they're still popular. There are *tons* of them around now, and for the past 5 or so years.
Yes, he would have suddenly been called Joseph. Too much of a coincidence for Carmichael to have found an orphan who not only looked like Joseph, but also shared his name! But people do repress unwanted memories commonly enough, and he was only a small child when this happened.
Carmichael was very wealthy (with his blood money) so it's very unlikely the servants would have talked about him being cured, or making any reference to his ill health. If he lived in a rarified economic climate, it's unlikely anyone would have the "poor taste" to reference it within his earshot, let alone to his face. At the time this took place, somewhere in the late Victorian to early Edwardian era, That Wasn't Done.
So, I watched it, and it was pretty good. I don't know if I'd put it in a "favourites" category, but it was well worth the watch.
Firstly, I loved the score. It really enhanced the atmosphere /as good scores do lol/. I haven't watched an older horror film in a while and I'd forgotten how good the music used to be back in the day and how it served to highlight the scares, instead of using a loud noise.
I also liked that the story wasn't really contained in the house and the haunting. It was used to tell a different story. There are always the revelations of the fate of the ghost hauning the place in these movies, but I feel the focus is more on the goings on in the place that is haunted. Here I felt the focus was more on the mystery of what happened to the little boy and resolving that situation. So yeah, it was a horror movie, but also a murder mystery kind of.
Whether or not Joseph 2.0 knew he was changeling or not, I did think he was genuine when he said that his father was a good man /in his belief, not that he really was a good man. He killed his kid after all/. I liked that he wasn't made into a villain, and he seemed very affected by that revelation. Basically, I liked how that whole confrontation scene unfolded.
I liked the seanse! It was very effective to me. I also liked the revelation of what those banging sounds were. At first I though it was a clue to John that he needed to break that lock, but that whole bathtub scene was just very sad and horrific.
So now this. I didn't understand the ending. Joseph 2.0 placed the medalion on the picture and then everything started to shake. And then he was in the house, but also back in his office? Was the ghost tied to the medalion, as well as to the house? Was Joseph 2.0 in the house some sort of projection of his spirit, or something of the sort? I don't get it.
The way I took it was since that medallion was in the office yes the original Joseph was tied to it.
I think that's part of the reason he wanted Scott to find that medallion. Knowing that Scott would
confront the senator.
He took the senator "back" to the house where the crime was committed. He was either seeing it for the first
time or seeing it again based on interpretation. Seeing this vision again is what killed him. He wasn't strong enough.
The séance scene was terrific. I thought it was very effective also.
Never thought of it as a murder mystery but you are right. It really was.
Bare with me, I'm feeling dense today.
Let's see if I get this right. Joseph 2.0 wasn't physically in the house, but was there in some sort of forced "astral projection" type deal. Because Scott did see him going up the staircase, right? So he was there, but just "in spirit"? And Joseph 1.0 showed him how Dad killed him, and that killed Joseph 2.0. Right?
"I'm feeling dense today."
Today ?
Yes.
If you recall J-1 wouldn't let Scott leave the house. I felt he forced Scott to stay there in order for him
to see J-1 showing J-2 what had happened. Kind of a way of telling him the adventure had ended.
So he wouldn't be left wondering if all that he did was in vain. This is at least what I took from it.
I like your take on it. I guess since he couldn't do much about his own child's death, seeing the Josephs get closure /if you can call it that for J 2/,would've given him some as well. Or at least made him feel like he had helped this child, in whatever way he could. Does this make sense?
shareClosure for both of them. He chased the woman out. Not trying to kill her but to save her.
Mina you have done it again. This is what I was trying to say only you did it much better
You have crystallized my thoughts eloquently.
I basically paraphrased what you said lol. Thanks for jogging my brain on that one. I get there eventually, but I need some help sometimes :P
shareYeah but just sometimes.
I get by with a little help from my friends
I get high with a little help from my friends
gonna try with a little help from my friends
But before chasing Claire out, he lured her in, all the way up to his room, by mimicking John's voice.
shareDamn. Good point.
He lured her in just to save her. This is quite common with spirits. :P
Do you think he was trying to kill her ? If so why ? She was trying to help.
That has always been my number one question about this movie - why did the ghost attack Claire at the end - she was very supportive of John's efforts to find the truth.
shareWe may have discussed this before.
I had forgotten he actually lured her back.
Maybe it wasn't to kill her just keep her to make sure Scott would come back.
He also attacked John by bursting the mirror he was standing in front of, and lodging a shard of it in his neck. Plus all the door-slamming tantrum when John had been doing everything in his power to help J1.
He killed Cora. He killed J2, even though he was a victim himself and didn't know their father had murdered J1.
Given these facts, I don't think there's any alternative but to assume J1 was, as Dewey put it, a pistol ;)
He may have been trying to kill her. She took a really nasty fall down all of those stairs, because he was chasing her. She could have easily broken her neck.
I don't think her trying to help meant much to Joseph, and I don't think he was trying to save her. I think Joseph was something of a nasty piece of work, even though he didn't deserve to be murdered of course.
He flipped out on John too, who was doing everything he could to help him. And he killed J2, who'd done nothing to him.
I had a thought today about a fun twist for a prequel. What if it started out with what we already tend to think, that Carmichael was a bad, money-hungry man, and oh poor little Joseph. Then gradually it was revealed Carmichael really wasn't such a bad guy, and Joseph was another Damien! That he hadn't killed Joseph to get the money, but because Joseph was killing others (like his mother! who was dead) and his father finally realised what was really going on, with no viable choice left but to do in his son to put an end to it.
Brilliant.
That certainly would be a game changer.
It would certainly make you look at this film totally different. You would have absolutely
no sympathy for Joseph. However I would think it might be a little more difficult
to kill Damien than drowning him in a tub.
You would actually be rooting for Scott to get out of that house.
It would be fun to write it, and yes it sure would make you view this one differently.
"However I would think it might be a little more difficult to kill Damien than drowning him in a tub."
Ha! No doubt. Just realised I'd never seen The Omen all the way through. Tried again tonight, and Gregory Peck or not, could only make it halfway through. Instead of Damien, I'll say a male Rhoda of The Bad Seed. Much easier to drown.
Good call.
Why no Omen? Didn't like it ?
I have trouble suspending my sense of disbelief enough with debil/satin/daemon themes for those films to hold my interest.
shareFair enough.
You know this is a true story though , right?
100% true is what I heard.
It has to be 1000% true. Why would they make a film of it otherwise?
shareOnce again Cat -great point.
I keep forgetting about Star Wars.
How could you? Don't forget Star Trek.
A few months ago I saw a movie called The Disappointments Room. It was okay, but the premise interested me. Apparently in the Victorian and/or Edwardian eras prominent families who had children who were disabled, physically or mentally, were somewhat commonly stashed away in rooms such as Joseph's attic room, which were called "disappointments rooms."
I thought of The Changeling when I saw it.
That may be one of the saddest things I've ever heard.
You're actually doing this to children do you really need to
give the room a name like that. That's horrible.
It is sad. Poor kids.
I don't know if the parents referred to the rooms that way, or if it was people at large who did and that's how they came to be referred to in general.
Good lord, I've been seeing this movie passing by in the trending section and thought it was one of those movies I hadn't seen yet. But reading the plot on Wikipedia I realized I already saw this movie, earlier this year even! Well, I'm afraid that says enough. It was not very memorable to me. I do remember being annoyed with the ghost boy targeting innocent people just so that the truth would be uncovered.
share