Saturday, March 07, 2009
Changeling
When I saw the movie, I wondered what the title meant. I thought it meant the obvious - something that changes. Or so I thought. Dictionary.com lists the word as meaning "a child surreptitiously or unintentionally substituted for another." How fascinating... Now I know how little I know about the English language.
I saw this movie on a flight -- a long flight en route to India -- which meant I had plenty of time and nothing to do. I saw the movie on the menu, but didn't want to see it first, because I heard about the story briefly and thought it was depressing. So I saw Twilight again (third time! why? no clue!), then I saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still (why?), and then went on to Ms. Jolie.
This was based on a true story. What an incredible story it was. I completely and totally admire the tenacity of this woman, Christine Collins, played well by Ms. Jolie, in this sometimes sensationalized but unbelievable tale. I realized it was the late '20s, or else, leaving a child of nine years at home alone would result in child endangerment. And, I realize why we have laws that forbid you to do so, now, after watching the movie.
The movie has several themes that stayed with me for a long time. In fact, I was so perturbed after watching it that I couldn't fall asleep until several hours later. So, if you watch movies before bed, like me, I would advise you not to watch this one.
First and most significant is the role of the mother. Single mother raising a young son in Southern California. I don't remember if the movie talked about her being married or not, but I remember her telling her young son that his father didn't bother sticking around when she was pregnant with him. Not in so many words and definitely in a nicer way than I said it, though. I'm amazed at how stable and strong this woman was. Employed, with little family around to help, taking care of her son and struggling to be a good mother, while keeping up with the demands of work. Some of us have been there. I can relate to that. But, having to leave your child alone to go to work and coming back to find him missing... I cannot imagine the agony and the guilt that she went through. I thought A.J. did a good job in not being overly sentimental, because she conveyed more in the gravity of her appearance than any histrionical act would have.
I had to remind myself that this happend at a time when they had few resources to identify missing children - you know, like the age progression pictures that you see at the back of your Advo mailing packet, or some other direct mail brand postcard. So it was easy, or relatively so for the police to come up with a kid, who shared some of the physical characteristics of her missing son.
The police - the control, the power and the corruption - this was not news to me. I bet this hasn't changed in some countries - but to just hand over a random child to a mother who is half insane with worry - unbelievable. And, for her to realize and complain that this wasn't her son - again, the emotions I felt were hard to describe. What would Christine Collins have felt - doubt, self-loathing, guilt, anger, shame - at having realized that the child she was caring for was not her son, but also realizing that the child who willingly portrayed him obviously had some need to be where he was. To get a good meal perhaps, a home and a caring mother. Crazy!!
What really surprised me though, was the blatant Due Process violation that occurred when the police decide to pack her off to the mental asylum because she was raising a stink about her son still missing and that people were starting to notice. I was dumb-founded. They could do that in the '20s? Then I started thinking about women's rights - we weren't allowed to vote for the longest time; we were considered possessions (still are in some parts of the world) for the longest time; we were the "little women" - the housekeepers, the caregivers, the sex slaves of our masters, our owners; we were burnt at the stake; we were branded as bra-burning radicals for asserting our rights - so, in hind-sight, it shouldn't have been that surprising. But it was...
The hardest part of the movie, apart from feminist angst pouring out of my veins while I watched it, was with regard to the child-killer. Gordon something his name was. It's not important for me to remember his name - he doesn't deserve the recognition. But to think that such savagery existed then, and still continues to exist in those who prey on little children, made me very sad. The cycle of violence never seems to end, does it?
I know we have to raise our children in a way to warn them about these people - the ones who mean to do them harm, but how do we do it without taking away a part of their innocence?
Overall, this is absolutely a must-see. It is bitter-sweet, but just.
I saw this movie on a flight -- a long flight en route to India -- which meant I had plenty of time and nothing to do. I saw the movie on the menu, but didn't want to see it first, because I heard about the story briefly and thought it was depressing. So I saw Twilight again (third time! why? no clue!), then I saw "The Day the Earth Stood Still (why?), and then went on to Ms. Jolie.
This was based on a true story. What an incredible story it was. I completely and totally admire the tenacity of this woman, Christine Collins, played well by Ms. Jolie, in this sometimes sensationalized but unbelievable tale. I realized it was the late '20s, or else, leaving a child of nine years at home alone would result in child endangerment. And, I realize why we have laws that forbid you to do so, now, after watching the movie.
The movie has several themes that stayed with me for a long time. In fact, I was so perturbed after watching it that I couldn't fall asleep until several hours later. So, if you watch movies before bed, like me, I would advise you not to watch this one.
First and most significant is the role of the mother. Single mother raising a young son in Southern California. I don't remember if the movie talked about her being married or not, but I remember her telling her young son that his father didn't bother sticking around when she was pregnant with him. Not in so many words and definitely in a nicer way than I said it, though. I'm amazed at how stable and strong this woman was. Employed, with little family around to help, taking care of her son and struggling to be a good mother, while keeping up with the demands of work. Some of us have been there. I can relate to that. But, having to leave your child alone to go to work and coming back to find him missing... I cannot imagine the agony and the guilt that she went through. I thought A.J. did a good job in not being overly sentimental, because she conveyed more in the gravity of her appearance than any histrionical act would have.
I had to remind myself that this happend at a time when they had few resources to identify missing children - you know, like the age progression pictures that you see at the back of your Advo mailing packet, or some other direct mail brand postcard. So it was easy, or relatively so for the police to come up with a kid, who shared some of the physical characteristics of her missing son.
The police - the control, the power and the corruption - this was not news to me. I bet this hasn't changed in some countries - but to just hand over a random child to a mother who is half insane with worry - unbelievable. And, for her to realize and complain that this wasn't her son - again, the emotions I felt were hard to describe. What would Christine Collins have felt - doubt, self-loathing, guilt, anger, shame - at having realized that the child she was caring for was not her son, but also realizing that the child who willingly portrayed him obviously had some need to be where he was. To get a good meal perhaps, a home and a caring mother. Crazy!!
What really surprised me though, was the blatant Due Process violation that occurred when the police decide to pack her off to the mental asylum because she was raising a stink about her son still missing and that people were starting to notice. I was dumb-founded. They could do that in the '20s? Then I started thinking about women's rights - we weren't allowed to vote for the longest time; we were considered possessions (still are in some parts of the world) for the longest time; we were the "little women" - the housekeepers, the caregivers, the sex slaves of our masters, our owners; we were burnt at the stake; we were branded as bra-burning radicals for asserting our rights - so, in hind-sight, it shouldn't have been that surprising. But it was...
The hardest part of the movie, apart from feminist angst pouring out of my veins while I watched it, was with regard to the child-killer. Gordon something his name was. It's not important for me to remember his name - he doesn't deserve the recognition. But to think that such savagery existed then, and still continues to exist in those who prey on little children, made me very sad. The cycle of violence never seems to end, does it?
I know we have to raise our children in a way to warn them about these people - the ones who mean to do them harm, but how do we do it without taking away a part of their innocence?
Overall, this is absolutely a must-see. It is bitter-sweet, but just.
