'Changeling' and Angelina Jolie: Awards are not won on paper

I have all the respect in the world for my colleague Tom O'Neil, but I strongly disagree with his glowing assessment of Angelina Jolie's performance in/awards prospects for "Changeling," the new Clint Eastwood film that he and I both saw at the same New York Film Festival press/industry screening last Thursday.

Tom is 100% correct that, on paper, Jolie's character Christine Collins fits the bill of—to paraphrase Humphrey Bogart in "The Maltese Falcon"—the, uh, stuff Oscar-dreams are made of.

Start the checklist: real person ... single mom ... tireless fighter for her child ... victim of the system who courageously takes on the system ... mental illness (well, alleged) ... multiple scenes with screams and tears ... central focus of nearly every scene ... in a period piece ... for one of the most universally-respected, academy-approved directors ... and the list goes on.

Alas, awards are won not on paper, but on the screen, and in my analysis what's on the screen is lacking. But don't take my word for it.

Although Tom concluded that the response of the audience at the screening we attended was "huzzahs galore," I didn't feel that was the case, and it certainly doesn't reconcile with the reactions of these critics/pundits in the mainstream media and blogosphere:

• Nick Plowman on the blog Fataculture gathered a bunch of reactions from that screening and concluded "the word has been almost uniformly negative."

• Manohla Dargis in the New York Times: The film "is nothing if not predictable and was, I'm guessing, either selected out of loyalty to a revered auteur or because it will provide a red-carpet thrill for the donors of  the Film Society of Lincoln Center, which presents the festival," and says Jolie gives a "waxworks performance."

• Peter Bradshaw in The Guardian: The film is "a long, self-conscious and cumbersome picture."

• Ed Douglas of the website Coming Soon has not yet written his review but has announced his intention to rate the film an abysmal 2 out of 10.

• Karina Longworth on the blog SpoutBlog: "We drink every time Angelina hysterically proclaims, 'He's not my son!' We get very drunk, and this may be why we can't figure out why Clint Eastwood made a cheap-looking Lifetime movie that eventually turns into an 'And justice for all!' episode of 'SVU.' "

• Ed Gonzalez in Slant Magazine: "Bad Clint Eastwood movies tend to play like parodies of good Clint Eastwood movies, and his latest ... is almost a bigger muddle than 'Flags of Our Fathers.'" Jolie gives "an over-thought performance, for sure, often compromised by Eastwood's stilted, fashion-glossy framing of the actress's face."

• Rodrigo Perez on the website The Playlist: "There were a lot of things about Eastwood's 'Changeling' that were hard to buy ... just completely unbelievable and outrageous ... sure, maybe it happened, but man, today it's really hard to swallow," adding that it is "endlessly long, far-fetched ... we've seen it so many" times before.

• Nathaniel Rogers on the blog The Film Experience: "I love Angelina Jolie. And yet ...  I can't say that I loved the picture or even liked it, really ... [Jolie's] largeness somewhat robs Mrs. Collins of the journey from socially conditioned feminine weakness to lioness strength that we need to watch her stumble through ... we can never doubt that ANGELINA JOLIE (capitals intended) is a woman of fortitude and perseverance."

Tom correctly points out that the academy has frequently rewarded actors for their performances in Eastwood-directed movies — Gene Hackman won best supporting actor for "Unforgiven," Sean Penn won best actor and Tim Robbins won best supporting actor for "Mystic River," and Hillary Swank won best actress and Morgan Freeman won best supporting actor for "Million Dollar Baby." This is an extremely impressive track record.

But what we should not forget is that ... (continued below)

... all three of the films for which those actors won were warmly embraced and won best picture, as well, something that is not in the cards for "Changeling." As blogger Jeffrey Wells has noted, "It's a solid B-plus or, if you want to be gracious, A-minus effort. But it's not an A — not in my view — and it sure isn't an A-plus, and you really do need to be A-plus to get into the best picture game."

This means that Angelina is essentially on her own for the months ahead, and her awards track record is less impressive than Clint's. Yes, she won best supporting actress in 1999 for playing another woman who was tossed into an asylum, in "Girl, Interrupted," and she was very good in that film. But back then she was also basically a blank slate to most voters. She was relatively unknown, aside from being "Jon Voight's daughter," and was therefore able to capture voters' imaginations in a way that I don't believe she can any longer.

Over the years since, she has carved a distinct identity of her own: she has acted almost exclusively in purely commercial stuff like the "Lara Croft" films (2001, 2003) and "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" (2004); she has played up her image as a sex symbol on countless magazine covers; she has taken up residence with Brad Pitt, the biggest male sex symbol in the world; and, thanks to around-the-clock and around-the-world paparazzi surveillance, she is now rivaled by only Paris Hilton for the title of biggest celebrity in the world.

I'm certainly not trying to disparage Jolie. To the contrary, I think she is a great talent and a good person who, at the same time as doing all of the above, has also become the mother to a mini-United Nations of children and donated both massive amounts of money and time to noble causes. But I think it would be foolhardy to assume that Oscar voters view her the same way they did a decade ago.

The endless media coverage of Jolie has made it much harder for all of us to regard her as a serious actress, or to see her as an actress at all, because the more we know about her life off-screen, the harder it becomes for us to accept her as someone else on it.

That's why Sidney Poitier cautioned a young Denzel Washington, "If they see you for free all week, they won't pay to see you on the weekend." And it's also the central reason why "Changeling" is going to have as hard a time winning over voters as it has had winning over critics: for 2 hours and 20 minutes, you don't feel like you're watching Christine Collins looking for a kid, you feel like you're watching Angelina Jolie looking for another Oscar.

If you need one final reason why Jolie is going to struggle to break away from a pack of very impressive ladies in contention for best actress this year — including Kate Beckinsale in "Nothing But the Truth," Cate Blanchett in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," Penelope Cruz in "Elegy," Anne Hathaway in "Rachel Getting Married," Sally Hawkins in "Happy-Go-Lucky," Nicole Kidman in "Australia," Keira Knightley in "The Duchess," Melissa Leo in "Frozen River," Meryl Streep in "Doubt," Kristin Scott Thomas in "I've Loved You So Long," and Kate Winslet in "The Reader" and "Revolutionary Road" — then consider the fact that we've been down this same road before.

Just last year, Jolie attempted a return to weightier films when she took on the role of Marianne Pearl in "A Mighty Heart." The last thing I want to do is seem to be making light of that brave woman's tragic predicament, but I do ask you to consider some striking similarities between her and Christine Collins, as portrayed by Jolie: another real person (this time still alive and well), single mother (tragically), and victim of the system who courageously took on the system (she relentlessly pressured bureaucrats to keep up the search for her husband) ... another part that called for multiple scenes with screams and tears ... and another film that was completely dominated from start to finish by one performance. Tom notes that the movie made virtually no money due to a poor release date, and this is true, but neither did "In the Valley of Elah," "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford," or "Away from Her," and yet all mustered nominations, whereas "A Mighty Heart" and Jolie did not.

It's possible, of course, that I'm wrong: Jolie's performance could discover a wave of support during the awards season that she could ride to not only a best actress nomination, but a best actress win. Indeed, her beauty and charm are so tremendous that she might need to attend only a few glad-handing events in order to secure the requisite votes. And it occurred to me while writing this that the film with the most similar premise to "Changeling" — the mental manipulation of a vulnerable woman — is probably the great classic "Gaslight" (1943), for which the actress who played that woman, Ingrid Bergman, won a best actress Oscar of her own. So the precedent is there.

But, at the end of the day, I'm guessing that Jolie's performance this year will only reap mild awards attention, just like her performance last year ... a nomination from the celeb-centric Hollywood Foreign Press, perhaps one from her peers in the Screen Actors Guild or fans among the Broadcast Film Critics, and possibly — possibly — even a nomination from the academy ... but I just want to emphasize that it's anything but the sure-bet some believe. As Tom knows better than anyone, Oscar nominations today are effectively determined by passion: voters must rank their choices in order of preference, which is why people/characters with whom they fall in love are frequently acknowledged over people/characters they dispassionately respect. So one has to ask: even if voters were to disagree with the majority of critics/pundits and conclude that "Changeling" and Jolie's performance in it are somewhat better than just so-so, can one really expect them to feel a burning urge to give the woman who already has it all, including an Oscar, another nomination or statuette? I have my doubts.

Perhaps the greatest clue came at the press conference that followed the screening that Tom and I attended: before any reporter could, Clint Eastwood himself couldn't help but make reference to "Gran Torino," his other film coming out this year, which he not only directed and produced but also came out of semi-retirement to act in. When it comes to the awards season, nobody is savvier than Clint and his associates, as we learned from his strategic late drop of "Million Dollar Baby" in 2004 and also from his last-minute decision to authorize the release of "Letters from Iwo Jima" right on the heels of his less impressive "Flags of Our Fathers." Therefore, if Clint's focus is already on "Gran Torino," perhaps ours should be, as well.

---

For the record: An earlier version of this post indicated that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt had "married." In fact, they live together but are not married, so that has been amended.

---

Photo: "Changeling," starring Angelina Jolie, courtesy Universal Pictures.

Comments

[Anonymous]

So a bunch of bloggers are more credible than major professional critics like Variety, Hollywood Reporter and Michael Phillips who all praised Jolie?? What's with the constant daily trashing of Jolie? Is this a tabloid website now? Why do people find it hard to believe people think she's a GREAT ACTRESS and could care less what tabloid lies spew next?
When Benjamin Button comes out, every1 will praise Pitt for his performance. But will there be a backlash of taking him seriously because he's a tabloid coverboy?? NO. Pitt has been in the tabloids YEARS before Jolie became famous. Yet nobody makes biased articles everyday like this. Let it go. Major critics loved Jolie's performance and the film. These biased bloggers with no professional credibility in the industry are not reliable. If it wasn't for Pitt, Jolie wouldn't have been so overexposed in the tabloids. She was already living a low-key life post-BBT. So don't blame Jolie for her tabloid overexposure and trash her as an actress, while Pitt constantly gets a free pass for scrutiny.

[sunshine]

"perhaps one from her peers in the Screen Actors Guild "

I hope she does get this nomination (just like last year for AMH) because it is about talent. Your entire article explains why winning an Oscar means NOTHING. It's not about talent. Maybe it was never about talent. Will Smith always plays Will Smith yet he got a best actor Oscar nomination. Julia Roberts was a tabloid queen when she won an Oscar. But then again she did not have the la time blogger like you and Tom Oneil tainting her before even any nominations were made.

[rita]

Why won't you give Angelina more respect??Why are you so jealous of her acting abilities...she is a great actress, a bit like Ava Gardner, and yet, the media constantly demeans her...It's time she won another Oscar..

[Condy]

I have never heard of half these bloggers or 'film critics'. So why should I trust their opinions over well known and well respected film critics. These days it seems like anyone and everyone with a film blog is a film critic. Frankly these bloggers and their so-called reviews of films are making a mockery of the profession. I would advise them to leave the reviewing to the real critics. This was the same problem last year during Oscar season. Bloggers were tainting people's views with their reviews and wild predictions.
There were "real" film critics who saw Changeling in France and thought Angelina's performance was worthy of a nomination and that Mr. Eastwood, J.M and Grazer hade made a real solid film. I, along with many others trust their opinions of films over the ones floating around on blogs in the blogsphere.

[Rex]

Excellent article and right on the money.

[TJ]

I can see the point of Angelina Jolie standing out over her characters drowning them, and for some watching her on screen it is all we see. Were blinded by it, but I guess you have to really be into the story or film to forget her name, and fit her with the character she is playing. I for one was disappointed in "A Mighty Heart", I felt a lot was done wrong for the film, but I did believe Jolie did well. I think for Angelina to capture critics hearts, she will have to do something we couldn't imagine her doing; and to be blunt, I cannot think of anything deviously imaginitive. I am a fan of hers, and I am sure "Changeling" is a good film, but perhaps we would have to see her play an alcoholic teacher, a theoretician, or an abusive mother, something tarnishing to her image to spark attention. I guess she does roles she believes has meaning, and that can be her medium for her career, and are true, she's found her comfort zone in acting, and she can stay their if she wants.

[doobiedoo]

sorry, but worst case scenario, Jolie has a better shot than Kate Beckinsale. Nothing But The Truth is little more than a big screen Lifetime movie. (Not that Changeling is much better).

[i,claudius]

I haven't yet seen the film, only the trailer, but am still left thinking about how a more intuitive actress like, say, Jessica Lange 25 years ago would have knocked the big money scenes out of the park.

[Color Me Confused]

I'm confused about a few things. First of all, why it is that you site the media's overuse of Jolie to sell their product, be it a mainstream magazine, a tabloid or an entertainment show, as being her fault. Secondly, as a consumer and a critic you CHOSE too look at these things and read them. Shouldn't you divorce yourself from any extraneous stimulants what will color your opinion or handicap your ability to do your job? In other words - Star magazine didn't MAKE you read their fake stories.

If a critic is unable to divorce themselves from what they know is most likely a false representation of an actor or actress by the media and focus on what the actor puts forth on screen, then how is that the actor's fault? Jolie has done her best to disappear from public life. When she's not seen for month then the tabloids start up with their nonsense about her relationship falling apart or her kids being a problem or what have you. At some point people who's job it is to review movies need to draw a line. When you realize that the media is impacting your ability to review an actor's work based on what's on screen and NOT your preconceived notion of what the actor is like in real life, then I'm sorry, but it's time for you to hang it up and go do something else.

The fact of the matter is that in the age of the internet and with the proliferation of entertainment tabloids it's impossible for ANY ACTOR to remain anonymous and maintain an air of mystery. Most Americans, yourself included, probably know more about Nicole Kidman, Tom Cruise, Johnny Deep, Will Smith, Beyonce, Britney, Christina Aguilera, Jennifer Lopez, Leonardo DiCaprio, etc., than they know about why the economy has fallen apart around their ears. Ask someone about Britney's breakdown and they can tell you all about it. As them about the prime rate and it's role in the mortage crisis and they can't answer the question.

Frankly at this point you singling out Jolie is rather comical considering all the people you've listed as having a better chance at getting nominated are just as overexposed as she is. Unless it's a breakout, unknown actor/actress, that's going to be the case with everyone. God bless the internet and the creators of Google.

Sorry, but I had to laugh at your claim assesment of the role of Mariane Pearl in "A Mighty Heart" as being "another part that called for multiple scenes with screams and tears ". Umm...excuse me, but could you tell me which scenes you're talking about? I've seen AMH twice. Jolie spent the majority of the movie trying to hold her tears and emotions IN, not giving in to them. There was ONE big scene toward the end where the character gives when she finds out her husband is dead. There was one big scream and a flood of tears. In other parts of the movie there are bits where she's sniffling trying to hold herself together, but there certainly wasn't a multitude of Oscar moments in that film. If you're going to compare the two roles, at least get your facts straight.

[Rob]

Unfortunately for Mr Feinberg we've yet to arrive at the day when the opinions of a bunch of kid bloggers have the credibility of Variety's Todd McCarthy (who raved about Changeling), or Jonathan Rosenbaum, Dave Kehr, Emmanuel Levy, AO Scott, etc, etc. Add to that the rave trade reviews from the Cannes screening & I don't get the impression there's anything to worry about.

And on the usually reliable Manohla Dargis it should be pointed out that she claimed the reason she found Jolie's performance disappointing was that she couldn't separate the tabloid image of Miss Jolie from the role - which rather suggests Miss Dargis should stop spending so much of her time reading tabloids. I don't envisage having such a problem myself & neither, I daresay, will the vast majority of Changeling's intended audience.

Mr Feinberg tries his best at constructing an argument based on the opinions of a group of unknown bloggers & one credible US critic. I wish him luck. With a flimsy thesis like that he'll need it.

[Leyla Coleman]

Hey Scott,

Gosh it's been a long time since Duffy's class! I had no idea you have an editorial at this site! I'll be a faithful reader from now on.

I think you are ABSOLUTELY right about Jolie. The other people who disagree are what we call "Brangeloonies", people who worship St. Angelina and search every site on the net to make sure they tell that writer how perfect and gorgeous and generous she is.

That does not make her a great actress. Sorry, she just isn't. I think her looks are great (tho I find her lips too large) and she has a decent acting ability, but Poitier's warning really has ruined her ability to act. Maybe if she goes into seclusion for a few years she'll be able to come back as a "serious" actor.

Btw, she's not married to Pitt -- they say they won't marry till all gays can marry in the US. Hahaha...excellent awesome article. I totally agree with your acute analysis.

[Shut Up Leyla]

Wow "Leyla" you sound like what we call a "Faniston". That would be the group of Jennifer Aniston fans who go around the internet searching for sites where they can diss Ms. Jolie just for the sake of dissing her. You obviously have nothing more to add to the discussion here than your suppostion that those who disagree with your friend are rabid Pitt/Jolie fans.

Try this one for size, maybe the people who disagree with Mr. Feinberg's nebulous theory, which is chock full of holes the size of a mack truck, simply disagree with him because, gasp, they have seen the movie and like it! I know that's probably a shocker, but doggonit if I didn't see the movie at the NYFF and love it. I thought Jolie gave a wonderfully modulated performance. The movie is rocky in places and drags a little too long, but you know what, the last time I checked the actors don't get a say in the editing and tone of a film. That's the director's job, so any issues people have with this movie need to be placed at the feet of Mr. Eastwood and not his lead actress'.

One last thing - in the future you shouldn't assume that you know why people are leaving comments on a blog. You know what they say about "assume". Except the only ass will be you.

[Kerry]

Um, none of those bloggers are unknown (as some of these commenters are stating), all of them make up the most prominent and unique voices in the film blogging community (and by unique, I am not including those that continuously dismiss and say snarky things to get attention) so. You did a great roundup here Scott, everyone of those sites had some great content.

[Langley]

I find your article made a valid point.

First of all, I don't understand why people take it so personally (brangaloonies or anistons fans). to focus on just acting, the film, and the viewer; at the end of the day, the viewer sees the film, and the viewer should have to right to complain if the star of the film is too overexposed to really fulfill their responsibility as the actor.

Just like in any other profession, one has certain responsibilities in their chosen work. I expect a car mechanic to get the job done. and so i expect an actor to completely disappear and really show a complete human being on screen.

and while i understand it is the media that causes the overexposure, i don't think they are the only ones to blame. the overexposure does not come just from the tabloids. for example, see the new W magazine spread. why? Why do that?

mind you, i understand jolie/pitt are "hunted" unfairly, but this was shot by Mr. pitt himself, not the tabloids/paps. why is this spread necessary?

usually, actors/actresses do interviews and photo shoots to promote their work, and talk about their film. the spread doesn't seem to promote "the changeling" at all! if it is, it is too obscure or subtle for it to be effective and the marketing team for the film should be fired.

So, in conclusion, they (i kind of lumped Pitt in here) are not really taking their responsibility as actors seriously, and therefore cannot be taken seriously on the screen. (unless, the character is very similar to the celebrity persona). at least, that's my opinion.

Although, to be fair, I haven't seen the film yet. (saw a mighty heart, didn't work for me, the film itself was lacking and the performance i couldn't get into, i think it was the wig). with the changeling, perhaps i will change my mind, i hope it is better than the mixed reviews.

[Langley again]

also wanted to mention that i appreciate the thought put into this article. especially that last little tidbit about Grand Torino.

[Andrew]

The quote originates with Shakespeare, not Bogart. "We are such stuff as dreams are made on" comes from The Tempest.