kristen Blog

Under discussion:

Changeling  (2008)

            Clint Eastwood characters are like Sarah Palin saying repeatedly in the vice presidential debate that we need to stop the greed and corruption on Wall Street. What she says is correct but one gets the feeling that she has no sophisticated understanding of the matter and no plan of attack (she lacks abstract thought). She correctly identifies an evil but simplifies it to a sound bite. In the same manner, Clint Eastwood portrays the corrupt LAPD as evil (which they may very well be) but reduces humans to flat charactures. Clint Eastwood in his simplistic manner says that the police force is corrupt and that we need to stop them. Is the matter really so black and white? Do all the people on the police force really have no soul? Is every action an act of pure evil? People and evil are more complex then Eastwood’s conception. This is an oversight that is an injustice to people and to evil. The rest of the movie follows this simplicity but does manage to have a few worthwhile moments.

Changeling first establishes how much Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) loves her son. When her son mysteriously disappears, Christine suffers injustice after injustice. First the corrupt LAPD deliver the wrong son. When she goes public with the news, pure evil Captain J. J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) throws her into a mental institution to shut her up. Next come the shocking details of the child murderer in order to manipulate the audience to feel further sympathy. There is a turn of events thanks to Rev. Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich). Christine and the Reverend proceed to right all the injustice. They expel the corrupt police force. They liberate the women in the mental hospital (who are wrongfully there because of the more police cruelty). They see that the child murderer receives the death penalty. And they continue to search for her lost son. To be sure, Christine never shy’s away from her responsibility (a running theme in the movie).

The one mature decision Clint Eastwood makes during the movie (that is to say a non-manipulative, unexpected move that helps the story) comes when Christine visits the child murderer Gordon Northcott (Jason Butler Harner) the day before his execution. Everyone expects the murderer to admit that he killed Walter so that Christine can have some closure in her life. When he doesn’t tell her in the interview everyone expects him to shout it from the platform seconds before his hanging. Instead he takes his secret to the grave. This silence fits the character and allows the movie to continue because though unresolved, Christine now has hope.

Harner gives a great performance. As a villain he manages to be creepy but almost too mentally off to hate. In his own strange way he is charming (even though we saw him viciously hacking child to death). He has a strange innocence even in his guilt.

By the second half of the movie, I had such low expectations that any ending other than Walter Collins (Christine’s son) running into his mother’s arms in slow motion would be appreciated. I think I can say safely that most people expect this saccharine ending, which makes the way Eastwood actually ends the movie quite clever. It’s not a good ending, it’s a Hollywood ending but it does enough so that critics don’t turn their heads and moan and it gives the general audience the sweetness they desire. It also preserves some mystery about the case, gives Christine hope, and at least paints Walter Collins as a hero (someone Christine can be proud of). The end delivers the expectations while preserving tragedy. This ending shows a great understanding of audience and critics. Eastwood knows how to play the game. This understanding of the politics of filmmaking and his wonderful personality are (what I believe) the reason for his acclaim (aside from his one great movie Unforgiven where he rightfully deserves praise). 

Under discussion:

36 Fillette  (1989)

             I grew up in a puritanical household so at fourteen, I had no concept of sexuality except as an evil that tempts women to defile their bodies. Sexuality has always been used by others to suppress women or used by women as liberation. I was plagued with guilt whenever an unwholesome sexual thought entered my fourteen-year-old head. I even believed that fantasizing about kissing a boy was damnable. 

            This movie is about a girl who is much more aware of reality, society, and sexuality than I was at her age. She is somehow by the age of fourteen liberated, socially free, much more like my sister then myself. I followed all the rules. I trusted adults when they said that this or that was bad and that I shouldn’t do it. I never had stage of rebellion (as a teenager). Maybe I’m more of a rebel these days. I am going to marry a wonderful heathen who I now live unlawfully with.

            Then again, I had my own reasons for abstinence. I’m a romantic who wants an intimate bond with the love of my life. Yes, I want to be fully devoted to one person. And at the age of fourteen, I knew that I do not want to have children. These things kept my mind away from sex and showed an independence of my own.

            The protagonist of 36 Fillette, a fourteen-year-old Lili (Delphine Zentout) knows what I never did, her powers as a woman. She longs to be free even at her young age. She is feisty, manipulative, vulnerable, and innocent. Our coquette Lili entices middle-aged Maurice (Etienne Chicot) who clearly has had his fare share of women. He knows the tricks of the game. When Lili jumps out of his car and threatens to find a better time elsewhere he (mocking the situation) asks her “Did I not pay enough attention to you?” He lets her go her own way after asking her for a date later that night. Ignore her just a little and she’ll want him even more.

            She wants to have sex because she wants to be free of this first boundary to womanhood. But she asserts her independence and proves a challenge to get into bed. Maurice must play the full game. He has to listen to her, talk to her, buy her gifts, promise to see her even if it means driving all night from a far away business trip. He has to go through the motions to make this first time seem meaningful to her. She conquers him even as he conquers her.

            Lili cries in her bed after a long night with Maurice- a night where she almost willfully lets him rape her. She cries for confusion, loss of youth, and then mostly, her inability to have sex. She is a virgin who wants mostly to loose her virginity. Being so young, she is at risk of being condemned as a slut. Men don’t face the same condemnation.

            Lili’s inexperience in the bedroom eventually turns Maurice off. A woman finds her distraught in the hotel bed and tries to comfort her. The woman condemns Maurice but Lili is only upset at herself. She knows that Maurice did not take advantage of her. She tried to use him to find her own freedom and could not deliver. Lili calls the woman a bitch for her ignorance.

            Lili immediately seduces another young man to have sex with her. This time she looses her virginity. When the young man asks her how his performance was she replies “It’s never good the first time”. From this point on she can look forward to more pleasurable encounters.

            A coy smile at the end of the movie shows that she has conquered man and at least views herself as triumphant- not a trace of guilt to be found.

            The movie offers a fresh view of women’s sexuality. Of course fourteen is a little young, but Lili is fully aware of what she is doing and of the potential consequences of her actions (ex. Getting pregnant). Breillat at least gives Lili a voice and an admirable independence even though the subject matter is difficult. The movie does not advocate sex at a young age, but it does demand that women be free to use sex as they like, not as how men see fit. The movie allows women to think about their sexuality. This is a freedom I never knew.