12 thoughts on “Changeling: Great Film, Too Much Glam

  1. Tiny nitpick- this movie is called “Changeling.” Another movie, known as “The Changeling,” is a rather sad ghost movie from 1980. I don’t remember its period outfits, but an old fashioned wheelchair is a recurring motif.

    That said, I agree Jolie’s lipstick is front and center, like it’s the true protagonist.

  2. She, Angelina Jolie, cannot help being so gorgeous. Maybe the makeup artist should have toned it down, but I agree this Oscar winner can act.
    I also have seen this film and I thought her wardrobe, except for the coat, was a tad too wealthy for her income bracket. Well, unless she bought it used or sewed it herself.

  3. I’m going to defend the wardrobe; my elders weren’t wealthy and yet still had a bit of lovely lace, fur coats, collars, swank costume jewelry and cameos (some brought over from Germany). Gifts, heirlooms, what-have-you. Not much of any one thing, but not tattered rags in the closet, either.
    Part of that may be because the clan did some of their own sewing, embroidery and needlework, but they still looked pretty well put-together despite living in a working class section of Queens and boroughs thereabout.
    (I wish I could post a few pictures of these long-gone family members, since I inherited originals some from that era.)

    I think the lipstick and shadow/liner are what makes Jolie look a little too glamorous. Seems that much WOW should have been reserved for an evening event, not scuttling around a switchboard.
    And I agree — though she receives a disproportionate amount of hate and is belittled for her adventures, she CAN act.

    (Hopefully not a double post. I keep getting a weird “ERROR, URL too long message.)

    1. I agree about the wardrobe. My late mother had good taste and liked elegant clothes. She was also a skilled dressmaker, and so could be well turned out on a budget. (As in saving money to buy fine French wool on sale for a tailored suit that she would wear to work and then out to dinner.) And she would never have shoveled on the lipstick like that. Hollywood has always had trouble with women’s make-up and hair: it’s either anachronistic or screams, “THIS IS A PERIOD FILM!”

      1. P.S. “Gosford Park” being an exception. (Although it helps that Kristin Scott Thomas looks so ’30s in the first place.)

  4. I have a couple of pieces in my collection that would have worked for her character. She was the supervisor in the switching room, as I recall, so her clothes would have been nicer to reflect her authority and higher wage. I don’t doubt the fur collar at all. Her hats are lovely, but not as fancy as some of them can get. So, I totally buy in. (I’d love to have that soft green dress . . .)

  5. I feel like if they had done a more 20’s lip shape on her it might not look so out there and intrusively modern. Bu that’s just me.

  6. I had forgotten about this film. I heard good things about it at the time and it is scripted by JMS but has fallen off my radar since. Certainly women of working class backgrounds could be well dressed. Though a couple of decades later my mother in law took a secretarial job in a department store, so comparable in terms of income and social status and she started buying designer outfits, many of which i inherited. she also did some modelling. It is possible that the costumes in the film don’t have the look of items that are well worn and also agreed that lipstick does stand out waaay too much.

  7. The real Christine Collins wasn’t as good looking as Angelina Jolie. But she was a sharp dresser. In fact. most people usually tried to dress as formally and as sharp as they can. I think this all changed by the late 1960s or early 1970s.

  8. AJ looks just so very gawky in this movie, that’s actually why I’ve avoided it. She doesn’t look at all believable as a woman from that time period in the stills I’ve seen. My bf liked this movie though & the story does sound interesting (& dark). Some late night I’ll have to watch :)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: