MovieChat Forums > The Changeling (1980) Discussion > Why Move into That Big House?

Why Move into That Big House?


SPOILER ALERT!!!

All,

I watched this movie for the first time yesterday. Overall, it's not a bad horror movie, but it has its flaws. One thing that bothers me is why a man who has just lost his wife and daughter in a tragic accident would want to move to the other side of the country and into a huge house by himself. Wouldn't he be better off in an apartment or small house that is suitable for one person? I mean, there are numerous rooms in that house outside of Seattle, and he hardly ever even goes upstairs, except to check out the attic. I guess this is just one of those cases where you have to "suspend your disbelief," but I think the story would have worked just as well if George C. Scott's character had moved into a small home where the same events had occurred years earlier. Really, all you need is an attic to set the stage for what happened to Joseph. On the other hand, I guess having such a large house with dark corridors; cold, vacant rooms; long, dark hallways; cobwebs; and a dark attic full of dust sets the stage for a more effective haunted house.

On another note, this movie could use a remake (IMHO).

reply

If I remember correctly from the director's commentary, they were originally going to set it in a small house and Medak (the director) wanted off the project. When they agreed to set it in a big house, he was back on.

There was talk of a remake about six years ago, but it seems to have been scrapped.

--
"House. My room. Can't walk. My medal. My father. Father, don't!"

reply

It's no plot hole or any such thing, it is perfectly plausible that in his circumstances John would choose to take the opportunity to move into that big old house, it's all explained in the movie.
Russell, understandably seeking a change in his life and perhaps being unable to live in his familiar surroundings now that his family is gone, has taken an appointment across the country in Seattle and he needs a suitable place where he can play piano and compose when the urge takes him, whatever time of day or night that might be.

This wouldn't make him a very good neighbor to other tenants in some apartment building! Nor would the appalling acoustics of a small house on some suburban street suit music that is played on a grand piano. The big old house is isolated, and it's 'available'. It's a perfect fit.

Russell, a practical man of solid constitution, wouldn't be affected by any boogyman stories he might hear about the old house, it is spacious, has a superb music room, and it will do just fine, thank you.

reply

You are a legend. Thanks for your insight, rational and educated response. This is a SPOT ON answer. I was thinking EXACTLY the same thing. The house combines all the factors he was looking for as a creative musician (pianist).

reply

Who wouldn't want to live in that house?? Seriously?!?! I'd take a life for it, in all honestly.

We've met before, haven't we?

reply

Same here. I'd love to live in a big old house like that one.

--
"House. My room. Can't walk. My medal. My father. Father, don't!"

reply

[deleted]

It does sound dreamy... until you realize that somebody could sneak inside when you aren't home or are home but aren't paying attention and you would be none the wiser. They could be in there for months in some rarely used room and the moment you discover what's going on would be quite disturbing.


Weird you mentioned this because a few ago in Chicago homeless people would break in house and live in the basements until caught oh coarse. I remember seeing this on the news. It also reminds me of a movie called Bad Ronald where this teen lives in the walls of a house.

reply

[deleted]

I saw that movie (Bad Ronald) a long time ago, on TV, and could never find out its title, until now. Thank you!

reply

What I really DO NOT UNDERSTAND is why did a six year old boy in a wheelchair live in a room in the third floor in THAT big house?????
I think it´d be better for him to live in a room in the first floor.

reply

[deleted]

Sorry but when that is explained????

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

The father wouldn't have wanted the sickly Joseph to 'tumble out a window'! The child was his sole meal ticket, as long as the boy lived then Carmichael Sr. had the life of wealth. No, the way the father saw it, Joseph was a bad risk of dying from his disorder anyway, and the whole premise of the film was that the father should SECRETLY kill the boy and substitute a sturdier child in his place.
A Changeling.
If the kid fell from a third floor window into the street and brained himself then the way the will was written dad would be disentitled to any of the estate.

But I think you're trolling anyway, the movie never said the boy was slamming into the furniture with the wheelchair.

reply

Joseph was probably kept locked in the attic room anyway because in that time, disabled children were kept out of sight or even... disposed of.

---
House. My room. Can't walk. My medal. My father. Father, don't!

reply

There is a strong suggestion that Clair was somehow 'willed' into showing the house to Russell; she wasn't supposed to. Russell himself, having recently lost his wife and child in a street accident, was uncannily drawn to the house, which had a previous owner who had suffered a similar loss. As improbable as it sounds, it appears events have been at least partially manipulated by the spectral Joseph to get Russell into the house, and begin unravelling the story.

reply

Where do you get that idea? I don't see how John or Claire could've been manipulated by Joseph unless they were inside the house. I don't think Joseph had the power to go to the Historical Society office and plant ideas in Claire's head or to reach out miles and miles to NY and draw John to the house.

---
House. My room. Can't walk. My medal. My father. Father, don't!

reply

John's manipulation is facilitated by his grief over his loss, which is very nicely established by the first 'banging' scene. Clair seems an especially susceptible person to begin with, and clearly wears her heart WAAAYY out on her sleeve. Her screaming at the seance and her emotional response to Joseph's miserable death reveal her to be highly vulnerable.

None of this has to be so, and the real success of a film of this kind lies in its ambiguities, rather than what is explicitly presented on the screen. Nevertheless, as 'sensitives' seem to be in relatively short supply, it is not unreasonable for a restless, unhappy, impatient, and (apparently) quite powerful 'spirit' to pull out all the stops this time round, in order to finally get its way.

reply

I think it's a bit specious to imagine that the spirit of Joseph somehow knew that there was a man out there (Russell) who was looking for a house to rent in Seattle, who owing to his own recent personal tragedy would be a good candidate for Joseph to communicate with and so the spirit influenced affairs so that Russell would be shown the house, would like it, and would then rent it.

Come on, at that point in the movie we don't even know of the existence of the spirit of Joseph and for it to monitor and influence multiple human interactions from miles away (after all, how many potential renters was the spirit following?) and direct them to bring him a likely candidate would require movie patrons to believe that the spirit of Joseph was omnescient!

To be fair, I ought to say that within the 'rules' of the supernatural there's enough ambiguity that one may take it any way that pleases.

I prefer the take that there was a huge old house, occupied by the trapped spirit of a betrayed and murdered little boy and that circumstances led to John Russell renting the home. When the spirit began his usual manifestations, this time the occupant, while certainly unnerved by the events, didn't run gibbering in fear as others had but rather sought to understand what was happening. This way we aren't asked to believe the (egregiously) fantastic, and the story arc of Joseph and John develops naturally and believably, not as some scheme by Joseph the whole time.

reply

[deleted]

Remember he was a musician. He needed the space for practices. (The chamber group came over once to practice). And the large house to yourself also meant practicing without bothering anyone else around you like an apartment or small house in a smaller neighborhood. Loved the music in this movie... want to watch it with my daughter this October. I was her age when I first saw it. 10


3rd generation American from a long line of Gottscheers... it was Drandul, dude!

reply

i was 10 once too

"I don't trust anything that bleeds for 7 days and doesn't die"

reply

[deleted]

I think he was at least party attracted to the accoustics of the place. He is also seen with a large recorder on his piano, which would no doubt pick up a lot of background noise if used in an apartment, or even a smaller house closer to the street.

reply

Every haunted house, in any movie is large. It is hard to name one that has a small house. A large house seems to be genuinely creepier for related paranormal activity. Houses shown in The Haunting; The Changeling, The Innocents are all huge. Overlook Hotel in The Shining is a perfect example.

reply

For me a big, spooky two (or better yet, three) story house seems scarier than a small single story house. I guess you have to suspend disbelief, but for me it works.

reply

Granted this question was posed in 2012, I don't believe its been answered correctly. So here goes...

This story comes down to us from a manse that existed in Denver, Colorado in the late 1890s and the heyday of early Colorado wealth, which was demolished in either 1971 or '72. There are some conflicting histories concerning this house, but records indicate that permits for a large family home were taken out in 1892. The location of the house is important, because it plays out in the storyline of the film. As historic preservation is big in the film, the history of this manse and its neighborhood are integral.

Roughly located at 13th Avenue and Williams Street in the Cheesman Park neighborhood of old Denver, there is some discussion to this day whether the house fronted 13th Avenue, or was located around the corner on Williams Street. This was originally a suburban wealthy neighborhood made up of family manses, and small mansions; some of which still exist today. However, the location portrayed in the film has since long been replaced by two residential towers, and infill urban growth. Though there is a home located next to the indicated site that still possesses the carriage house original to the mode of transportation of the day.

The house in the film, was grossly over sized, but as others have remarked here, a great ghost story often comes with a large old house. In reality the manse was very large for its day, but not so large as to rival the cattle baron Highlands Ranch Mansion roughly 13 miles to the south, or by comparison, the summer homes of Newport, Rhode Island. The house was certainly large enough to have three floors, with various secret passageways.

As many others here in this thread have agreed on, the house contained characteristics that were appealing to the protagonist - mainly the baby grand piano, and the spacious rooms that allowed for quiet practice, and to host numerous musicians for rehearsal.

Certainly, the house in the film is very large, but the original house still would have been considered a large family suburban manse on the outskirts of turn of the century Denver, and later urban renewal 1960s Denver. Historic preservationists in Denver are still debating the exact location, as several families have come forward with plausible details that link the story to two houses on that corner, in the shadow of the two residential towers that stand there today. The house has even been rumored to be linked to two wealthy Colorado families from the 1800s.

Regardless of the exact history, the manse is integral to "the Changeling" story. Or rather, the hidden secret staircase that led to the 3rd floor tucked under the roof makes the story, which makes the film. Cheers!

reply