Scott's performance - intelligent departure or failed experiment?

Well said, Grayseph. I thought Scott did a marvellous job of making his voice and personality very different from any of his other roles. He spoke in a "mellow" voice instead of a guttural bark as in Patton or Dr. Strangelove, and his manner was quite gentle and sophisticated, which added an extra layer to the character, since Russell exuded a sense of inner strength.

Being accustomed to entire films that revolve around protagonists who attempt to break out of their grief or trauma, I was pleasantly surprised to see that Scott's character had effectively finished the "soft" business of grieving off-screen and actually wanted to move on in life by the third scene in the film. I loved the character's no-nonsense attitude and lack of self-pity. There was no emotional indulgence in this film - even the crying scene was used to set up the haunting and drive the plot forward. Everything about the film was so wonderfully economical!

Also, I found Scott's presence strangely "comforting" in the context of the film. I wasn't scared because his character was never scared either. I was more interested in how the character would find a solution to the problem. I wish there were more films with such strong protagonists.

[T]here were a couple times when Joseph "got" him, like the bathtub scene and then the ball coming down the stares. The look on his face was priceless!

[deleted]

Great post, Sewaat. One of the reasons I liked Scott's performance in The Changeling so much is that it is so different from all his other roles. While Scott brings to John Russell the same strength and unflinching attitude that we find, say, in Patton, he differentiates Russell by imbuing him with a thoroughly pleasant and poised personality. It's hard to imagine that Scott had it in him to be so personable without seeing this film.

I didn't have any problem with Scott's age, because it fitted my idea of a 50-something man who has been career-oriented in the past and married late in life but is now is a fond father. Besides, Scott always looked older than he was.

I suppose the real reason I admire Scott's portrayal of John Russell is that he represents a very different brand of "manliness" to what we usually see on TV, but one that has far more resonance in real life. In the media, being "manly" equates to having a powerful physique and an interest in outdoor pursuits. Scott as John Russell, on the other hand, is manly at a more intellectual, psychological and temperamental level. Scott's Russell is rational, fearless, independent, determined and has an inquiring mind. He is a true gentleman in the sense that he doesn't let his personal grief or preoccupations affect his sense of self-worth or his interaction with others. To him, having lost his entire family is not an excuse to let himself go. Instead, he believes in carving out a new existence for himself.

Most modern depictions of a man who has experienced tragedy of this magnitude would have him shun his friends, break out in rage at innocuous remarks by other people and descend to misery. John Russell does none of these things - we can imagine that he would frown upon these types of behaviour as "emotional indulgences" and "irresponsible". That doesn't prevent him from being entirely in touch with his softer side - we know that he has no difficulty in discussing how he is coping with his grief among friends. It's just that he knows how to behave in society and can keep his personal life separate. That's a rare quality in most modern depictions of men. And it requires great skill and intelligence as an actor to portray it convincingly.

The thing with Mrs. Norman was I always thought because John had moved into the Chessman House. Mrs. Norman had obviously seen the house before (It's so... large) and I think was creeped out by the idea of anyone actually living in it.

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

1. I have no objections to your first "questionable" moment at all. I guess I never really focused on that during the scene but it doesn't distract from the film's direction at all. At least not for me so I can forgive that mistake.

2. I guess this is just my interpretation of it, but I've always felt that the spirit of Joseph was channeling his anger, sadness and pain into both Claire and John. The only difference being is that John saw what happened and Claire did not. Though her emotional reaction I think is valid only because: A) Now she feels guilty for selling the house to John in the first place. B) Most females have a capacity to be more sympathetic towards children and particularly to mourn children who are no longer alive because of their maternal instincts. C) She had NO IDEA that such a terrible thing even happened in that house and the shock of the discovery in itself was probably enough to spur an emotional reaction out of her.
So I've never really seen it as an over reaction at all. I just think that John and Claire responded to the tape in different ways. But because John by that point has had more than his fair share of grief, he's not shaken by it as easily.

3. It's been a while since I've seen the film so forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't most of the shots in that scene consist of over the shoulder or close ups of the dirt/medal? I don't recall the camera ever cutting to his facial reaction more than once during the scene.

4. I don't get any impression of uncomfortableness when it comes to that scene. But typically in the first act of a film things get off ona a bit of a rocky start. Mostly because you have to introduce your characters, setting etc. It's not until the beginning of the 2nd act when things really start to pick up and become interesting.

Real is good. Interesting is better.

OmegaWolf, I like your explanation for Mrs. Norman's behaviour. Yes, she probably was feeling unnerved by the fact that John had decided to rent the Chessman House. However, that raises an interesting question: did she know something about the House that Claire didn't? Claire seemed to have heard nothing about the haunting. Or may be, Claire did hear some rumours that the house was haunted but dismissed it as idle talk? If so, that would explain why she was so upset once she heard the tape recording. As Sewaat points out, she was probably feeling guilty that John had rented the place at her suggestion.

Sewaat, I agree with your explanation for Claire's reaction to the tape. She was probably affected by how tragic Joseph's backstory was. It's also likely that she was regretting that John was having to re-live the death of another child, given his personal tragedy and what he had told her at Cora's grave, that he couldn't go through another ordeal all over again.

On the other hand, I differ from your view that John wasn't as affected as Claire: he looked nauseated and in fact fainted. I think what really hit John was the realisation that there are some people who can murder their children for profit, whereas he was still reeling over his inability to save his daughter.

1. Russell breaking the lock to the attic using a hammer. It looked really fake to me. Most people would hold on to some support - may be the door frame - with one hand and hammer with the other. He simply let his free hand swing in mid-air. I don't know why they didn't film this scene differently.

3. Russell finding the medal in the well. His expression felt a bit too deadpan.