Not only is it an intelligent departure from the typical reaction of protagonists in the horror genre, it was an intelligent departure for George C. Scott from his standard shouting, fist-pounding "Patton" persona. This is one of the movies where Scott really shows audiences that he isn't a one-trick pony.
I agree that this role departs from the gravelly persona for which Scott is more well-known, but I wouldn't say that he would be considered a "one-trick pony" without this film. If you watch "Anatomy of a Murder", "The Hustler", "Dr Strangelove", "Petulia", "The Hospital", "Hardcore" and "A Christmas Carol" (1984), you would see that he varies his personality significantly for his various roles. He can range from suave and sophisticated, as in "Anatomy of a Murder", to comically manic, as in "Dr Strangelove", to a gentle and depressed sook, as in "The Hospital". But I agree that from the 1970s onwards, his "Patton" persona was the dominant one, so that "The Changeling" was a welcome change.
reply
share
Edward_de_Vere
9 years ago
I agree that Scott is capable of being a versatile actor with considerable range as you note in the films that you mention, but had a tendency to be typecast in swaggering, gravelly "Patton" persona roles. The Changeling was a long-awaited departure from this type-casting.
In this regard, Scott reminds me of Jack Nicholson, who is capable of giving subtle performances in films like The Pledge,About Schmidt, or (earlier in his career) Five Easy Pieces or The King of Marvin's Gardens, but has a tendency to be typecast in his trade-mark grinning, raised-eyebrow wiseass "Jack" role in movie after movie.
reply
share
Rex16
8 years ago
True. It's a pity how some really talented actors - Nicholson, Scott and even Brando - for want of better material, revert to a "default" persona. I read that George C. Scott only kept on making movies after the 1970s because of financial reasons, and that his real passion was the theatre, where he actually gave some highly acclaimed performances.
reply
share
OmegaWolf747
8 years ago
I wonder if he ever did Shakespeare.
---
House. My room. Cant walk. My medal. My father. Father, dont!
reply
share
Rex16
8 years ago
He performed the lead role in "Richard III" in Central Park in 1957 to critical acclaim and later portrayed Shylock in "Merchant of Venice". Beyond that, he didn't do Shakespeare. The TV Tropes page on Scott (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Creator/GeorgeCScott) has more information on his stage roles, if you are interested
reply
share
OmegaWolf747
8 years ago
Cool. Thanks!
---
House. My room. Cant walk. My medal. My father. Father, dont!
reply
share
Edward_de_Vere
8 years ago
I read that George C. Scott only kept on making movies after the 1970s because of financial reasons, and that his real passion was the theatre, where he actually gave some highly acclaimed performances.
I wish some of his stage performances had been filmed as part of the Broadway Theater Archive. I would have loved to have seen his take on Hickey in O'Neill's
The Iceman Cometh and his Willy Loman.
reply
share
Rex16
7 years ago
I wish some of his stage performances had been filmed as part of the Broadway Theater Archive. I would have loved to have seen his take on Hickey in O'Neill's The Iceman Cometh and his Willy Loman.
I agree. It's so frustrating when I read claims by critics that people like Scott and Laurence Olivier were incredible stage actors, but the lack of any footage makes that sort of comment meaningless for modern generations.
reply
share
ilsamarx (42)
3 years ago
I didn’t go through all 96 comments so someone may have already brought this up. John explained perfectly on how he was reacting through the movie early on in the film. He quite clear on how stated how in shock he was when his wife and daughter died. He didn’t feel anything and then it hit him. He was intelligent and I think he was under stress and shock when it all started to happen. He remained calm and it wasn’t until he heard the seance tape it hit him. After that all his emotion shifted to just figuring it out to full on sprint to help Joseph. It wasn’t out of character for him and so there for fit perfectly in the movie. George C Scott was perfectly cast. This movie wouldn’t work without his performance. It would just be the same old same old freak out session and emotional all about the main character. In reality, this movie is about Joseph and Sen Carmichael. You only feel sad for John at the beginning and then it’s Joseph and how he becomes the lead in this film. He is the true main character. You feel like your with John. You leave this movie thinking about Joseph, you leave this movie either feeling sad for Sen Carmichael or angry at the Carmichael dad and Sen Carmichael. If George C Scott took a different approach the. The entire shift of the movie would have changed to be about John and you wouldn’t feel the emotional and tragic story of the Carmichaels. There are not many movies where the actually main character is someone who is barely on screen. It’s not easy to pull off that off and this movie nails it.
reply
share