CRM 101 Internet Blogging Assignment #5: Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and “Changling”
Introduction to Criminology–CRM 101
Internet Blogging Assignment #5: Due Tuesday November 10, 2009 at the beginning of class
Instructions: For this internet blogging assignment, students are asked to (1) view during class the ”true life” movie ”Changling” starring Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich (2008), (2) read through the true life chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders as found from a website below, then (3) answer the following questions regarding a comparison between the film and the “true life” story of the murders:
a. Compare the movie “Changling” to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Did you find the movie “Changling” to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, or was it simply “Hollywood” trying to make a buck?
b. Do you believe it’s good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders? Why or Why not?
c. If you could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, what would you change in the movie? Why? If you wouldn’t change anything in the movie, support your view as well.
When you enter your blog online, please make sure to label your responses (a, b, c) clearly. Responses may be a little longer than in previous blogging assignments, so take your time and think your answers through. Remember: one of the most important aspects of this course is being able to “apply” reality to theory. Good luck and have fun!
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Retrieved from Web 10/28/09: http://swallowingthecamel.blogspot.com/2008/12/real-stories-behind-changeling.html
The case of serial killer Gordon Stewart Northcott and little Walter Collins is so surpassingly bizarre, so full of incredible twists, that even a full-length feature film from one of Hollywood’s premiere directors couldn’t properly do it justice. It is, in fact, one of the strangest cases in the history of American justice. Yet this nearly-forgotten story of abuse of power, family dysfunction, and deception remains deeply revelent today, in a time when unlawful detainment, official malfeasance, and extralegal measures like “extraordinary rendition” are common.
By the time the events of the “Wineville chicken coop murders” reached their tragic conclusion, a police force had been disgraced, a town had decided to change its name, and at least five people were dead.
Our story begins on March 10, 1928, the day 9-year-old Walter Collins disappeared from Los Angeles on his way to a movie matinee. At this time the LAPD was rife with corruption. A “gun squad” practiced its own strange brand of urban Western justice under the leadership of Police Chief James “Two Guns” Davis, mowing down suspected criminals and inconvenient persons alike under the force’s shoot to kill policy; bodies were routinely found in alleys, warehouses, and other dark corners of the city. The LAPD also had its fingers in an array of criminal enterprises (bootlegging, prostitution, extortion, bribery), and was frantically trying to cleanse its image as public outcry against the corruption grew louder and more strident every day. In this maelstrom, the Collins investigation went absolutely nowhere. Police breezily assured Walter’s mother Christine, whose husband was serving a sentence in Folsom Prison, that her son might have run away from home and would probably return on his own, even after 12-year-old Lewis Winslow and his 10-year-old brother, Nelson, vanished from Pomona on May 16th. They left the Model Yacht Club that evening after working on some arts and crafts, and never returned home.
Sanford
That July, 21-year-old chicken rancher Gordon Stewart Northcott was having family trouble. Northcott and his parents had moved illegally to California from their native Canada four years earlier. The Northcotts had purchased the three-acre chicken ranch near the town of Wineville, Riverside County, for their son when he was 19 years old. Stewart, as he was known in the family, had lived there by himself only a few months before he drove to Saskatoon to fetch a housemate: his 13-year-old nephew, Sanford Clark. Stewart’s older sister, Winnifred, was separated from her husband and working to support her children, so having Stewart and her parents look after the boy might have eased her burden somewhat.
With Sanford as unpaid labour, Gordon and his father Cyrus (known as George) built a house, a garage, six chicken coops, and numerous outbuildings on the ranch.
Sanford rose every day at 5:30 to make breakfast, then did farm chores while Stewart “ran errands”. At various times Northcott told neighbors and school officials that Sanford was studying to enter the priesthood, attending a Catholic school, or recuperating from an illness. Sometimes he said Sanford was old enough to quit school. These were all lies. Sanford hadn’t attended a single day of classes since his arrival in the U.S.
But this was not the worst thing happening at Stewart’s ranch. At least twice a week, Stewart would rape his nephew. He flew into rages without provocation, beating the boy frequently. He also brought about a dozen young boys to the ranch to be sexually assaulted. He released them with threats to find and kill them if they told anyone. He had tried to molest his mechanic’s teen son on several occasions. In August of 1927 a father caught Stewart trying to lure his son from Pickering Park, and chased him away with a knife. Two years before that, he had been arrested for inappropriate behaviour toward a friend’s little brother. Stewart would mourn his loss of this boy for years, playing the child’s favourite song (Song of Songs) on the piano as he sat on a stool the boy had made. Awaiting execution, he played a recording of the song over and over on a phonograph.
There was much more. Between February 1st and the end of May, 1928, Stewart had carried out and covered up four murders – with Sanford’s unwilling help.
Now, at the end of July, Sanford’s 19-year-old sister Jessie was planning a trip to California. Though the family had no reason to think Sanford was being mistreated in any way, they suspected he wasn’t attending school; his cheery letters home hadn’t improved much in quality over the two years he had been in Stewart’s care.
Jessie arrived from Vancouver by boat on July 26th, to her uncle’s extreme displeasure. She found her little brother work-hardened, “peaked”, and fearful, but he insisted he was still attending school and enjoying himself on the farm – at least when Stewart was around. When he wasn’t, Sanford gave Jessie details of the horrors he had survived at the ranch.
The Mexican
On February 1st, Sanford told his sister, their Uncle Stewart had returned to the ranch from one of his mysterious “errands” and announced that he had just murdered a young Mexican man. He had the man’s severed head in a bucket, and showed it to Sanford before he burned it in a bonfire and disposed of the charred remains. He said he had dumped the man’s body near Puente.
In a later account, Stewart admitted to this murder but wildly embellished the story, claiming he had to shoot the man nine times in the heard before he would die. Then Louise mopped up the bloodstain.
Whatever the circumstances of the murder, the entire family was complicit in covering it up. They agreed not to tell the authorities anything unless asked. Stewart had forced Sanford to tell his parents, George and Louise, that Stewart had hired the Mexican to do some chores at the ranch, caught him stealing, and was threatened with a knife. So Sanford shot him.
The following day, the headless body of a Mexican man roughly 18 years old, covered by a burlap sack, was found by the side of a road near Puente. The remains were never identified. Stewart, when referring to the man, would use either the fictitious name “Alvin Gothea” or the generic name “Jose Gonzales”. At times he claimed that he had to kill the Mexican because he “knew too much”.
Walter
Walter Collins was taken to the ranch the same day he disappeared. By all accounts, Louise was there helping with chores for the week, and she knew that a young boy was staying at the ranch. She admittedly fed him meals.
Here, the accounts diverge. At different times, both Louise and Stewart admitted to killing Walter Collins with an axe. By the time of his trial in January 1929, Stewart was still more or less admitting that he did it, but only because Walter supposedly saw him shoot and kill a miner who was trying to rob another miner near a little shack Stewart had rented that month.
Once, Stewart confessed to overdosing Walter with ether as he slept on his cot, then shooting him when he said he felt “fine and dandy” and fell unconscious. But he insisted it was Louise who struck the fatal blow. At other times, he denied ever laying eyes on Walter Collins.
At her trial, Louise testified that Walter just showed up at the ranch one night and asked to stay, so she set up a cot for him in one of the chicken coops. The next day, the boy waited around while Stewart fixed up his car. That night, Louise said, she went out to the coop to fetch something and found the boy on his cot with his head “crushed in”, but still alive. “I took the ax and hit him on the temple and finished him up to keep him out of his suffering.” She hinted that Sanford had injured the boy; he was just exiting the coop when Louise approached it, while Stewart was presumably still tinkering with his car. (3, 56)
Sanford’s account was much different. He knew exactly what his uncle liked to do with young boys. And it seems Louise was also aware of her son’s pedophilia. She suggested to Sanford and her son that Walter must be killed; he would talk if allowed to leave the ranch alive. (Today, this seems like an eerie foreshadowing of the Pickton family. In 1967 Louise Pickton allegedly drowned a 14-year-old boy her son had struck with his vehicle, rolling him into a water-filled ditch to hide the accident. Years later, her other son – Robert – was convicted of killing numerous women and burying their bodies on his pig farm.)
Louise said each of them would have to participate in the murder so they would be equally culpable if caught. They would each strike the boy once with an axe.
Two years later, at the foot of the gallows, three men would approach the death of Stewart Northcott with the same logic. Each man would step forward and slice one of three cords, only one them actually attached to the trapdoor through which the prisoner’s body would plummet. That way, the men would never know which one of them caused the man’s death.
The Northcotts entered the coop where Walter lay asleep, and by the light of a flashlight struck the boy repeatedly with an axe. He was buried in an adjoining coop. Later, Stewart moved the body and reburied it with lime.
The three accounts agreed on only one point: Walter Collins was dead.
The Winslow Brothers
Around 10:00 on the night of May 16th, Stewart arrived at the ranch with Lewis and Nelson Winslow. Sanford was ordered to set up the hen house for them, then nail the door shut with the boys and Stewart inside (Stewart would open the door from the inside when he was ready to get out). The boys were held in the hen house for about a week. This time, Louise wasn’t present. It was Sanford who brought the boys food and water, and emptied their chamberpot. He said the brothers drew pictures and played cards.
Stewart made the boys write two letters to their parents, telling them they had run away to Mexico “to make a lot of money making yachts and airplanes” and were “having a wonderful adventure”, a ploy he probably picked up from another child-killer (see the section on Stewart, below).
On the 25th or 26th, Stewart announced it was time to kill the boys. After an unsuccessful attempt to kill the older boy, Lewis, with ether, Stewart sent him to the house. He and Sanford then killed Nelson, and later Lewis, by striking him over the head and burying him alive.
Stewart didn’t always explicitly deny the murders during his trial, but he did try to heap as much blame as possible onto his nephew. At one point, he claimed Sanford had beaten Nelson to death and concealed the body from Lewis for three days. Finally, Lewis’ questions about his brother became so persistent that Stewart killed him. Representing himself, he grilled Sanford on the witness stand as to why he hadn’t protested killing the Winslow brothers, or run to the neighbors for help. Surely this was one of the most surreal moments in an already bizarre trial: Stewart actually mocking the boy for overestimating his ability to control the situation.
The Lucky Ones
With four murders behind them, the Northcott family embarked on a demented family project engineered by Stewart. In late June, Stewart posed as the personal secretary of a fabulously wealthy “Mrs. Rowan” and presented himself at the Salvation Army in L.A., seeking a laborer/cook for one of Mrs. Rowan’s numerous ranches. He selected Jacob Dahl, a married father of four sons ranging in age from 8 to 15.
Louise was to pose as Stewart’s aunt, and Sanford was to be her son. Stewart introduced himself to Mr. and Mrs. Dahl as “Mr. Craig”. He drove them out to the ranch and served them a light supper, including peaches that seemed to have some sort of capsules sprinkled over them. Mrs. Dahl found this this, and the family’s nervous behavior, rather odd – but it seemed like a good position for her husband, so she said nothing. At the end of the evening, Stewart returned the Dahls to their home. Shortly afterward, he informed them that Mrs. Rowan’s husband had died and the cook was no longer needed.
Sanford explained that Stewart scrapped his plan to murder the Dahls and abduct their sons because he was afraid of being caught.
Escape #1
Stewart had threatened to hunt him down and kill him if he ever ran away, Sanford told his sister.
Jessie didn’t challenge her uncle during the week she stayed at the ranch. She played her cards slowly and carefully, aware that any misstep could be fatal. Two bullet holes in the wall of the bedroom she slept in served as reminders of Stewart’s volatility.
Though he didn’t trust her entirely, Stewart confided in his niece at least once. He told her he wanted to make his mechanic’s son his “new darling” because Sanford’s voice was beginning to change.
On August 2nd, Jessie left the ranch to spend her last two weeks in California with George and Louise in L.A. She took Sanford with her and sent him to the home of a friend. George assisted them in the secret escape plot. He clearly didn’t approve of what was going on at the ranch, but was afraid to openly defy his own deranged son and wife. When Stewart and Lewis headed off to the ranch with a large load of firewood, he commented to Jessie that they were going to “destroy their evidence….I told them they could do their own dirty work.” (3, 81)
The very next day, when Stewart learned his nephew was gone, he was angry enough to brandish a gun at his father. George broke down and revealed Sanford’s location.
Sanford was immediately driven back to the ranch by his uncle.
Escape #2
One week later, on a Sunday, George and Jessie made another attempt to spring Sanford. Stewart had said he was going to be in San Diego for the day, and Louise was out of the house, so they seized this chance to drive out to the ranch.
Louise had beaten them there. Stewart was there, as well. They had apparently laid a trap. During the ensuing confrontation, Jessie announced her intention to take Sanford home to Canada. Stewart punched her in the face. Later, he explained to her that Sanford couldn’t leave because he had shot a miner who was robbing another miner. A little boy had witnessed this, and he and Sanford had been forced to eliminate the witness.
Escape #3
The day she was scheduled to return to Canada, Jessie made one last attempt to free her brother. Stewart had ordered Sanford to take a cab from their grandparents’ house back to the ranch, but Jessie secretly instructed him to go a nearby fruit market instead, and she would try to pony up the money for a bus ticket out of the city. George assured Jessie he could come up with the money. She left the U.S. believing – hoping – that Sanford would soon be on his way home, too.
He wasn’t. At the end of August, Jessie received a telegram from George, saying he would bring Sanford to Canada in six weeks. It turned out that he had taken Sanford to the bus station, only to encounter Stewart there. Furious, Stewart again reclaimed his nephew and hauled him to the ranch.
Stewart
Why did everyone bow to Stewart Northcott’s wishes? He was like the boy in the Twilight Zone episode who threatens to send his family “out to the cornfield” with his paranormal powers unless they go out of their way to amuse and placate him.
Sanford, George, and Jessie were fearful of Stewart, with good reason. Louise’s motive for cooperating with her son’s plans might have been quite different, though. At her son’s trial, she declared he was the only person in the world who had ever shown her any love. In return, she offered an almost slavish devotion to his whims.
George and Louise married in their native Ontario in 1886, when they were both very young. A few years later they had Winnifred. Five other children didn’t survive, including a 5-year-old boy named Willie. Stewart was born in Bladworth, Saskatchewan, in 1906 or 1907, the same year Winnifred married John Clark and settled on a farm in the area.
Years later, reporters covering Stewart’s murder trial would make much of his “effeminate” traits, and there were rumours that Louise had dressed and treated him as a girl until he was 12 years old. No evidence bears this out. The descriptions of Stewart as both a hairy “Ape Man” and a “broad-shouldered coquettish girl” seem to stem from the abhorrence for his same-sex orientation. The prosecution actually made note of this more often than the fact that Stewart was a pedophile and a sexual predator.
At this time, George was probably considered the ne’er-do-well of his family. He toiled on small farms or did construction work while two of his brothers ran successful medical practices. Then, in 1919, Ephraim Northcott accidentally killed a young nurse during a backroom abortion and was sentenced to prison, where he passed away in July 1928. He died without learning that he wasn’t the only killer in the family.
In 1913, after living in Edmonton for a time, the Northcotts settled in Vancouver. They would reside there until illegally immigrating to California in 1924.
In the winter of 1918, according to family members, Stewart slipped on some ice and cracked his head, resulting in minor hemorrhaging and a period of delusion (for weeks he believed Louise was dead, even though she was right in front of his eyes). He was never quite the same. Louise stated at his trial that a family doctor in Edmonton told her his mind had never been “just right”.
But he retained an average or even above-average intellect. He appreciated classical music, and as a teenager in Vancouver he played piano in a movie house and conducted a small jazz orchestra at a cafe.
At Stewart’s trial, George Northcott admitted he was terrified of his own son, who abused him after years of being not simply spoiled but ruined by Louise. Louise always encouraged his behaviour, bringing him up to treat his father like an “old fool”. George described himself as “the family football”, and that was exactly the impression he left on everyone – a meek old man, disgusted by his son’s tyranny but far too cowed to do anything about it.
Stewart was a pathological liar. When he rented the shack in Mint Valley, near Saugus, the same month Walter Collins was killed, he told the owners he was a journalist. They were made extremely nervous by this strange man who toted around two pistols and a box he wouldn’t allow anyone to touch. He spoke knowingly about a gruesome child murder that had taken place in L.A. the previous December. William Edward Hickman, 19 years old, abducted the 12-year-old daughter of a former employer and had the girl, Marion Parker, write letters to her father to assure him she was safe. These were accompanied by dramatic ransom demands from Hickman, signed “The Fox”. Mr. Parker arranged to meet The Fox in an isolated spot to hand over the money. Hickman pulled up alongside Parker in his car, grabbed the money, then drove a short distance before dumping Marion’s limp body beside the road. Her arms and legs had been removed, her eyelids stitched open.
One month before Walter Collins disappeared, Hickman was found guilty and sentenced to death.
Stewart commented to the cabin owner’s wife that Hickman “didn’t know how to put over a first-class murder.” (3, 59)
Walter?
With her husband serving a sentence for robbery in Folsom Prison, Christine Collins was essentially a single mother, renting rooms in a modest home in the Mount Washington area, working as a phone operator.
Convinced that her son could be alive, she paid close attention to sightings of Walter that were reported from all over California throughout the summer of 1928. There were numerous reports that an “Italian-looking” man and woman had been seen loitering in the Collins’ neighborhood in the days before Walter disappeared, and a few people claimed to have seen Walter in the presence of a similar “foreign” couple. A particularly chilling sighting was reported by a gas station attendant in Glendale who was quite certain he had seen Walter’s limp, possibly lifeless, body in the backseat of a car that pulled into his station.
There was also a promising sighting of the Winslow brothers: A traveling salesman in New Braunfels, Texas, believed he had given a ride to the two boys sometime in June. Later events proved this to be a false sighting. The boys’ father had also received the letters Stewart had forced Lewis and Nelson to write, informing him they were heading for Mexico. Incidents like these fed Christine Collins’ belief that Walter was still alive.
Walter Collins Sr. and some police officers, on the other hand, suspected that former inmates had killed his boy in retaliation for something he had done, and a Los Angeles Times article darkly hinted that Mrs. Collins might have gotten on the wrong side of some criminals while trying to “negotiate her husband’s release”. This was an ominous foreshadowing to the scapegoating of Mrs. Collins, but no one could possibly have foreseen what was about to occur.
In August, a young boy was brought into the police station in Dekalb, Illinois, after he was found wandering alone. He gave his name as Arthur Kent, and told police his father had abandoned him. He hinted that he had lived in Hollywood and Los Angeles, but refused to betray his father by providing any further details.
Authorities placed him temporarily with a farmer. Illinois State Police officer O.N. Larson grew convinced that the boy was really Walter Collins, and his suspicions seemed to be borne out when the boy finally admitted it. In the excitement of finding Walter, no one dwelt too heavily on the question of why the boy would deny his own identity for several weeks.
Mrs. Collins immediately sent $70 of her own money to Dekalb for train fare, while the LAPD stage-managed a publicized reunion that could finally redeem the police in the public’s eye. Photographers mobbed the platform as Walter, looking remarkably healthy after his long ordeal, stepped off the train and was guided to his anxiously waiting mother.
But there was to be no joyful reunion. Christine Collins knew at once that this boy was not her son, though he somewhat resembled Walter in age, build, and colouring. She informed LAPD Captian J.J. Jones of this immediately. Utterly unwilling to see his golden PR coup destroyed, Captain Jones firmly assured Mrs. Collins the boy was Walter; he just looked a bit different after all he’d been through, that was all. Over her objections, he urged her to take the boy home with her. Ten days later, Mrs. Collins returned “Walter” to the police, even more adamant that he was not her child. For one thing, his teeth didn’t match Walter’s dental records – and the dentist had signed a statement to that effect. Captain Jones continued to insist the boy had to be Walter. Perhaps his abductor had brainwashed him into behaving differently and forgetting certain details about his life, he suggested.
Rather than admit the mistake and forfeit all that good publicity the police had received for “solving” the case, they maintained that Walter had passed tests to confirm his identity. To get rid of the evidence that the official LAPD position was crumbling, on September 8th Captain Jones had Mrs. Collins involuntarily committed to the county psychiatric ward under a “Code 12″ designation reserved for bothersome people. She was told that she was either mentally ill, or a bad mother trying to unload her son onto the state. She would not be allowed to leave until she admitted that the boy from Illinois was her child. Mrs. Collins bravely refused to bow to police pressure.
However, the police did question “Walter” more thoroughly once he was in state custody. He confessed he wasn’t really Walter, but Billy Fields. Then he admitted he was really Arthur Hutchens, a 12-year-old runaway from Iowa. He didn’t like living with his stepmother, Violet Hutchens, and his resemblance to Walter Collins had presented him with a golden opportunity to travel to California, where he hoped to meet movie cowboy Tom Mix. Arthur’s family had a connection to California; his father, J.S. Hutchens, had recently served time in San Quentin for sexual offenses against boys.
Christine Collins was quietly released from the psych hospital on September 15th.
Strangely, the clues to “Walter’s” real identity had been in plain sight all along. As reported by the Los Angeles Times on August 5, 1928, while Arthur was still staying at the farm near DeKalb, a man with bullet scars on his face had shown up while the boy was out. He appeared to be searching for someone, but merely asked for some food. He was soon identified as J.S. Hutchens. Told of the man’s visit, Arthur burst out, “That’s my daddy!”. Mr. Hutchens never reappeared. Police speculated that J.S. Hutchens had abducted Walter Collins upon his release from San Quentin, but were unable to locate him.
Then there was the fact that Sandford Clark had identified one of his uncle’s victims as Walter Collins. The juvenile officers who questioned Sanford accepted this story at first, but when Walter turned up alive in Illinois they concluded that Sanford must be mistaken…or lying. The Los Angeles Times noted this “perplexing paradox” on September 16th, even adding that Jessie Clark corroborated her brother’s account of the murders. He had told her all about the murder of Walter Collins when she visited the ranch in July.
Escape #4
With Jessie back in Canada, Stewart knew he was on borrowed time. He began selling off his possessions as though preparing for flight.
He didn’t know that it was already too late. Jessie had promptly reported her brother’s abuse to the American consulate in Vancouver. She may have mentioned the murders, but if so that information was not imparted to the two LAPD officers and the two immigration officials dispatched to the ranch. They believed they were just checking on a couple of young Canadian men who were living in the country illegally.
On August 31st, as Stewart, Sanford, and the mechanic’s son were loading furniture at the ranch, the two immigration inspectors arrived. Stewart immediately ran off into the desert, leaving Sanford to be taken to Juvenile Hall for questioning.
Within two days of being taken into custody, Sanford told investigators that Stewart had removed him from his parents’ home in Canada two years earlier, when he was 13, and had been abusing him physically and sexually since that time. He also made the startling revelation that Stewart had murdered several young boys with an axe and buried their bodies on the ranch. He also claimed Gordon had killed a man on the highway near Saugus on March 10, two days before the St. Francis Dam disaster. (The murder of the young Mexican man, as we’ve seen, actually took place on the first day of February. Whether Sanford was referring to this murder or to a second, unverified, crime is unclear).
Sanford picked the Winslow boys and Walter Collins out of a stack of 30 photographs. Walter, he said, had been killed about a week after his abduction. The Winslow boys had been killed with blows from an axe, and Sanford himself was forced to kill the younger boy, Nelson, on threat of death.
Incredibly, Stewart evaded authorities with the aid of a city judge, H.S. Farrell of Alhambra. He simply showed up at the man’s office on August 31st and gave him a long story about how he was trying to bring up his nephew with Catholic principles, while his immoral sister was trying to pry the boy away from him. The judge refused to intervene directly in the matter, but he obligingly drove Stewart to the home of a lawyer, then to George and Louise’s house.
Stewart fled to Vancouver, beyond the reach of immigration officials, on his attorney’s advice. A few days later, Louise quit her job as a laundress at L.A. General Hospital and followed, leaving George alone in California. One has to wonder if he was relieved to finally be free of these two insane people for a while.
In a room of the ranch house, investigators found a book that had been checked out of the Pomona public library by one of the Winslow brothers. Some of their Boy Scout badges and a hat belonging to Lewis were also found on the ranch, along with a bloodstained mattress and axes encrusted with blood and human hair.
Jessie and her family had no idea what was happening until September 8th. On that day, Jessie and a friend were walking in Vancouver, en route to a job interview. Suddenly they ran into her grandmother and Uncle Stewart, who informed her that Sanford was about to be deported back to Canada. Jessie quickly summoned her mother to Vancouver, but soon after Winnifred’s arrival, the news broke that Stewart was wanted on suspicion of murder.
Even though Sanford had told his story to the authorities two days after he was taken into custody, they were initially skeptical. He wasn’t questioned fully until September 14th.
He led police to two gravesites near his uncle’s chicken coop, where the partial skeletonized remains of three children were found on September 17th. These proved to be the remains of the Winslow brothers and parts of the unidentified Mexican man. In all, 51 human body parts were found on the ranch.
Sanford implicated his grandmother in Walter’s murder. He said she neither participated in nor witnessed the Winslow murders, but knew all about them.
On September 19th, Louise Northcott was taken into custody on a train in Calgary. Stewart was arrested on a train in Vernon, B.C. (interestingly, the final destination of two California boys who briefly fooled authorities into believing they had been raised in the wilderness). On the train ride back to California, Stewart initiated a pattern that would become familiar to everyone who encountered him in the next two years: He alternated between indignantly protesting his innocence and sanity, and making bizarre confessions to Riverside County deputy district attorney Earl Redwine.
Three days later a grand jury in Riverside County returned five indictments against Stewart: four counts of murder, and one of sodomy. Louise was named in an indictment for the murder of Walter Collins.
On September 23rd, Christine Collins threw a 10th birthday party for her missing son.
In Riverside County Jail, Stewart alternated between declaring total innocence and implicating everyone in his family. He was allowed to meet with Sanford, who was in hospital, and demanded the boy confess. When that didn’t work, he tried to sweet-talk him into confessing. Sanford stood his ground. So did George. Louise was still in Canada, fighting extradition.
Stewart continued to make sporadic confessions. At one point he said he had killed 9 people, and would “play crazy” in court – only he would keep it up longer than Edward Hickman, who had been caught feigning insanity when he wrote letters about his ruse to another prisoner. Stewart even said he had once had a brother named Richard, whom George had killed when he was 9 or 10 years old. There was no such brother.
In addition to fake confessions, Stewart took great delight in leading the police on wild goose chases all over the desert, pointing out “graves” that turned out to be nonexistent. The full remains of his victims were never located.
There are indications that Stewart savored his infamy. For all his bitter complaints about the media, he never declined an interview. He talked at length about his love of music, his chickens, his philosophy of life.
In October, William Hickman was executed for the murder of Marian Parker. Knowing that his role model died at the end of a rope couldn’t have been a comfort to Stewart.
In December, as Stewart’s trial date neared, Louise Northcott made two very strange confessions that remain rather baffling. First, she confessed to police that she had murdered all of the boys, including Walter Collins. She said she had killed the Mexican in self-defense. Later, she altered her confession to minimize her own participation in the crimes. She claimed that Sanford had killed Lewis Winslow and severely beaten Nelson, so Louise shot him merely to end his misery. Sanford also bashed in Walter’s head, and she had to put him out of his misery as well. Then Sanford and Jessie, who despised her son, framed Stewart for everything. Louise was perfectly willing to sacrifice her grandchildren to save her beloved boy. Unluckily for her, Redwine didn’t buy much of the story. While the entire family had some involvement in what had become known as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, this was obviously just Louise’s desperate attempt to keep Stewart from being convicted.
Whether authentic or not, however, her confession to the murder of Walter Collins stood up in court because it was corroborated by Sanford’s testimony. She pled guilty and was handed a life sentence.
The second confession was far stranger, and as it couldn’t possibly have helped Stewart in any way, Louise’s reasons for giving it remain unclear. She may have been trying to feign insanity, or she may actually have been insane.
Louise had summoned Earl Redwine to her cell to “confess” that she wasn’t Stewart’s real mother. She explained that at 17 she met and secretly married an English lord. The same day, she realized that the marriage would be a “detriment to his career” and urged him to go home and fulfill his obligations. Two years later, she bigamously wed George Northcott. Then, in 1906, the lord unexpectedly returned to Canada and swept Louise away to live with him. Three days later he died of heart failure. She returned to George only to learn that he had impregnated their daughter in her brief absence. She stuck to this story throughout Stewart’s trial.
Stewart showed no gratitude for his mother’s efforts to save him. Reading an overwrought letter from her, he commented that he didn’t like her and had always considered her crazy.
Trial
Stewart Gordon Northcott stood trial in Riverside County in January 1929 for the murders of the Winslow brothers and the unidentified Mexican man, whom he referred to at that time as “Alvin Gothea”. Despite his signed confessions, he pled not guilty to all three murders, then proceeded to put on an extremely weird defense, firing three attorneys before deciding to represent himself. He accused the sheriff of plotting to kill him, swore at the prosecutor, talked at great length about a disease that had stricken his chickens, and questioned himself on the witness stand.
Things got even stranger when Louise was summoned to testify on her son’s behalf. On the witness stand, she publicly declared for the first time that Gordon was not her son, but her grandson. If she and Stewart thought this would provoke sympathy for him, they were wrong. It actually made Stewart’s sexual abuse of Sanford even more appalling, because Sanford was now not just a family member, but his half-brother. Oddly, Stewart had freely admitted to sodomizing his nephew. He said he didn’t know it was inappropriate to have sexual relations with his nephew/brother until authorities explained it to him, despite his supposedly devout Catholicism and the fact that he had brought a Bible with him from Canada.
There were also allegations, from Stewart, that George had repeatedly raped him when he was a child. “I could not help it I was brought into the world. I did not ask to be brought in. I was not responsible for the sins of these people before me.” (3, 199)
George Northcott denied it all. In fact, though he was testifying on behalf of his son, his testimony was extraordinarily damaging to Stewart. George admitted he had seen some of the bodies before Stewart destroyed them with lime, lye, fire, and an axe. He had even bragged about the murders to his father. Only a few months earlier, George had insisted that Stewart had always been a “good boy” who displayed no “abnormal tendencies”.
On the stand, he explained that Louise would say anything to defend her son. He was “her god”.
Louise demonstrated this amply in court. During questioning, she told Stewart, “You are the only one that has ever brought any joy or happiness to my old gray life and has used me right and given me any love.” (3, 202)
The most damaging testimony came, of course, from Sanford Clark. Combined with the physical evidence, it convinced a jury that Stewart Northcott was guilty after just a few hours of deliberation. Stewart was convicted of all counts.
After his conviction, Stewart wrote George out of his personal history by telling prison officials that his father died in an insane asylum before his trial. This, despite the fact that George had pled for leniency on his son’s behalf, arguing that Stewart shouldn’t be executed because he was obviously “of unsound mind.”
Mr. Winslow knew he had a limited amount of time in which to get Stewart to reveal where his boys were buried. On February 10th, he assembled a posse of about 100 men. They drove caravan-style to to Riverside County Jail and surrounded the building while Winslow demanded they be allowed to remove Stewart from his cell and force him to reveal the location of the bodies. The sheriff and his men managed to calm Winslow and send him away; the other men dispersed on their own.
On February 13, 1929, Judge George R. Freeman sentenced Northcott to execution by hanging. He was then transferred to San Quentin’s death row, where he continued to make sporadic confessions. Just before his transfer, he admitted to 11 murders and hinted he was responsible for many more – but he wasn’t the only one responsible. “There are others whom I could expose, if anything could be gained by that.” (3, 226) Months later, believing he was going to die from appendicitis, he confessed in “revolting” detail to the warden’s assistant, Clinton Duffy (destined to become a famous prison reformer). Stewart added unlikely new details: That he had trafficked and killed up to 20 young boys, holding them at his ranch for prominent citizens to abuse. He said he was assisted by two ranch hands that he had never mentioned before.
He provided some names, and an investigation was launched, but no evidence of a child sex ring was found. Sanford hadn’t seen any strangers at the ranch; the only child molester there was his uncle. Neighbours knew that Sanford was being beaten and kept out of school, so they probably would have noticed the continuous comings and goings of well-heeled strangers. They hadn’t. And the two ranch hands didn’t exist – no one had seen them, no one knew of them.
As he had done so many times before, Stewart later recanted these confessions and insisted that he had killed no one.
Meanwhile, the LAPD had not heard the last of Christine Collins. With the help of social crusader and beloved Presbyterian minister Gustav Briegleb and a prominent attorney who was willing to work pro bono, Sammy “S.S.” Hahn, she sued Captain J.J. Jones for unlawful confinement, and was awarded a large settlement.
The case brought police abuse of the Code 12 designation to public attention, but it didn’t result in any real changes to the force. Captain Jones quietly retired without being censured in any way by his superiors, still a captain.
Mrs. Collins continued to fight for payment of her settlement into the 1940s. She wished to put the money into her search for Walter.
Stewart also gained at least one supporter. A preacher known as Larry “Cyclone Evangelist” Newgent became Stewart’s spiritual mentor at San Quentin, and argued to California governor C.C. Young that Stewart deserved a new trial because the first one had been “absolutely unfair”. Stewart had evidently convinced him that he hadn’t been allowed to retain a lawyer.
Stewart was originally scheduled to be executed in April, 1929, but a sickly lawyer delayed the appeals process into 1930. The execution date was moved to October 2, 1930.
In a September 29th interview with the press, Louise claimed she had been very ill with flu when she confessed to Walter’s murder. She declared that no one was ever killed at the ranch.
Stewart showed no such familial loyalty. Around the time his mother gave her interview, he wrote to Christine Collins and to the Winslows, promising them that if they visited him at San Quentin, he could tell them everything about the murders of their children.
Mrs. Collins visited on September 30th, just before Stewart was moved to a small holding cell reserved for inmates in the days before their executions. Questioned by Mrs. Collins and warden James Holohan, Stewart said Sanford had killed the boys. Asked where the bodies were buried, he replied, “Ask Mother.”
Yet in a letter to his parents penned on the day of his execution, Stewart assured them he knew they were innocent – Sanford was the sole killer in the family. He signed himself, “Your frightened lonely little boy.”
Mrs. Collins was not discouraged by Stewart’s revelations. She said that until her boy’s body was found, “I’ll cling to hope.” (3, 249)
On October 1st, Mrs. Winslow arrived at the prison. For four hours Stewart refused to see her. He spent this part of his last full day of life in a seemingly jocular, relaxed mood, telling jokes to the guards on suicide watch and continuously playing “Song of Songs” on a phonograph. When he finally agreed to meet with Mrs. Winslow, he said the boys were buried in a ravine about 100 years from his ranch house. But he still insisted they had been killed by Sanford and buried by Louise.
After the meeting, he lapsed into a strange daze, staring into space and utterly ignoring everyone.
The next morning, after writing the letter to his parents (in which he denied all confessions), Stewart staged a dramatic “suicide attempt”, pretending he had swallowed some poison capsules. No one thought he had actually poisoned himself, but his stomach was pumped anyway. So close to the end of his life, he couldn’t resist taking another jab at the man who had tried to save him: He said his father had given him the pills during a prison visit.
The final jab came a few hours later. Stewart gave one last “confession”, this time admitting that he and Sanford buried the bodies… but George had killed Walter. Louise had helped them clean up evidence after all four murders.
He went to the gallows that evening still maintaining his innocence. He asked to be blindfolded before ascending the steps (the first condemned man to do so at San Quentin, according to news reports of the time). His jovial mood of the previous day had vanished completely. He asked, “Will it hurt?”, and pled for his life until the very second the cord was cut to spring the trapdoor.
Aftermath
Some of the other figures in the case didn’t fare much better than Gordon Stewart Northcott. Christine Collins’ attorney, Sammy Hahn, committed suicide in 1957 by tying concrete blocks around his neck and jumping into the pool at his cabin in Tick Canyon.
In his heyday he had been one of California’s most prominent attorneys, defending the famous evangelist Aimee Semple McPherson when she was under investigation for allegedly staging her own abduction in 1926, as well as representing Louise Peete, a conwoman and former prostitute who left a string of suicides, suspicious deaths, and murders in her wake for over 40 years before becoming one of only three women ever executed in the state of California.
Sanford Clark was released from the State Industrial School for Boys in Whittier, California, in January 1931. He was deported to Canada, and settled in his hometown of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
In 1935 he married. He and wife June later adopted two little boys. During WWII he served with the 21st Battery, 6th Field Regiment of the Royal Canadian Artillery. He worked for the postal service until suffering a major heart attack in the ’70s. He died in 1991, leaving behind numerous grandchildren and a lifetime of quiet community service. Those closest to him say he rarely discussed his experiences on the ranch.
After Stewart Northcott’s execution, the town of Wineville officially changed its name to Mira Loma in an effort to erase the infamy created by the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Only a few streets and one park retain the original name. The ranch itself was dismantled and the land redeveloped.
George Northcott moved to the little town of Parsonsburg, Maryland, where he lobbied for his wife to be paroled. In November 1935 he wrote to prison authorities that there wasn’t any evidence the boys had even been murdered. “In the last year, one of the alleged victims has turned up.” The only evidence was the testimony of an “alleged accomplice, who was of low mentality and a dime magazine, wild-west-reading-fiend.” (3, 252) It’s impossible to know if George believed this crap or if he was simply adopting the family line that Sanford and Jessie cooked up a crazy story out of jealousy and spite . What is clear is that George, for some reason, still loved the wife who had defamed him on the witness stand. He wrote, “I want her, I need her – no better wife ever lived than Louise Northcott.” (3, 253) Even after seeing bodies at the ranch, even after being accused of raping his own son and impregnating his own daughter, even after being told about his son’s final confession, George declared he would always consider his son innocent. Stewart was “simply batty”, his mind “warped, unbalanced”. (3, 249)
In June 1940, having served just 11 years of her life sentence, 71-year-old Louise Northcott joined her husband on his Maryland farm. For the next four years, until their deaths, the Northcotts argued that Louise’s sentence should be overturned due to the “lack of evidence” against her. This was denied. In fact, some of the principals in the case, including prosecutor Earl Redwine and Judge O.K. Morton, who had said to her after passing down a life sentence, “It is only because you are a woman that I do not sentence you to be hanged”, were outraged that Louise had been paroled. (3, 140)
Arthur Hutchens, despite his troubled past, led a more stable life after his California excursion. Confined to Iowa’s State Training School for Boys until he reached the age of 14, he worked as a carnival concessioneer before settlling down in California to train horses and be a jockey – his lifelong passion. He married, fathering a daughter who grew up idolizing her adventurous dad. He died in 1954.
Contrary to the media hype surrounding The Changeling, the Collins/Code 12 scandal did not leave any significant mark on the LAPD. It didn’t even result in signficant changes to the force. The only result of the case was validation of citizen’s complaints about the lawlessness of the LAPD, which had been minimized or ignored by the city’s establishment for years. The gun squad was disbanded in the early ’30s, but official corruption flourished throughout the ’30s under Mayor Frank Shaw - notable for being the first U.S. mayor recalled from public office.
In the ’40s, the spirit of the gun squad was resurrected in an equally lawless Gangster Squad.
In the ’50s, a Red Squad charged with targeting suspected Communists behaved exactly like the gun squad of the Prohibition era. As one police commissioner said of the Red Squad, “The more the police beat them up and wreck their headquarters, the better. Communists have no Constitutional rights and I won’t listen to anyone who defends them.” (1)
The 1990s saw an avalanche of LAPD scandals. First there was the beating of Rodney King and the ensuing riots, then the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (CRASH) incidents in which more than 70 officers were implicated in “unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and covering up evidence of these activities”. (2)
In the film The Changeling, Mrs. Collins’ hope of finding her son alive is buoyed by the discovery that “David Clay”, a would-be victim of Northcott, managed to escape from the ranch and remain in hiding for years, fearful that he would be blamed for the possible murders of the boys who were confined with him – including Walter Collins. This character is apparently based on a young man who surfaced sometime in 1933 or 1934, a runaway presumed to be a victim of Northcott. I have been unable to find the name of this person, but we do know that he was not one of the Winslow brothers. It’s likely that any young boy who disappeared from the L.A. region during the late 1920s was considered a possible victim of Stewart Northcott.
Christine Collins remarried, but she had no more children and continued to believe that Walter could be alive somewhere. She rejected the confessions of Mrs. Northcott, Stewart Northcott, and Sanford Clark as too contradictory. Curiously, there is no mention of Louise in The Changeling.
While the film admirably highlights the tenacity of a mother’s love, its hopeful conclusion belies the much grimmer facts of the case.
A note on sources:
- Larry Harnisch, a blogger at the L.A. Times online, has posted copies of some of the original Times news stories on the Collins case (including the train station photo recreated in The Changeling). This article is drawn primarily from these articles and James Jeffrey Paul’s exhaustively researched book on the Northcott murders, Nothing Is Strange With You. Many other details were drawn from sources cited in the Wikipedia entry for the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The details of S.S. Hahn’s death come from an article in the June 26, 1957 L.A. Times (available on this page of Harnisch’s blog).
Other sources:
1. official LAPD website history page, 1926-1950 (link)
2. Wikipedia entry on the Rampart scandal (link)
3. Paul, James Jeffrey. Nothing Is Strange With You. Xlibris, 2008.
A) Changling was much different than the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The chicken coop murders were much more complicated. Stewart’s whole family was involved, George, Louise, Sanford, his grandmater, and many others. Even today, the truth hasn’t been fully revealed, because Stewart never stuck to one story and constantly lied about who he murdered, and who helped him. There were many more murders and escape plans than the movie showed. The murders were more gruesome, boys were raped and brutally killed, while the movie only showed them being killed by an axe. One of the Winslow boys were buried alive; the movie did not show this horror. I think the movie Changling was definitely similar to the Wineville Chicken Coop murders, however it did not portray the full truth. I would say 40-50% of the movie was truthful. It just left out major parts of the case, the murders, and in reality Christine Collins did not have a major impact on the LAPD, while the movie was basically about that. I think the movie really was meaningful, so sad and opened people’s eyes to see the terrifying events of the Chicken coop murders.
B) I have many thoughts in my head to this question. In one way, I believe movies like this are not good. I think the media and movies showing horrible events can almost help a murderer with ideas on how to get famous, or how to perform a successful murder. But mostly, I believe these movies are overall good. They are knowledgeable and show things that have happened in American history. These movies make you think, and they make you feel. I doubt I would have ever known about the Wineville Chicken Coop murders if it wasn’t for this movie. It made me more aware; it also made me so upset though. I think movies based on true criminal events are a nice, intelligent change of pace for society rather than all the typically dumb comedies and drama movies out there.
C) I would change several things in the movie Changling to base it more on the truth of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I would change the ending of the movie, I would have liked to have seen more of the trial of Stewart’s family, and how they all suffer for their consequences. I would have liked to seen the craziness of Stewart, as I feel they hardly showed him until the ending of the movie. I would have also enjoyed seeing the many attempts of Sanford to escape Stewart. I know the movie was based on Christine Collins and the LAPD, but I wish the movie also could have emphasized on the Winslow murders and the Mexican murder. Overall, I think the movie was excellent and one of my favorite movies. Though it was very upsetting to watch, it portrays the truth of Walter Collins and shows how losing a son can make a mom lose herself.
a. There were a lot of similarities and differences between the movie “Changeling” and the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. However, the movie only showed a small part of what really happened. After reading about the Wineville Chicken Murders I realized how much more detail there was. The movie showed more of Christie Collins and her fight against the LAPD then what was happening with Gordan Northcott. I do think that that the movie did do a good job of actually portraying the story though. It did not seem very “Hollywood” to me. The movie should have showed more about Gordon’s life instead of Christie’s. I think this would have made the movie more interesting and would have stayed truer to the story. The movie seemed to be more about corruption, rather than the murders. In this article it states, “Contrary to the media hype surrounding “The Changeling”, the Collins/Code 12 scandal did not leave any significant mark on the LAPD.” The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders made no impact on changing police corruption. However in the movie, they made it seem like the police were going to change. Overall, I believe the movie did a pretty good job of giving a brief description of the murders but could have gone farther into detail.
b. I definitely believe that it is a good idea for Hollywood to make movies on true stories like the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and other horrific crimes. Movies on crimes I believe are educational. For example, we watched this movie in Criminology and now are relating it back to information we are learning. It can teach people what is really happening in society today and also give a history lesson on the past. From movies like this one can learn about certain crimes and why they happen. It can give an insight into a killers mind. If Hollywood never made the movie “Changeling” I may never have heard of this awful story. Before this movie I never thought about police corruption. So therefore, movies about crimes can educate people. It can also spark someone’s interest into wanting a career to stop crime. Some people may think that movies on horrific crimes, could cause more crime or cause people to imitate what they see but I think there is more good than bad. It is possible that either of these could happen but I think it is more likely that one will learn from this type of movie. The movie will show the awful consequences and pain murder causes to loved ones.
c. If I could change anything about the movie it would be adding in more detail about Gordon Northcott. The movie should show more about his life and what he did on the farm. We really only got a glimpse of who Gordon was and why he committed the murders. It also would have been interesting if the movie showed Sanford trying to escape. I didn’t even know he tried to escape until I read the actual story. Overall though I liked how the movie showed Christie in the psych ward. It showed how corrupt the police were to just throw her in there. I couldn’t believe how awful she was treated and how many other normal, healthy women were in there! I think the movie did a good job with the trial though. It showed the important parts of the trial and really showed how crazy Gordon was. I really enjoyed watching this movie and can’t believe something like this actually happened.
A) After watching the movie and reading the article the two stories are very different. In “Changeling” only the one boy was shown. Whereas, in the Wineville Chicken Coop Stewarts sister, brother-in-law, niece, and nephew all played a big role. The movie never showed us the family until almost the end. In the video only him and the boy were involved but in the article many were. As I read through the article I noticed that the movie never mentions the “Mexican Murder” and half or the others and even some of the escapes. Also in the video it never said anything about the boys that he kidnapped being raped and that was a consistent thing in the article. Also in the article he hired a guy to be a cook so he could rape and kill his 3 sons that were from ages 8-15. In “Changeling” we were only shown or told about them getting killed by the cutting of an axe when in the article Lewis Winslow was not dead when he was buried after being struck in the head. I would have to say that almost half of the movie was true to the Chicken Coop Murders. However some very important info was not shown in the movie. The movie was more about Chritie Collins life an daily battle with LAPD and not Gordon Stewart. More of his life should have been in the video.
B) Yes I do think that this was a good movie to be made because people need to be aware of true events that happened before they were born or maybe old enough to know anything about it. I think that this movie could give people a lot of information on what the police were like and that town and how they should be different today. I had never heard of this event before I saw this movie. True stories are very educational and can be beneficial to watch. we can relate the information in the chapters and lectures to the movies and it helps us understand the material better because we can actually relate it to an event in the movie.
C) I liked the movie the way it was, but I would have to say I would change it to be more similar to the article on the Wineville chicken Coop Murders. I would like to see more of Stewarts family and know who they were since they helped in some of the murders and took them food and such. I would also add the part in where he buried Lewis and the murder of the Mexican. The movie never even mentioned this. I would like to see some more of the others children’s parents beside Collins. More trial should have been shown. Stewarts actually killing of these boys should be shown more because that really was not shown throughout the movie at all. The article also states that Sanford tries to escape from the ranch several times and that was not shown in the movie either. So overall a lot could have changed or not really changed but added. I do understand that if they would have added all of this information that the movie would have been like four hours long. Something that really stuck out to me through out this movie was how Christine Collins never lost hope on finding Walter. I think that after so long I would probably give up and she never did. Overall excellent movie and you definitely could see all the crimes throughout. I was glad to see that the head officers of the LAPD were fired. I think that they deserved it after everything they had done.
A.) After watching the movie “Changeling” in class and reading the article about the Wineville chicken coup murders, I have noticed many differences between the two. The movie which was based upon the story of the Chicken coup murders only showed a few parts of the true life story in the movie. The movie did not go into detail about the relationship between Sanford and Gordon Stewart Northcott. I believe the movie should have focused more on the life of Gordon Northcott and the disgusting but interesting life he led. During the film they did not concentrate on the horrible things the boys that where kidnapped had to go through. If the movie was more concentrated on all of the boys and there experiences while living in the chicken coup, than one mother of one boy, I believe it would make the audience realize the seriousness of the murders.The movie followed the life of Christine Collins, whose son Walter, was taken to the chicken coup. Throughout the movie Christine Collins was fighting for justice with the LAPD. The true life story of the Wineville Chicken Coup murders was much more gruesome than the movie changeling. While reading the article I felt disgusted and disturbed of how the boys where brutally raped and murdered. However, I believe if the movie was based on the details of the actual crime that was committed it would be a successful Horror film. In class, the movie “Changeling” made me concentrate on the LAPD and the unfair treatment Christine Collins was receiving, which made the movie be more along the lines of a Drama film. The movie was based on Christine Collins and her fight with the LAPD, I believe Gordon Stewart Northcott should’ve been shown more throughout the film. Overall, I did enjoy the movie and how it portrayed the negative aspects of the LAPD. There are many instances where the police can be more harmful then protecting to our society, and I believe this story showed the viewers that it can happen to anyone.
B.) I do believe it is a good thing for Hollywood to make movies on horrific crimes like the WIneville Chicken Coup Murders. If most of these movies where never made I know many people would be living with no idea about these horrible crimes that are going on in our country. If I did not see the movie Changeling I would not know about the WIneville Chicken Coup murders and how the boys suffered. I also believe that movies based on true life stories can go down in history and be a great new technological way to help people learn in the future about these things that went on in the world in that time period. Society will benefit from movies based on true stories because it will be more intellectual and educational to the viewers. However, the movie Changeling did open my eyes about the authority the police had in that time period and how they took advantage of Christine Collins,but, it was also very sad to watch how she suffered throughout the movie.
C.) I would change the movie to have more detail on the actual Wineville Chicken Coup murders. I think the main character should have been Gordon Stewart Northcott and should have gone into more detail about his life and the killings of these young boys. The movie would be more interesting if the viewers learned more about the Stewarts as a family, so they can start their own assumption of why this horrible family did these disgusting things to these young boys. However, I did enjoy the movie and many parts that the movie focused on. I enjoyed how the viewers saw the life inside a Psych ward and the abuse that the staff had on the women being held in the psych ward. I also grew to love Christine Collins as the movie went on and her fight for her son. I think it brought an emotional aspect to the movie and tried to make the viewers feel a bit of the pain Christine Collins was feeling. Even though I would change parts of this movie, I would recommend this film to anyone.
A) I believe that the movie “Changeling” did a good job of portraying the wineville chicken coop murders. The movie made it seem like Gordon Northcott was the only one involved in the muders when in reality stewarts sister, niece, nephew, and brother-in-law all played a big role. The rendition of these murders in the movie was depicted very well. However, I feel that this movie covered more of Christine Collins fight witht he LAPD then Gordon Northcott’s actions. I believe that this movie should have covered more about Northcott’s life prior to these murders so that viewers could get a real sense of how troubled this man really was. If the movie showed more about the murders and what Northcott’s life was like on the ranch I believe that it would have made the story more intresting and it would have stayed truer to what actually happened in Wineville during this time. I do not believe that this movie was too “Hollywood because it stayed true to the overall story. In spite of that, I believe that the movie did a good job of portraying the murders but should have stayed truer to the actual story.
B) I believe that it is a good idea for hollywood to make movies about these crimes because it teaches people that things like this happen. Movies like this give people a visual representation about these crimes and this helps make it more realistic for people. People often relate more to movies and I believe that movies like this are a good way to educate people about the dangers that are still around us in the world today. Movies such as the “Changeling” educate people about many different topics such as the justice system, and police corruption. Before this movie I never thought about police corruption and it made me think about our police system in the United States today and if these still might be some form of police corruption. These types of movies bring crimes to the forefront that many people have never even heard about. Therefore, I believe that movies like this should be made to educate people about the past to keep crimes like this from repeating in the future.
C) I would not change anything about this movie because I believe that the actual story about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders is a rather confusing story due to the many different accounts of what actually occured. I think that the directors did a very good job of making this movie simpler so that it would be easier to understand for a wider range of viewers. This movie was a good account of what happened in Wineville without all the confusing details that are involved in the actual story. I believe that if the movie actually covered all that really happened it would become too long and it would be a movie that you had to pay attention to every detail just to keep up. I do not like those movies because then watching them becomes difficult to follow and then making them hard to learn from. The movie is good just the way it was made it is simple enough to follow without getting confused in the details yet it still portrays the story of what occured in Wineville during that time in history.
a. I thought that “Changling” stayed quite true to the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders in respects to Walter Collins. Details as to Walter Collins’ kidnapping were very accurate especially when it came down to the boy who posed as Walter and the treatment his mother received. While some may see the harsh treatment of Mrs. Collins as very Hollywood; however, hydro and shock therapy were both common in the late 1920s/early 1930s.
On the other hand, the movie failed to show the involvedness of the Northcott family in these crimes. The movie shows Stewart and Sandford, but leaves out Stewart’s parents and Sanford’s sister. Thiscuts out of the complexity of the trial and relations between Stewart and his parents, making him seem less humane and loved then in possible actuality. Also, “Changling” escalated the number of true murders committed and left out one true murder of the Mexican. Another big difference is the true effect of the case of Mrs. Collins vs. The LAPD. In real life this did little to shake the police force, yet the movie depicts a somewhat happy ending.
b. I do believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about various horrific crimes, as long as they don’t stray too far from the truth. While it may be terrible, people do find such things entertaining. This in turn just further propels the film industry. One could also see such films as a bit educational as to what occurred in carious cases, but one must watch these movies knowledgably. While Hollywood attempts to recount the truth, it is a business and sometimes the truth isn’t the best thing to display if something else is seen as “better”. Hollywood can keep making movies and its viewers should realize that they need view the movies with a grain of salt.
c. If I were to change anything in the movie it would be the dynamics shown (or lack thereof) of the Northcott family. Stewart might have been charged with the murders, but his family members were all accomplices. Adding in Stewart’s relationship with his mother and the opposing relationship with his father would have greatly affected the views of those watching. The full nature of the family would have added just that much more to the already twisted storyline. I would have also added more in of the murder trials. Showing the possible insanity that Stewart possessed would have added to the dynamics of the crime and I believe it would have caused more sympathy for Mrs. Collins.
A. The movie “Changling” which we watched in class did have some differences from the true life chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. When making any movie there is no way to include every single detail of the actual story. Hollywood needs to create a two hour movie, on a story which was years long. That taken into account; Christine Collins and her being sent to the insane alysum and dealing with police corruption seemed to be the main focus of the movie. In the actual real life story in the article there was more emphasis placed on Gordon Stewart Northcott who committed the horrible crimes. Also in the article it gave details of how he committed his crimes and killed the little boys. He raped the young boys and also hired a cook, none of which was mentioned in the movie “Changling”. Also Stewart Northcott and his family were mentioned a lot in the article and that should have been shown more in the movie. Specific details such as; “On September 23rd, Christine Collins threw a 10th birthday party for her missing son” were left out of the movie “Changling”, and that would have also been nice to see included.
B. believe it is okay for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because people need to know what has occurred in the past. There are horrible crimes commited everyday and individuals need to be aware of these. Even if some details are not included, and the story is altered a little that is ok because people are made aware of happenings in the world. Corruption is also a major theme in the movie; and that also makes people think about police corruption and if it could be occurring in their own city. Also the movie “Changling” was a good movie to show in our Criminology class which helped the students learn. It is a nice break to watch a movie than reading a textbook, and it also helps us to learn about different crimes. There were numerous crimes mentioned in the movie such as; murder, serial murder, kidnapping, false imprisonment, accessory to murder, police corruption, and false information which are all related to our Criminology class.
C. I think the movie could have added more details from the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Stewart’s family should have been included in the trial. Also I think the court trial should have been longer and included more details from the actual event. I think in the movie the court trial was too rushed. Stewart should have also been shown more in the movie and his family, details of how he was brought up, and how insane he actually was. He was shown mostly at the end of “Changling” but I think he should have been shown more throughout the movie. In the article it says that Standford tried to escape from the Ranch and the movie should have also shown this occurring. I do understand however that every detail of actual event could not be shown in a 2 hour movie; that would be impossible. I do think more emphasis should have been placed on Stewart’s family however than Christine Collins.
a. The movie “Changling” does closely resemble the real Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, though several important characters and events were omitted. One main player in the murderers, Stewart Northcott’s mother Louise, was never mentioned in the film. Louise Northcott helped Stewart get away with his crimes and even participated in them. Her role in the crimes led to her receiving a life sentence. The film also left out the sexual abuse that Stanford and the abducted children endured. The article stated that Stanford was sexually abused at least two times a week. The film made it seem like Stewart had attempted to kill every child he abducted, though the article says that he let some go after threatening them. The film also never mentions George Northcott, Stewart’s father, or Jessie, Stewart’s sister. The article showed that the murders involved the whole family.
Not only did the movie leave out important characters, the movie also added or changed events. The child that returned home after escaping from the chicken coup was not real. The article does state that a suspected victim at Wineville returned home. Though this at first seems to be what the film portrayed, an important inclusion in the article states that all missing children at the time were thought to be victims of Stewart. I was disappointed to discover that Christine Collins did not have a major impact on the LAPD.
b. I think that it is a good idea for Hollywood to make films about horrific crimes. Not only are the films highly profitable but they also educate the public about specific crimes and events. Though as mentioned above they are not always completely based on reality, they have a general truth to them. Because this crime took place long before the birth of this generation, it has helped teach a new generation of the horrible crimes of a previous one.
c. I believe that the movie “Changling” was very entertaining but missed many important points in the real story. I would have liked to see the film through the eyes of one of the family members. By doing this the family involvement, the sexual abuse, and cover up could be better seen. I believe that this would help the film be more realistic. The film focused a lot on the police corruption, which is an important aspect of this crime, but I would have liked to see more about the actual crimes. Viewers of the movie never saw the actual crimes being committed or Stanford’s attempts to escape.
A) The chicken coop murders were much more complicated. The whole Stewart family was involved, George, Louise, Sanford just to name a few. The truth still has not come out yet, till this day we don’t have a set finger on who actually committed what.. The movie just showed certain things but there where more murdering plans than showed. During these murders the boys were first raped then brutality axed to death. I think the movie Changeling was definitely similar to the Wineville Chicken Coop murders despite a few details. I believe the movie didn’t really want to emphasize so much on the murders, but better yet the woman and the problems she had to deal with. The movie was mostly based on what Christine Collins was going through. It’s a shocking reality that thongs like this happen to people.
B). I believe that movies like this make people more aware of what’s out there. Its very knowledgeable to see movies like this so that you don’t see yourself making the same mistake. They show things that have happened in American history. These movies make you think, and they make you keep yourself on your toes whether you are in a dark alley or a night club. I would have never known about the Wineville Chicken Coop murders if it wasn’t for this movie. It made me understand how things work in a corrupt police station and how justice is eventually served.. I think movies based on true criminal events are knowledgably and make many Americans aware of problems such a as this one.
C). I believe that the movie was very entertaining but missed many important points in the real story. I would have liked to see the film in what actually happened. By showing the truth of what really happened, it makes it more interesting to watch. I believe that this would help the film be more realistic. The film focused a lot on the police corruption, which is an important aspect of this crime, but I would have liked to see more about the actual crimes. I believe that people need to see the actual events that took place. This would make the movie more believable. The crimes are what people want to see, that is the interesting part about it.
a). I do not think that Hollywood’s account of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders was not ‘just to make a buck’ in fact, it resembles the ‘true’ account. However, there were years of details and many time constraints that they were working with; so its no surprise that they left out many important details.
The brutality of Norcott’s murders were not very explicit in the movie. ‘Changeling’ definitely excluded the family’s involvement in the murders, the depleted mental state of Stewart, and the severe physical/psychological/sexual abuse of Stanford.
The main focus of the movie was police corruption whereas, the major issue at the time was the disappearance, torture and vicious murder of these little boys. Hollywood’s version and the true story have complete different focuses.
b). I think that movies are a great way that that many communities can learn about various historic and recent tragedies. It can aid in prevention and the fact that people would probably rather go see a movie than watch the news is a good thing. However, this is pointless unless they stick to the details.The main focus should be to tell the main story and stick to focus, but often times Hollywood’s chooses the focus to be that which will make more money. For instance, there were historical lessons such as women’s oppression in the 1930s and also the extent to which police corruption affects community and the police department.
c). If I could re-do the movie I would change it to be more like the real story and focus on the murders and more about the Norcott’s family secrets and twists. Unfortunately, i would have focused less on the police and Ms. Collin’s search for her son and let the focus of the movie be on the Stewart and what actually took place on the ranch and everything would be more supplementary.
A.)There was a large difference in the article compared to the movie. The movie mainly focused on the police corruption which involved the false identification of Walter Collins and Christine Collins being wrongfully accused of being a psychopath and bad mother. The article went more into detail about Stewart Northcott’s life and how his family members were involved in the murders at the chicken ranch. On the ranch Stewart sexually and physically abused his nephew, Sanford, and had killed multiple people outside of the chicken coup murders. It was also stated that Sanford’s sister Jessie came from Canada to visit and she was made aware of what was going on at the ranch and she tried to help Sanford escape four times and they all failed because of Stewart’s father George and the fear he had of his son. Changling never mentioned any of this at all. There was never a hint that Stewart had other accomplices besides Sanford, such as his mother, Louise. Also, it was actually stated in the article that Walter was dead and that he was killed on the ranch but in the movie it was stated that Walter had escaped and was never seen again, which resulted in Christine, his mother, to continue her search for him. I think that movie was a lot of Hollywood because so much of the true story was cut out of it. There was a lot of focus put on the wrong aspect of the story. Everything was put into one category of police corruption which was not the main focus of the story.
B.)I think that it is a good idea for Hollywood to create movies about horrific crimes because it gets the story out there. It allows people to become aware of what was going on in times before they were born or even when they were born or alive. I am more than sure that there are a lot of people in America and the entire world that have no idea that this went on and probably never will until they see this movie. I am from California and I had no idea that any of this happened. Although I do agree with them making movies about such horrific crimes as this one I do not like Hollywood altering the story so much. I understand that they have to make it a certain length but that does not meant that the facts should be cut short or cut out for that matter.
C.)If I could change anything in the movie I would change the lack of information about the ranch and the Stewart Northcott’s family and how they were involved in the chicken coup murders as well. I would also change how at the end Stewart claims to never have killed Walter to how he claimed to have done so in the article. Another change would be all the abuse that Sanford endured from Stewart and how he tried to escape four times and failed. I would also change Captain Jones being suspended to the truth as well. Nothing was done to him according to the article which gives false hope and information to the audience. I think these changes would bring more factuality to the movie and help people understand the characters better. It would also draw the audience in more as well in my opinion. I was more interested and found the article to be better more interesting and full of facts than the movie.
a) The movie, “Changeling” and the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders have a lot of similarities as well as differences. The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were more complex and complicated than the movie leads viewers to believe. In the “true life” accounts, the whole family including George, Louise, Sandford, and his grandmother were involved in the murders, not just Sandford and Gordon, who were the only two presented in the movie. The truth of who actually murdered who is still unknown because Stewart and Gordon continuously changed the stories and facts around. Also, in the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, there were a lot more murders and they were more grusome than the ones portrayed in the movie. The boys in the “true life” accounts were raped and brutally murdered, and in “Changeling,” the murders were all the same and described as being beaten with an axe. The movie does not reveal that Sandford was molested by his uncle either. Another difference is that one of the Winslow boys was actually burried alive, the movie does not show this. “Changeling” focused on Christine and her struggle to find her son and the challenges she faces with the LAPD. The “true life” account reveals that Christine actually did not have that big of an impact on the LAPD. So, although a lot of the facts from the real events were portrayed in the movie, there was still a lot that was left out of the movie.
b) I think there are both positive and negative outcomes of Hollywood making movies out of horrific real life crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I think it is good because it sheds light on events that otherwise, a lot of people would not know about. Or if people do know about, might depict a different aspect of the event that people may have not previously thought about. In contrast, I think that when Hollywood makes movies based on real life events, the facts get manipulated and a lot of things get left out. It has its good and bad effects, neither one more prominent than the other.
c) If I could change anything about the movie, “Changeling,” I would have put more about the murders and about Gordon and his family. I think a lot of that was left out because you can only fit so much into a two hour movie, and the directors wanted to focus more attention on the corruption side of the story than the actual murders. However, I think if more had been included, it would have made things more interesting. I also would have liked to see Sandford’s attempts to escape from his uncle’s ranch.
a) During the movie Changeling, it is never mentioned that Walter Collins had been on his way to watch a film. Regarding Stewart and his nephew at the chicken ranch, it was never brought up that Stewart had been raping both his nephew and the young boys that had been brought to the farm. All that was given to the audience was that Sanford was being held against his will and that the abducted children were being killed. Another point not mentioned in Changeling is the incident involving the Mexican and how the entire family had been covering up Stewart’s actions. If the family knew about what was going on, then they should have mentioned them to authorities. If they had done so earlier, the situations that follow may have been avoided and Walter Collins may never have gone missing. From the film, it is not apparent that Stanford had so many efforts to try to get away from the ranch. All the is told is that he didn’t try leaving because Stewart said that he would kill him if he tried, when in reality he tried many times before. Also, it mentions that Stewart noted that Walter was killed, but not by him. Instead, he states that it was indeed George that had killed Walter Collins, while in the movie; Stewart never mentioned what actually happened to Walter. Overall, it seems that Changeling is as close as it can possibly be without making a 10 hour long documentary out the events that took place. All that are missing are details here and there that are not absolutely necessary when making a film.
b) Yes, I believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about such events. Not that it is good to be showing audiences the horrific events that occurred during the early 1900’s or even today, but it is good to demonstrate to the public what could happen and what has happened. When events are put into a movie such as this, many people are going to watch and want to watch it due to good advertising. Whereas, if it had been made into a documentary-type film, there would be limited viewers as there are not as many people that watch documentaries as often as films. At least for me, I had never heard of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders until the movie Changeling. So, yes it is good that Hollywood is taking some horrible events and turning them into something that the public will watch and became aware of.
c) Overall, I think that Changeling is very well done in terms of getting the important and necessary points across to the viewers. Yes, there could have been a little more detail with minor events that played important parts in the Wineville Chicken Coop murders, but it is a Hollywood movie and there are budgets. I’m sure that if they could, they would have added such details where possible, but not every movie can be perfect to every detail when dealing with real-life situations. The only two points that I would change would be making it clear that in the real incident, that the entire family had been involved. From the film it seems as if it was an isolated event in the middle of nowhere which was why no one knew what was happening, but that was not the case because several people knew what was happening. Also, I would have put more emphasis on the fact that Stanford had numerous escape attempts, because it appeared that he had never tried to escape the situation that he had been put into. Other than these minor points, it is a good movie.
a.) The movie Changling and the true life chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were similar and consistent with the main events that happened. For instance, the disappearance of Walter Collins, the corruption of the LAPD police force, Code 12, the pastor helping Christine Collins, and the murders of many boys at the chicken coop were consistent in both the movie and the true life event. However, many murders and important details were left out of the movie. I think it is important and should have been noted in the movie that Stewart’s family were accomplices or even committed some of the murders. However, I can see why they left out that Sanford was Stewart’s nephew in the film, because of all the confusing alibis and actions from the family members. As for the multiple murders and missing persons events (the Mexican story and the family members claiming where the boys were buried, who they were, and who killed them) that the movie left out; considering that there was no proper DNA identification and investigation technology, I can see why it would have been hard to identify and find every boy that was murdered and went missing (although the corrupt police force could have done a better job, obviously.) In any event, I believe that Hollywood did change some aspects of the true life event to make the story line possibly a little clearer and understandable to viewers, but overall did a very good job in representing what actually happened in the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, while making it an appealing Hollywood movie.
b.) On one hand, I do believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies that tell the true life stories of historical events that change people’s lives so they can enlighten people as to what terrible things may happen in this world. For this reason, I believe that people can be less naive and prepare themselves for anything that might happen. But that is also the exact same reason that I believe Hollywood should not make these horrifying films. And I more so agree that they should not make these films because it frightens people and especially children, who may become constantly fearful that these events might happen to them. As they should be prepared and always be safe, they should not have to constantly live in fear. And these films, if viewed by young people or people who are easily frightened, may be taken the wrong way or too seriously. And that is why I think Hollywood should not put a huge emphasis on making these horrifying films.
c.) If I could change anything about the movie Changling, I would not change very much because I believe that if all the information and events confessed by the accomplices were stated in the movie, it would make the story line and plot way to confusing. I think Changling did a good job focusing on police corruption and mistreatment of citizens, while incorporating the main events of Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. However, out of the things I would have changed, I would have included Stewart’s childhood and background more in the movie, to give him more of a character build up and to explain his actions and reasons for why he killed and molested these boys. Also, i would incorporate the Mexican murder event, and all murder events that were said to associated with Stewart. For his family, I would just mention briefly that Sanford was his nephew and that Louise possibly or was an accomplice in these terrible events.
Since the main focus of Changling, at least in my eyes, was the LAPD police corruption and the missing events of Walter Collins, I would have noted that with all the hard work done, that in fact not much was brought about from it in real life. In the film, Code 12 was abolished and the police forced was remolded and the mayor did not run for reelection and everything was fixed and taken care of to make a happy ending. But in the article stated above, it said that officer J.J. Collins was sued for his sloppy and corrupt police work, but that Code 12 was not really reformed and that the mayor and the police force did not receive the justice I think was deservable to them, if any at all. All in all, I believe that Changling opened the eyes of many viewers that there was and is corruption in the police force, and explained the terrifying events of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murder events as well as they could.
(a). I believe that the movie “Changeling” was as accurate to the real life chicken coop murders as Hollywood could make it. Of course there are a few details left out of the movie that took place in reality, but in order for the movie to move along at a decent pace and make sense to all types of audiences some information had to be left out. But, in my opinion, I think the movie should have included more information about Stewart Northcott’s past and also about his perverted pleasures. This would have supplied the audience with more understanding on why Stewart was who he was and why he killed and raped innnocent little boys.
(b). I believe it’s a good practice for Hollywood to produce films about historical cases like the one that took place in Wineville. It creates awareness about the history of crime in our nation and shows just how bad human nature can become. A film like “Changeling” also tells another tale about how police corruption can lead to more than just money in dirty cops’ pockets. It can lead to cases being neglected and lives being lost.
(c). If I could change anything about the movie “Changeling”, it would be that it would show how Stewart Northcott became the man and monster that killed and raped little boys. Maybe dive into his past and what kind of family life he had experienced. This could easily be done with some kind of flashback or dream scene which are so prevalent in movies today and don’t take anything away from the plot of the rest of the movie.
a.) The main difference between the movie and the chronicle was that the chronicle was much more intricate. There were many, many more people involved than what the movie portrayed and the movie still had plenty of characters in it. I believe that when a movie is about to be made the bottom line consideration is, “Will it be profitable?” With that in mind, the movie had plenty of characters to develop, draw the audience in, and make connections with the audience. If the move had been based on the chronicle and told as so then this movie would have had to be much longer or made into a mini-series in order to establish all of the persons from the chronicle and build relationships with them and the audience. The movie had to be dulled down a bit. Let’s also remember that this movie wasn’t solely based on the towns, the police department, or the crimes committed, it was based on Christine Collins. The primary focus of the film was on her with everything else being a subplot. While I don’t find the movie to be an accurate telling of history, I do feel as if it was an accurate tale of Christine Collins trying to find her “true” son.
b.) I feel it is alright for Hollywood to make movies such as “Changeling” because it not only informs us of the past but helps us understand the day-to-day life of the 1930’s. The full and entire story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders could not be told properly in one full length feature film. To touch on the many aspects of the movie such as Stewart, the LAPD, the Gun Squad, and Christine Collins, was enough to get the gist of the overall problems faced in California at that time.
c.) If I could change anything from the movie I would not change a thing. While the movie differs greatly from reality, we have to remember that this is a story about Christine Collins. To include and further emphasize characters such as Sanford Clark, Louise, and George would only detract from the story that is focused on Christine Collins. The movie was already long enough to extend it any further would not be beneficial. If there was a movie just focused on and made to tell the full story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders than I believe that it should closely follow and greatly emphasize the story that was presented in the chronicle.
A) Though there are a lot of similarities between the film “Changeling” and the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, there are far more differences. The film tended to center around Christine Collins and the disappearance of her son Walter whereas the actual story has to do with Stewart and his dysfunctional family. In actuality, the “main idea” of the story was Stewart while Collins was merely a subplot and the film reverses this. Hollywood did a great job in covering that aspect of the story and how Christine met the preacher, how he helped her, their war with the LAPD and her wrongful imprisonment in the psych ward. The movie leaves out a great deal of information regarding the family of Stewart specifically George, Louise and Jessie. Also, the relationship between Sanford and Stewart was not shown accurately as the issue of Stewart raping his nephew is a huge part of the story yet the movie does not even touch on it. The three stories of Stewart, Louise and Sanford also point to Walter being dead however the movie never makes it clear actually making it seem as if he was still out there alive. I think Hollywood tried to portray the story of Christine and Walter and intended to focus on that aspect of the story and not the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Due to that, I do not think it was Hollywood trying to make a buck as they created an accurate portrayal of Christine and Walter Collins.
B) I think it is imperative for Hollywood to make movies about these horrific events that have transpired throughout history. Many events such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders are forgotten and do not surface until there is a movie or book made about them. These events contribute to the study of criminology if they are made right. Movies bring to life the personalities of murderers, rapists, thieves and other criminals. They also let us peak into the world of corruption, investigation and the court system. I would hope that Hollywood continues to make movies that are based on real horrific events. I would also hope that they do not stray too far from the actual story and give an accurate portrayal of what happened. These movies also bring its audiences to times and places they have not seen before. People from the Mid-West can understand the types of murders and crimes that were being committed in the Deep South and vice versa.
C) I would absolutely change many aspects of the film, “Changeling.” Though I would keep the story of Christine Collins, I would shift focus to Stewart and his family. After reading the true accounts of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, it becomes increasingly clear that the story needs the characters of George, Louise and Jessie to play prominent parts in the film. Though it is rare for movies to span over 2 hours, in some cases there should be exceptions. Obviously, the killings and the story behind it would be very long so some aspects would need to be cut but the main parts of the story should stay intact. Rather than focusing so much on Christine Collins war with the LAPD, emphasis should be placed on how Louise helped cover up the murders. The movie should also touch on the horrific murders of the Winslow Brothers and the Mexican. At the conclusion, it should chronicle Stewart’s time on Death Row where he admitted to about 11 killings.
A) I feel the movie was on point for the most part but did miss a lot of the real story. The movie portrayed a summery of what really happened with the murders more then the detailed facts. I don’t think it was made with the whole intention of making money, but to really show an event that happened. Hollywood did a good job in showing an issue to the public that many probably do not know about just by giving the summery.
B) I like the fact that Hollywood makes moves that deal with issues such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Not many young people read or watch the news today and movies play an impact in the youth. I totally support what Hollywood does in making movies such as Changling as long as they do not alter what really happens in those situations. They need to make sure the number one priority is portraying these movies is the truth and in not making some typical “Hollywood Ending”.
C) If I could change one thing it would be to add in more details to the movie. But I totally understand why Changling only had what it did in the movie. Movies are on a time constraint so they want to hit their point fast without numerous details. If there were one thing I would add it would be more insight on Stewart and his life. He was a monster and disgusting for what he did to those kids.
a) Changling was definitely different than the chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. These murders were more complicated and more in depth than what the movie portrays. A lot more happened in the Chicken Coop Murders in that the movie did not get into much detail about Sanford and Gordon. The movie mainly focused on Christine Collins and her struggle with authority in believing her that her son was missing. Changling maybe should have focused more on the details of the people that kidnapped her son and their lifestyle. The viewers still get the point of the chicken coop murders but maybe not as in depth as it should be. The seriousness is obviously present but I think viewers are missing out on a huge part of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because there is a lot more going on than we can actually see in Changling. The boys were tortured a lot more in the chicken coop murders than shown in Changling but maybe viewers could figure out this part for themselves. But despite that, at least viewers got to see what has happened in the past and I am sure many people are not aware of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders until watching Changling and getting a slight idea about these gruesome murders.
b) I think it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because it allows people to be cognizant of what has happened in the past and what people are capable of. I am sure not many of us think half of these things can actually happen in our lives but we never know what’s happening behind closed doors. People do crazy things and sometimes we will never come to know of it until we watch a movie that relates these acts to true stories. Many people know that women struggled in the past to reach where they are today but Changling showed a different side of it; a more intense side that is very hard to accept. Things like this allow us to be aware and to be grateful for what we have no matter what because things are happening out there and Hollywood tries to make us be a little bit less oblivious to such acts.
c) Changling should have focused more on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders; the intensity of them. They could have started with the same beginning and show Christine Collin’s struggle but then switch to Gordon Stewart Northcott and his relationship to these boys that he kidnapped. Changling should have focused on his reasons for doing this and to what extent he was willing to go in order to ‘please’ his desires.
A. I believe that the movie Changeling did a very good job depicting the true murders in Wineville. While of course the movie could not cover every angle and detail of the true accounts, it got the important aspects and messages across well. The film may have focused a little too much on Christine Collins wanting to find her son and not enough on how dysfunctional the Northcott family was but I think that is because it would have been too long and overewhelming a movie had the director tried to bring that all into it. In order to tell the story of the Northcott family, there would need to be a whole other movie outside the emphasis on Christine Collins and the corrupt police force. I do not think Hollywood was only trying to make money from this movie. However, I do think they wanted to focus more on Christine Collins than the facts and details of the murders to bring more emotion to the surface of the viewers. Hollywood was trying to make a hit based on a true story, not a history channel documentary. Hollywood did a good job though making a big motion picture out of such a long and confusing series of crimes.
B. I think it is a good idea for Hollywood to make movies about true events such as The Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because these horrific events need to be shown to the world and it is more likely to get notice if it is in a huge motion picture than as a documentary. Also, it is good because there is a lot of things to learn and think about when watching movies like these; they make the viewer’s brain work. It is also engaging to students who may be asked to watch movies such as these for a class in order to have a discussion like we did for the Changeling.
C. I know I previously stated that it would be extremely hard to give the full story on the Northcott family, but I do think a little more bckground information and focus on the murder’s would have added to the film. In the movie, theh viewer knows that Northcott is deranged and a shady character, but it would have been interesting to see some more of his supposed confessions and denials. Also, including Louise Northcott would have been very intriguing and added a little extra suspense in the movie. The Changeling also portrayed Christine Collins as having a huge impact on how the psych ward treated people, when really there was hardly a change. I realize Hollywood wanted to show that she had some success in all her fighting, which I’m sure she did, but I think they elaborated too much on this point and not enough on the serial killer of the time period.
A. I thought the movie “Changling” presented the general idea behind the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders but many of the facts were changed. In the film we are completely unaware that the whole Northcott was involved. The audience knows that Walter was left home alone because his mom was called into work and could not go to the theater. But, according to the “true life” chronicle, Walter was on his way to the movies when he was kidnapped. In the movie we learn that Sanford was kid picked up Northcott that was being held at the farm against his will and did not try to get away in fear of Gordan killing him. Although in reality he was really Gordon’s nephew and Sanford did try many times to run from the ranch. Sanford, also, never says anything about how Walter died in the movie while in “true life” the finger was pointed at all different people as to who killed Walter Collins. We were also never told of this Mexican boy that was apparently murdered at the ranch as well. Had “Changling” depicted the whole story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders instead of one narrow aspect, the movie would have lasted for days. Overall, I thought Hollywood could have added a few more facts about the events that took place.
B. I believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because the real life events that made into featured films are apart of history and history needs to be studied in hopes of it not repeating itself. Plus, it makes people mindful of what terrible events have occurred and what occur. It also shows, how naive and unconscious people are of what is happening around them. Within these movies there is usually one person who is bound and determined to find answers and not rest until they are satisfied. These characters inspire people in their real life situations to fight and look until every possible rock has been unturned.
C. I believe that the movie needed to incorporate the facts about the Northcott family. There was more than one person involved and those people need their side of the story expressed no matter if it was good or bad. The information about Sanford, I thought lacked in some areas of the movie and could have been more developed based on what really happened. I also think that Walter’s abduction could have been more authentic in the sense that he was not kidnapped at home but instead on the way to the movies. Adding even the slightest details about where and how things happen can make the movie a more reliable depiction of what truly happened at the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders
A. I was surprised that the movies was simiar to what actually happened. At times, movies change the story a lot to make the story more interesting but it was close when it came to the time line, of the missing boys, Sanford being interviewed and confessing, finding Stewart etc. I think that it was different though because the story was so complex. Reading this it had a lot of detail, as to who did what, when and the contradictions were head spinning. I believe Hollywood did away with some of that because it helped the audience to get the gist of the movie without overwhelming them with certain details. I did think it to be very interesting that nothing was spoken about Louise in the movie. She seemed to be a very big part of the murders. I do not know if they left her and Jessie out because the movie would have been too long, or because the characters in real life was to complicated to depict in a movie. Either way, it may have made the movie a lot more bizarre. Its sad though, that no real changes were made to the police force. I liked that in the movie, they were held accountable for their corruption.
B. I believe that movies that depict events like the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders help people to understand a series of horrible events and there effects on towns, people, police departments etc. while being entertained by special effects. When a horrific movie is made about a ficticios character we are scared. When a real life story is thrown on the silver screen, we are apalled and disgusted because we know that the events we are watching really happened. We will never know what it felt like to live in the 1930′s and have to deal with issues they dealed with, but movies brings times like that to life, and allows us to get a glimpse of how it was like. Then maybe, we can do what we can to stop things like that from happening.
C. I would not have changed the way that the movie was made or the actors but I would probably add the missing individuals like Louise, George and Jessie who made a real impact in the real life case of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I understand that the movie would probably be longer, but that is one thing that I feel would make it a little better. If it were made, I would probably watch it. Maybe breif knowledge about these characters would work.
A) I believe Changling was very close in proximity to the Wineville Chicken Coop murders, except that in the movie the focus was on Christine Collins and the police corruption, instead of the complex, horrifying case of Stewart Northcott and the child murders. The movie didn’t go into any depth about Louise and Geore Northcott being at the farm, or that Walter Collins dad was in prison and suspected that former inmates might have killed him. The movie was more one than what actually took place. The movie also embellished the end when Christine Collins got the captain, and police comissioner fired. As well as making a difference as to how things were handled in the LAPD. In true life, no difference was made, and no one got fired.
B) I believe that it is good practice that Hollywood make movies about these gruesome crimes, because it is a way for the story to be seen, not forgotten and maybe not happen again, (although that is a bit of a stretch). Everyone knows that to be entertaining Hollywood puts there own spin on the events that occured and embellishs parts. The fact is, is that we as a society are addicted to over embellished, dramatization of events, such as on CSI, Law and Order, Numbers, etc. These all show gruesome crimes, but are the most watched shows on t.v. If Hollywood didnt put the spin on the events no one would watch them.
C)If I could change anything in the movie it would be the focus. I believe the movie was far to focused on Christine Collins. It seems the writers were being more political about the police corruption than about the events that actually occurred. I would have focused on those events because to me the actual story was far more disturbing, and gruesome than the movie portrayed.
The movie only glossed over the disturbing nature of the actual Wineville Chicken Coop murders by throwing them in at the end without an explanation of why Stewart killed the boys. In the real story he actually abused the boys, this would have tied the movie together a little better. Another extremely important part of this crime not explained in the movie was that his mom was involved and his father knew about everything. As I stated before the actual crime was far more horrifying than the movie and it would have been nice to see that come to life.
A.) The “Changeling” movie and the “Whineville Chicken Coop Murders” have many similarities and differences. The movie seemed to focus more on the corruption of the police force, rather than the gruesome aspects of the murders. It showed that due to the missing child of Christine Walters, the LAPD found a boy that they knew was not hers and tried to make her seem like a crazy women that was suffering from stress and would not except the fact that the boy they found was her son. In the article it focused more on the life of the sick twisted freak Stewart Northcott. The movie seemed to focus on a less gruesome story line and tried to focus on the love that a mother had for her child than the actuality of the murders that took place. All in all I think the movie did a good job in portraying the story but it could have been better and more in depth.
B.) I think that it is good that Hollywood makes movies about horrific murders like the “Whineville Chicken Coop Murders” because it shows us how sick and crazy people in the world are. It shows us that a person may seem all nice and friendly but behind closed doors or out in the middle of nowhere they are completely a different person. Movies like this can show us that it is very important to always know what our children are doing and where they are at all at times. It is better making the movie end in a reality aspect than trying to make a happy ending. When they make movies based on a true story that is exactly what we want is to see what exactly happened not part of the truth.
C.) If I could change one thing about the movie it would have been to portray more of what happened at the ranch and more about the crimes that were committed by Stewart Northcott and what the police did in efforts to stop him and eventually execute him. The police corruption was an important part of the movie but it should not have been the key focus in the movie. It was wrong of the police to make the mother seem psychotic and pass off some other kid as her own. I think that it would have been better and follow what actually happen in the murders than to just focus on the mother’s story.
A) Although changeling stayed true to the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders story in respects to the serial killer Gordon Stewart Northcott, I think that there were also a lot of differences in both stories. In the movie changeling, the story was more focused on Christine Collins’ life and the disappearance of her son Walter and her struggles with the police department, while the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders story focused more on Gordon Stewart and his life and family, and what he has done to the kids he kidnapped.
When comparing both stories, in the movie, Gordon Stewart’s family had no appearance until the end of the movie where he left the states and escaped to Canada when he felt his life was in danger, whereas in the Wineville chicken coop story, it shows that Stewart and his family was the focus of the story and their involvement in the murders.
After comparing both stories, I think that the movie changeling wasn’t just “Hollywood”, in fact I think it even lacks “Hollywood” in it since usually hollywood movies tend to exaggerate stories and show more violence and blood, but in the movie it didn’t show how he murdered the kids or that he raped them or how he buried them. The intention of the movie is to show the suffering of the people and families who lost their kids and how they reacted, and to show the police corruption at that time and the abuse of power from people who had the power.
B) I think yes it is a good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders to show people what has really happened in true life, and that things showed in movies could really happen to them or someone they know, so they would take extra precaution and be extra careful, that does not mean that they should live in constant fear though, but just to be careful. And plus, this is reality, no one could change what have happened in the past, but if educating people about it, it could help prevent it from happening again in the future.
C) In my opinion, I wouldn’t change anything in the movie changeling to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders since like I said earlier, the intention of the movie is to show the suffering of the people and families who lost their kids and how they reacted and what happened to them, and to show the police corruption at that time and the abuse of power from people who had the power, and to briefly show the types of crimes that happened in that time to give the viewer an idea of what they’re talking about but not to focus mainly on the “how” it happened aspect. For me as a viewer, after watching the movie changeling, and that was my first time hearing about this story, I think I had a good understanding about the full story of the crimes Stewart committed, and the corruption that was happening in that time, the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders story was just more details.
A. After viewing the film “Changeling” and reading the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, there are rather significant differences in the two. The film portrays a condensed version of the actual story by highlighting what are thought to be the most important aspects and scenes. It only depicts one character, Gordon Northcott, as the primary murderer of the young boys. It fails to incorporate the other Northcott family members involved, who all assisted and played an important role in the actual killings. The details and events that took place at the ranch regarding the killings were not apparent in the film either. The main focus of the film appeared to be on Christine Collins and her battle against the LAPD, which was a minimal part of the story. I believe that to a certain extent “Changeling” could serve as a partially true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, however much more specific details and events would need to be integrated in order for it to mirror the “true life” version.
B. I do believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes, like that of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. It allows people to recognize that these types of crimes were and are still occurring within our society. I also believe that it provides information about the nature of crimes and there existence throughout history. Before viewing this film in class I had never heard of this horrific story, let alone the town in which it took place had been renamed. Overall, I believe it serves as a means of information and education about historical and present day aspects surrounding our society.
C. If I could change anything in the film, I would definitely incorporate all of the individuals, primarily members of the Northcott family, who took part in the killings. I would also include more of the events that actually occurred on the ranch and provide additional details about these events. I believe that the relationships amongst the Northcott family members serves as a key point in the underlying corruption within the family. Also, I would provide more clarity about what happened to Walter Collins, the Winslow boys, and the boy who had partaken in assisting Gordon Northcott in the murders. Overall, I feel as though the premise of the film could have focused more on what took place at the ranch and the trials, rather than on Christine Collins and the LAPD.
A. After waching Changeling and reading the above summary of the Wineville chicken coop murders, i have noticed many significant things, people, and facts left out in the movie. There are also many similarities in the two. In the movie Changeling Gordon Northcott is hardly the main charachter. Northcott’s background is never touched in the movie, The other Northcott family members, including Lousie are never mentioned at all, even though in the actual murders their roles were very significant. Some minor details i noticed that were different in the movie include that Stewart did not represent himself in the movie, although in real life he did after firing three lawyers, the boy who “came home” years after the murders happened was not Actually one of the survivors of the murders, but rather a runaway, and when Christine Collins went to visit Stewart in real life he told her that Sanford had killed all the boys, and when she asked himn where the bodies were he said ask mother”. One of the biggest differences i noticed was that in the movie captain Jones is suspenedd indefinately, in reality he was not suspended, he “quietly retired” and the LAPD never suffered any real critisism for the event. Despite all of the differences and people left out, the main toryline of the movie is very true to the real life story line. Walter Collins did disappear, and was never found. Sanford Clark’s charachter is very close to the actual boy Sanford Clark involved in the murders.
B. I think that it can be very usefull for Hollywood to make movies about horrific events, if done in the right sense. If it wasn’t for the movie Changeling i never would have known about the Wineville Chicken coop murders. Making movies about events such as these, and showing punishment and pain can help increase people’s awareness about events that have happened in the past. Some extreme people might say that making movies such as these put terrible ideas in the minds of “sick” people, and i can say that that is a very valid point. However, if you show the punishment of the individual committing the crime then it shows people, kids, whomever that you cannot do these types of things without getting caught. I think it’s good to make movies about these types of events, but only if the proper punishment is shown.
C. If i could change one thing about the movie to make it closer to the actual events of the Wineville chicken coop murders, i would change the Northcott family. Wat i mean by this is that i would include all of the family members that were involved in the murders in any way. I feel that their roles in the actual murders are of significant importance and would change the entire feel of the movie.
A. I believe that the movie “Changling” is a fairly true rendition of the actual events of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The reason I say fairly true is because while te movie may be on the same basis as the actual events, there are certain details of the actual events that do not correspond to the movie. While the movie did not capture the complete involvement of the Northcott family by excluding the involvement of the mother and the inclusion of the father, the movie still did an accurate job of capturing the crimes committed by Stewart Northcott. The movie covered the kidnapping, murder, assualt, and mistreatment of the kidnapped children. The movie, simply focussed on the perspective of the Collin’s family, rather than the side of the Northcott family, which can explain why the involvment of Stewart’s Mother is not mentioned. Another main connection the movie makes to the actual events is the corruption of the police department, and their attempt to cover up their mistakes.
B. I do believe that this practice by Hollywood of making movies based on such horrific crimes is good. Granted do the the rating system on our media a majority of these movies are not suitable for the younger generations, but I feel that these movies are good to portray these actual events. I believe this because it allows for the audience to see a glimpse of the kinds of things that occur and have occurred in society. It shows that the events in the movie, while some may be dramatized by Hollywood, are possible and brings awareness of what goes on around us.
C. If I could change one thing about the movie, I would make the movie not only take the views of Mrs. Collins, but also the Northcott’s views as well. I felt as if Sanford’s role was one of great importance and yet we did not really get to see his side of things and what he had gone through. I also would have included Louise in the movie as well, mainly due to what I interpreted from the actual events, she actually was a significant role in the case. Other that I felt that Hollywood did an accurate rendition of these horrible events that occurred.
A) The real life Wineville Murders and the movie “Changeling” do share many details, but ultimately the movie is not an entirely accurate account of what really happened. Only Steward and Sanford are depicted in the movie, which fails to portray Louise and George. The movie also implies that Christine Collins’ husband had left her, when in fact he was in prison. Parts of the movie that were accurate seem to be Christine’s encounters with the police and the boy that they claimed as being her son. I would say the movie focuses 60% on Christine and the LAPD corruption and the other 40% on Gordon, Sanford, and the killings.
B)I think that, to an extent, it is good for Hollywood to make movies about real life horrific events. I think that if the major details and people are portrayed accurately then it is ok. I say this because if a movie is to be based on real events, then it is only fair to honor and respect the person or people who suffered by accurately showing what they went through. Otherwise, I would say that it is simply Hollywood picking apart a real event in order to “dramatize” it so that they can write a story that parallels the real events and make a buck.
C)If I could change anything in the movie, I would place less focus on Christine Collins and place more emphasis on the Northcott family and what was going on at the ranch. Christine’s situation certainly needs focus too as it is key in the overall picture of what was going on, but her struggle was far less than the many boys who were kidnapped, beaten, molested, and murdered at the ranch by Louise, Gordon, and Sanford.
1) When comparing the film “Changeling” to the article in “The New Yorker,” I noticed a few things that are different. First, in “Changeling” the movie mostly focuses on Ms. Collins and her attempt to get her son back. In “The New Yorker” article, the article mostly focuses on Mr. Willingham and what he did to the victims he kidnapped. That was the most eye opening thing in my opinion.
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/gov-rick-perry-cameron-to_n_321710.html
http://www.truthinjustice.org/willingham.htm
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/aug/25/science/chi-tc-nw-texas-execute-0824-082aug25
3) Article 1 is from the Huffington Post and talks about how Mr. Willingham was innocent and executed. The article talks a lot about corruption and how the case was mishandled and treated unfairly. It is unfair how people get treated at times and Mr. Willingham is a prime example of this.
A. I don’t think it would be fair to really compare the movie Changling to the actual events that took place in Wineville. Instead, I would like to view the movie as a summary of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. Everything that happened in the movie was true, but was missing other important information about what had really happened. But that isn’t fair either. Hollywood wanted this movie to be interesting. If they wanted to make sure that they had included every bit of information about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, they would have made it a series on a network like the History Channel or the Discovery Channel and called it a documentary. This was a movie, filled with drama, plot twists, and interesting activity that was all appealing to the viewers, but at the same time, all true. The only difference between the two is that the movie left out a lot information about what happened in Wineville and instead focused on Christine Collins and the LAPD.
B. Well, it isn’t exactly bad practice. Hollywood can make a movie about whatever they deem okay. This is a nation fueled by capitalism and people that want to make money. If Hollywood wants to make a film about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, they certainly can and ought to because sometimes movies about horrific events like this inspire people to look further into what happened. I for one was more inclined to read the entire article on the murders because I had seen the movie and wanted to know more. People always want more. I am a straight-shooter, bottom-line kind of guy that likes to get to the point. You can’t exactly make a good movie about the whole true and everything that took place. That would be boring and not sell in the box office. So, I think it’s good practice and I hope they continue to make movies like this.
C. If I could change the movie, I would have focused on Stewart rather than Christine Collins and the corrupt LAPD. I think a movie about a pathological liar/pedophile/molester/rapist/murder would be so much more interesting than the movie Changling. Not only that, I think the viewer would be able to take more in and understand more of the illegal and weird activity that took place in Wineville.
1) If the real life rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders is accurate, then most of the movie Changling was a fabrication skipping a lot of details about what actually happened. While the main points are in the film, it was largely skewed from where the real heart of this matter is. First off, the movie focused on Christine Collins and her quest to find her son, but that aspect turned out to be a minor detail in the whole mix of things, and even that left out some things. For instance, the entire possibility that Walter could have been killed by former inmates as revenge for acts that his father did were entirely left out. Then it turns out that although Mrs. Collins brought attention to “Code 12″ and the corruption of Captain Jones, it did not mark a significant change in the department other then his retirement, which did not rid of any of the problems. I think it’s pretty apparent that Hollywood found a small story in this and ran with it. It’s probably easier to make a film like that as to reach more audiences than to make a gruesome and sadistic one that this story ended up being.
2) I think its okay for Hollywood to make movies about such horrors like this one because it does help a lot in bringing them to attention and informing people. For instance, before this movie I had never heard of anything like this or this story in particular. The same can be said for many other films that highlight stories like these. Often times though, Hollywood will embellish them so that they can appeal to more people, thus making more money since that’s why movies are made in the first place.
3) If I could, I would have changed a lot of the movie to include more of Stewart’s family, especially his deranged mother. I would have also included Jessie’s attempts to spring her brother from the ranch. Given the sporadic nature of Stewart and his mother, I think it would be entirely possible to make a feature film on them and forget about Mrs. Collins and her attempt to find Walter. If a crime was so horrible that a town completely changed its name over it, then there has got to be a better story in there than a woman’s quest to find her potentially murdered son, especially since the details about it are so sketchy.
a. There were a fair amount of differences between the real Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and the movies depiction of them. The real murders involved more of Stewart’s family and there was a lot more history with them. The movie does not go into Stewart’s family, we only know of Sanford. The movie does not go into too much detail during Stewart’s trial, and it does not show how Sanford’s sister tries to help him escape multiple times. The movie focuses more on police corruption and LAPD’s efforts to clean up their image and reputation. In reality, their efforts to do so were not as extreme as in the movie. There was no mentioning of Stewart’s killing of the Mexican man before he killed any children. Stewart’s past and history is also not shown in too much detail.
b. I think that it is a good idea for Hollywood to make films based off of violent crimes. It can show us how our society has changed, and it can give us a glimpse of history. It may be violent or contain controversial material, but it is important for people to know what has actually happened in the past and learn about famous cases in history.
c. If I could make some changes to the movie, I would focus more on Stewart and his past history and family. The reality of this case shows that is more about Stewart and the bizarre series of events involving him and his family, and less about the LAPD trying to make a good image. It doesn’t need to have every minor detail, but it should focus more on the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and what was going on with them. I would also show more of Stewart’s trial and his erratic behavior such as his numerous confessions and later recanting them. I would also show more of the aftermath and what became of the major characters in the film.
A) After watching the movie “Changeling” and reading the article about Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, the movie differed from the real life story a little in a way to make it more “Hollywood”. In the movie, it didn’t say anything about Louise Northcott who in the article played a major part in the murders and the actions on the chicken ranch. Nor did the movie touch on the mother- father relationship that explained more about Stewart’s behavior. The article reviles more details about what happened to the boys at the ranch and the number of people involved. The movie was enjoyable to watch but after reading this article, I feel like I have a better understanding of the true story. The article also stresses how the LAPD was not really that affected by the Christine Collins episode. After all according to the article, the “Code 12” and the corruption didn’t end like we were lead to believe at the end of the movie. Overall, the movie was made to be an entertaining view of the Wineville incident and was effective at that, but the true story according to the article did differ from the movie version.
B) I believe that it is a good thing to produce movies about crimes such as the Wineville murders. Without seeing this movie, many others and I would of not known about this incident and the fact that these things do happen in life. I can see how others might think that movies about crime can be a bad thing but I don’t believe that movies are endorsing more crime or making criminals smarter. Movies like “Felon” and “Changling” are also tools that can be used to show corruption and how it can happen even if we aren’t expecting it.
C) The movie did its role to entertain the viewers but I would change it to involve more of the Northcott family, as I believe that this is important and wasn’t addressed in the movie. The movie shouldn’t go into details about the boy’s and their deaths at the ranch, but what it should include is more about Sanford Clark and his history about how he got to the farm and his role in the murders. I would also include parts of his family being on the farm and how big of a role Sanford’s sister played to get him out of the farm as well as George. The lack of Louise was a bad decision on the moviemaker’s part because we would have never known that Louise would sacrifice everything for her son. For the ending I would also include what happened to everyone involved such as Sanford, George and Louise, and Christine Collins.
A) The movie Changeling portrayed the main idea of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, though a lot of the facts were changed. Changeling did a good job of conveying parts of the story, such as the psych ward and Christine Colins’ battle with the LAPD. However, it leaves out a ton of information on the Stewart’s family. I thought it was very interesting that the movie never really clarified Walter’s whereabouts, though the stories of Stewart, Louise and Sanford all point to Walter being dead.
According to the “real life” chronicle, Walter was kidnapped when he was on his way home from the movies. Changeling, however, shows Walter left home alone, then gone when his mother returns from work. I think Changeling is a very good movie, but do think that they could have added some more facts about what actually took place.
B) Yes, I think that it is a good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. It makes the public aware of the crimes that actually occur which then can be studied and prevented. Tons of crimes such as these murders aren’t publicized unless the story is made into a movie or book. Movies allow us to see a glimpse of the awful things that have happened. I would hope that Hollywood continues this portrayal of real life events such as these murders, but would want them to stay with the facts and not stray far.
C) I would definitely change some aspects of the film Changeling. I think that the story is much better with the characters of George, Louise and Jessie, as described in the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. I think that the movie should’ve shown how Louise helped cover up the murders instead of showing so much of Christine Collins’s battle with the LAPD. Walter’s abduction could have been portrayed more accurately, as he was actually abducted on the way to the movies. Adding these details allows the film to be that much more of a factual depiction of history.
A) After watching the movie “Changling” in class then reading the article regarding the real Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I realized how many differences there were between the two. While I feel the movie was an accurate representation of events that can and did happen, I feel it was a fabrication of what really happened because so many details and important relationships leading to significant events were left out. For example we were not informed of the lies Gordon told in order to keep Sanford working around the ‘ranch’ and at his beckoning call for relieving sexual desires. Also the true story claims that Gordon sexually assaulted the other boys he brought to the ranch then released them with the threat that he would kill them if they told anyone of his acts. The movie portrayed him as killing for the pleasure he got from it – not raping involved just mere violence. Gordon’s extended family was not introduced in the movie until the end even though they played a huge role in the murdering of the Mexican man (who did not even appear in the movie). Also falsified in the movie was Walter’s presence at the ranch and how he was murdered by Gordon. Gordon never confessed to killing Walter in the movie, supposedly Walter escaped and it was unclear what happened to him. Another difference between the movie and real life, there was no indication of Stewart escaping his uncles ranch – he was supposedly picked up by the police because he was reported as a run away. Much of the reality of the Wineville Chicken Coop murders was left out but I do think as a whole all the events are very plausible.
B) I do believe it is good for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes like this. I personally was unaware of the degree police corruption can escalate to. I knew it could be bad, but I think Hollywood movies, regardless of how much truth (within the story line I mean) is behind them it is important to make everyone aware of the everyday reality behind the scenes, especially of our law enforcement. Events such as this, as terribly as it is, can be a resource for many, they say history repeats itself and unfortunately some sick and twisted individual could be out there planning to ‘reenact’ this situation. With the knowledge of it published I think it will show that they have previous knowledge of such situations giving an advantage to solving the issue before it escalates as it did in the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders.
C) I would add more detail of the actual events to the movie. It was based on a true story and I feel fabricating the truth, even if it is to make it softer for the screen, is a waste. If you’re going to tell the story – tell it. The world we live in is full of falsified and softened truths which I think leave many people uneducated and naive. This movie connected with many people through it’s characters and I feel that was a very important aspect – Had they introduced the mother and father, allowing the audience to see their relationship with their son and their relationship with the situation I think it would have given the opposing view to Christine Collins, a loving mother fighting for her son.
(A) The movie “Changling” was a true rendition to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. The main difference that happened with the Wineville murders that was not incorporated more in the movie was Gordon Northcott’s troubled past. The movie did not go in depth into Northcott’s past, just enough to prove that he was mentally unstable. The movie also neglected to inform the audience that Walter’s dad was in prison at Folsom. The movie had a little “Hollywood” in it because it is infact a movie not a documentary. In my opinion it did not have too much Hollywood incorporated.
(B) I would not say it is a good Hollywood to make movies like this. I do think that it was smart of them to shine a different kind of light on the police corruption. The movie shows a side of corruption that is normally masked by other movies.
(C) I would not change anything about the movie, I think it did the Wineville murder’s justice by bringing the horrible issue of police corruption to the main screen. I would not make it more similar because the movie needs to be different in order for it to be popular.
a) The biggeest difference between the movie and the article is the articel is much more detailed. One difference between the movie and the true story is that the family was much invlolved in the actual chicken coupe murders. In the film it was just the one single guy and the kid he got to help him out. In another difference in the movie from reality, they did not go into as much detail with the murders. In the movie they just showed the murdering with the axe, but in reality the boys were abused and raped before killed. The biggest differnece in the movie was that the main focus was on the police corruption. The movie was so focused on police corruption that i feel they left out more of the actual details of the actual events.
b) I feel that it is good for Hollywood to make movies with crimes like this because it opens up eyes to people like our class who would have otherwise never heard of the chicken coupe murders. There are many movies that bring up crimes such as rape and mass murderers that some times people would rather not hear. I think even though sometimes movies take crime sout of proportion it is good because in the case of changling none of the class would have ever heard of the crime if it were not made into a movie.
c) If i could change anything in the movie is that i would probably involve the murders more in the beginning. I would have shown a couple scenes from the ranch. I would have also shown the the family was more involved in the murders instead of he one individual. If there was one thing specifically that i would keep it would be to show police corruption. Police corruption in this era was a huge issue in the LAPD and if i had not seen the movie i would never have known about it. I feel that one of the worst things a person can do is take advantage of authority and these police officers in this era were doing this to an extreme. So i feel that it is good that the movie has pointed out a huge issue that is still taken out of control in society today.
a)When reading the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders and comparing it to the movie Changling, I believe that the movie was a lot of “Hollywood”. In the movie, Stewart’s parents were not involved and were not even spoken of at any point in the movie. Jessie, Sanford’s sister, was never spoken of either. And Stewart’s family was completely involved in all the murders. Also, the boy who called himself Walter never said, according to the article, that the police made him say that he was Walter. Also, poor Sanford Clark tried to get away from his uncle numerous times and George, Stewart’s father, tried to get Sanford as much away from Stewart as possible but failed miserably. Hollywood did a great job at presenting a “hopeful” portrait of this terrible moment in Wineville history, but the truth is that a lot of the details in the movie were either exaggerated or omitted.
b)This is a good question. I believe that it is a good idea that Hollywood makes movies about crimes like these but it, in my opinion, they should keep the movies as close to real life as possible. After reading the true life chronicle of the Chicken Coop Murders, the movie just disappoints me. Watching movies like these makes me want to investigate a bit more about the real thing and then I see that the movie was majorly exaggerated.
c)If I were to change anything about the movie to make it more “true life”, I would definitely add the twisted family members and those who tried to help Sanford. I would also focus more on some of the other children that were abducted. Overall, “Changling” was a good movie, but I would have enjoyed it a bit more if it had been closer to what truly happened.
a). I think that the movie Changeling was as accurate to the real life chicken coop murders as the movie could make it. There are a couple things left out of the movie that took place in reality. For the movie to be viewable to all people some things had to be left out because then it would be too graphic and the movie would be too long to watch. But, in my opinion, I think the movie should have included more information about Stewart Northcott’s past, how he was raised as a child and what crimes he committed before these murders. This would have made the audience understand more on why Stewart Northcutt would kill those young boys.
b). Yes, I think its good for Hollywood to make movies as real as they can because it shows us in detail how different situations happen like the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. This will help the public learn about different stories around the United States and how to prevent these terrible things from happening. Hollywood should keep making movies like these because this helps me learn from these murders and hopeyfully they stick with the truth and the facts
c). I would change some things in Changling. I would change and show more detail on how Walter was abducted and show some of the killings they did in Wineville. I think they showed too much of Christine Collins conflict with the LAPD. But overall I think the movie was pretty good and if they added these things it would be even better.
A.) I do not think “Changling” was simply Hollywood trying to make a buck. I think they viewed the murders from a different perspective, the Mother of a victim. Although some of the stuff from the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders was not in the movie does not mean Hollywood took it out for the sake of the making money. The murders that actually took place were so horrific and to put something like that on the big screen would not be appropriate like Gordon Northcott and his obsession with raping young boys. Also I think there were a lot of similarities from the movie to the real crime. For instance I think the movie did a great job at capturing Northcotts personality and I think the movie also did an amazing job at portraying Mrs. Collins and her search for her son. A few differences that really stood out from the movie to the real crime was the raping of the victims, the movie never portrayed this, but I am happy they did not because I think that would have been a bit much for a movie. Another difference I saw was the lack of emphases on the LAPD. In reality life they did much more than just putting women into asylums. Also the movie never showed just how involved Northcotts family was in the crimes.
B.) I believe Hollywood goes over board when it comes to making movie about horrific crimes. I think movies like “saw” and “hostile” are simply distasteful and should not be made but movies like “Changling” that give an actual account of something that happened are great. I think the producers of the movie gave it enough emphases on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. These type of movies allow us to really understand just how disturbed people can be, but it does show how rare this type of event truly is.
C.) I really enjoyed the movie and thought it did a great job at showing the effect of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, but I would change two things. The first would be the severity of the corruption of the LAPD, in reality they were all more corrupt but in the movie it mainly focused on the miss use of power towards women. I would change this because in the movie the police department seems almost innocent besides what happened to Mrs. Collins. The second thing I would change was Northcott’s family and their involvement. In the movie only Northcott’s nephew and his sister are only mentioned but in real life there were more family members and some with extreme involvement. I would change this to make the movie more true to the actual crime committed.
A) “Changling” has some similarities to the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, but it seems to be missing quite a lot of details. Even for a movie, there was so much that was missing. It focused more on Christine and her plight than on the entire issue as a whole There was way more going on than just her missing boy. There were many more and then some. I wish the movie went a bit more into detail about more than just Christine. I would have like to see more of the Northcott family and its dysfunction to go with Christine and her fight with the corrupted police. All in all, the movie did show pretty well how the murders were played out and how corrupt the LAPD was back then and how they treated the Code 12 women.
B) I believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about the horrific crimes. People now aren’t as sensitive, and can take the horror. What they should do is more movies like this. It not only educates the lazy American’s about what is out there or what was out there in our criminal justice system, but it also educates on criminal history in America. Just as long as Hollywood doesn’t stray too far from the facts, it will be great.
C) If I could change anything about the movie, I would make the movie longer and include more to the story than just keeping my focus on the Collins family. I would want to include more about the Northcott family and about how they interact with each other. What led to who being murdered. Showing the family dynamics and how they try to blend in as normal people in society and how they cover things up. I would want to show more about the various trials that had taken place and more about how psychologically unstable that family was. It would have greatly added to the movie if it was included.
A) In my opinion, Changling was very similar to the Chicken Coop Murders. I thought there was obviously a little “hollywood” in the movie, but only to spice it up to keep some viewers more interested. In my opinion they did a pretty accurate job in the movie and told the story very well. If anything could be changed in the movie, I would say a little more information about Stweart Northcotts past and the life he lived before committing the murders would have been nice. A little more background information would have been helpful when viewing the movie.
B)I believe it is important for Hollywood to make movies about crimes and horiffic events that have occured. A lot of times people don’t believe these things happen and are nieve to the possibilty to it happeneing to them or someone in or close to their family. Seeing true stories like the Chicken Coop Murders is a reality check and in a way can make people more aware and possibly help stop crime like this from happening in the future. Everyone’s parents have told them stories about kids being taken by strangers. This was the first time I heard of this story and if I saw this when I was younger I would have been so much more careful.
C)I really enjoyed the movie. There are a few things I would change however. I would like to know more about Mrs. Collins “fake” son. What happened to him after he left? Was he really told by the police to pretend to be Walter? Other then that the movie was extremly interesting and one I would love to see again.
a) I found the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders to be confusing. The majority of this confusion stemmed from the introduction of Louise Northcott, Gordon’s mother. This character was completely omitted from the film “Changling”. Because I had no familiarity with the character and had previously heard the story with only Sanford and Gordon, I found it difficult to then add in Gordon’s mother. The movie also did not mention any of Gordon’s other family members including his father, George and Sanford’s sister Jessie. The blog also highlighted the overall sanity, or lack thereof, of the Northcott family more than the movie did. What I found most disturbing was the amount of times Gordon and Louise changed their stories and appear to genuinely believe what they were saying. Included in their stories were various accounts of how George and Louise were related, or not related, to Gordon. To see a family act in such as odd manner was very unnerving. Also, despite the horrible accusations and statements Gordon and Louise made about George, he still said they were innocent and that he loved his wife.
The most significant difference between the film and the blog concerning the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders was the focus. “Changling” focused on the Christine and her quest to find her son, and what she endured as a result of it, as well as the corruption of the LAPD. Although the film did attempt to tell the story of what happened at the ranch, it did not go into as much detail as the blog did. In contrast, the blog focused on these murders and the Northcott family while leaving out the details of Christine’s struggles and problems with the LAPD. “Changling” also went into detail of Christine’s time in the psychiatric ward while the blog barely touched on the subject. Despite these differences I still believe that each account of the events is accurate. Hollywood did a good job or portraying the horrible events that occurred in a way that people could follow and understand. Because of the amount of details involved in the case, I believe there was no way the movie could have included everything.
b) I do believe it is a good thing that Hollywood makes movies about such horrific crimes because it educates the public about problems in our society that otherwise would become lost in history. Although it can be easy to pretend we live in a non-corrupt, crime-free world, this is far from the truth. I believe it is important for people to understand how horrible people can commit horrible crimes so further measures can be taken to prevent future crimes from occurring. For example, after the horrible shootings at Virginia Tech, College and Universities all over the United States implemented security changes which included text messages to alert students of an emergency, anonymous telephone lines or reports that could be filed to report suspicious behavior, and increased awareness of the effects of depression. As a result of these measures, future crimes on College Campuses can be prevented.
I also think it is important to expose the corruption that exists in our criminal justice system. If the public becomes educated on past and current incidents of corruption, we can become better equipped to identify and eliminate the sources of corruption. Two other movies and documentaries we have watched have also showcased examples of corruption. The first was in the movie Felon when the corrupt prison guard abused his power and took advantage of the prisoners’ anger and rage, encouraging them to fight rival groups of inmates. The second occurred in the documentary that unveiled the presence of gangs in our military, corporate America, and among our police officers. It is clear that throughout history there have been cases of corruption. Hopefully we can right these wrongs, and reduce the number of crimes committed as a result of such corruption.
c) I would not change anything in the movie to make it more like the blog because I believe it would lose its effectiveness. There are far too many details concerning the Northcott family, Christine’s battles for justice, and the corruption surrounding the LAPD for one movie to successfully portray. I believe that the movie focused on Christine’s battles because she is a character that many American’s can relate to. She is a mother who is fighting for her child. Many American’s can imagine her pain and strong desire for justice because this is a socially acceptable struggle. American’s want to see a mother who cares for and supports her family, and who would sacrifice anything to safe them. I believe the film was able to successfully portray her story even though it excluded some of the characters and instances the blog contained. If the movie had instead focused on the Northcott family it would have been a much more disturbing film. The Northcott family is not socially acceptable and America would have been confused and appalled by their horrific actions. In order to portray the details of the family, and the numerous “confessions” and accounts of the murders the movie would have been much longer and much more confusing. America would not have been able to relate to or even imagine what the Northcott family was thinking during this time, and most likely would not have been able to even comprehend the actions taken during the time frame of the movie. “Changling” instead provided what I believe to be the perfect amount of explanation and development to the Wineville murders.
A. I was surprised at how closely related the two stories were. Usually when a “true story” hits the theaters it ends up being blown way out of proportion. This was an exception where some interesting parts were actually left out of the movie. One of the important things that never made it into Changeling was the fact that Stewart Norhtcott’s whole family actually aided in most of the murders. The movie made it seem like Stewart and Stanford were the only ones involved. The movie also left out the sexual abuse that the kidnapped children and Stewart endured. The movie made him look like a sick person, but the reading made him seem even more demented. Lastly, the movie was based mainly on the story of Christine Collins and her struggles. Even though she played a role in the story, the Northcott family is what this incident is based around.
B. I believe that movies of horrific true events are acceptable for Hollywood to produce as long as they’re in good taste. I find that a lot of movies tend to stretch the truth or make the “hero” more glorious than in reality. Then this is taken to an extreme, it leads the movie watcher to believe something that didn’t happen. It would be a socially responsible act for film studios to donate a certain percentage of the movie’s profits to an organization that benefits the real victims of the movie. In Changeling’s case, the studio should have donated money to a missing-child foundation. Of course, the studio should get consent from the descendants of the families involved for the movie to be given the green light. Although some might think this movie “opens the eyes” of movie watchers to incidents like this, most people already know that horrible things like this actually happen. Unfortunately, there is little one can do to prevent them from being the victim of a one-in-a-million crime.
C. If I was going to make the Changeling more similar to the “true life” Chicken Coop Murders I would change the focus of the movie. Instead of having Christine Collins as the main character of the movie, I would have Gordon Stewart Northcott as the antagonist. Having the story shown from his perspective would tell the story of the murders in more detail. To make the movie more like the real story, the whole Norhtcott family should be in the movie. I think this gives the story a lot more depth since it was more than just one crazy man killing children. If the story was told from Steward’s point of view I think it would end up being more of a horror movie than a drama. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre comes to mind when I picture this move from his perspective.
a.) In some regards, the movie “Changling” portrays an accurate perspective on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. In particular, the corruption of the LAPD at the time and their underground “gun squad” are represented authentically in the film and this was the aspect I found to be most provocative. While all the other true details of the film are grisly, the truth that appalled me most was that the law enforcement, who’s duty it is to dispense justice, was involved so heavily with the criminal underworld. Although it is based on true events, like almost all Hollywood films created, “Changling” embellishes the truth in many regards. One of the differences between the film and the actual events which stood out to me, was the involvement and cooperation of Stewart’s entire family. His psychological control over his own mother is the most bizarre part of the case to me. It is similar to the “Girl in the Box” documentary we viewed in class in that the individual committing the crimes is able to manipulate his victims and cohorts through fear until he completely brainwashes them.
b.) I believe that it is necessary for Hollywood to make films which expose the realities of our society, regardless of their horrific nature. Often, embellishments in these type of films serve to further a specific point and are beneficial in making people aware of a situation. However, many Hollywood films exaggerate their message to an extreme and in such cases, the true story of the film is blurred so much that it effectually takes away from the theme. That said however, I believe that it is crucial for Hollywood to open the eyes of otherwise unreachable individuals who are oblivious to certain realties. A non-Hollywood example of a film which opened my eyes, and those of many other viewers, was the film “Ciudad de Dios,” or “City of God.” In this film, the poverty-stricken life led by the majority of those native to Rio de Janeiro is illustrated with such an emotional touch and unfiltered brutality, that it serves as much more than entertainment. “Changling” does this, just in a more fabricated fashion.
c.) One thing I would change about the film is the lack of character study. The bizarre characters which are involved in the murders are, in my belief, not illustrated with enough depth to truly portray their motives. Although in reality, the motives of Stewart still remain the subject of debate, if he was portrayed as more of an emotionally damaged individual with a history of sexual abuse, I believe it would clarify more of what occurred to the viewer.
A. After watching the movie “Changeling” and reading the true story, I noticed many differences. First, the movie does not include important background information about Gordon (that I consider really important because it explains the various factors that contribute to Gordon’s insanity). The movie does not mention that the whole family was involved in the murder of all these boys and that Gordon’s mom was as guilty as he was. Also, the movie does not show how Sanford was brutally beaten and sexually abused and how violently the boys were killed (one was buried alive). The movie basically focuses on how Christine suffered for her son and how brave she was to stand up against the police, instead of focusing on the various cases of victims found dead. Also, the movie makes it seems as if the case of Walter Collins really made an impact on the police and that the corrupt officers were permanently suspended, when in the real life, there was no big change in the law and one of the officers resigned. The movie never mentioned the existence of Gordon’s mother, Louise or his niece, Jessie and did not made them part of the murder. There are many parts of the movie that is only Hollywood such as the fact that they mainly focus on the mother’s suffering and how she struggles to find her son and fights against anything and anyone to recuperate him. The movie had some important aspects similar to the true story, such as Gordon not saying the truth about the murders and constantly changing the story. Another aspect that I recognized from the movie while reading the story is that Gordon never stopped answering questions from the press. When Gordon was arrested (in the movie), he was smiling at the press answering every question. Overall, the movie had many similar aspects, but at the same time, missed very important one that may have helped people gain more understanding about this case.
B. I think that making movies about true stories and tragic events is a good idea because this way people become aware about the dangerous world we now live in. If it wasn’t for this class, I wouldn’t have known about this horrific crime, so this is why I think that Hollywood should create more movies like this to open people’s eyes about the evilness of people. It also educates students about crimes such as corruption, murder, aggravated assaults, and many others and apply it to what we are learning in class. Movies like this one that is based on a true story are very successful because they are more reliable and people believe in them more. Even though the movie gives information about our past(much before we were born), it gives us an idea of how corrupt the police was back then; it helps us gain more knowledge about the past and what our ancestors have to deal with back then.
C. I realized that there were a lot of important details that could have been included in the movie. The background information of Gordon was essential for the understanding of the cases of Wineville chicken coop murders. If I had the chance to change something about the movie, I would definitely incorporate Gordon’s mom, niece, and father. They play an important role in the case, since they were involved in the murders in some way. I would also focus the movie on not just Walter’s case, but on the Mexican man, the brothers, and the other boys that were also victims of Gordon as well. I would definitely include that the police corruption remained and that no matter how hard Christine tried, the laws kept the same way and there was only one minor change. To make it more realistic and similar to the real story, I would also include the case were one boy was buried alive, one of the most important and tragic part of the story. Another change could have been that Gordon lived with his parents and that his niece, Jessie together with George (Gordon’s father), tried several times to help Sanford escaped and in every attempt Gordon would stop them. Although this movie needs many details, overall, the movie was very similar to the true story.
a)In my opinion, the film did well in portraying the basics of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. It carried out the gist of the story, yet it left out many details. The film mainly focused on Christine Collins journey to find her son, whereas, in the article, this is not the major event. The article goes into much further details of the murders in comparison to the film, and it discusses the boys he kidnapped and raped. It also mentioned the boy that was buried alive; this too wasn’t mentioned in the film. However, overall, I think that the film was a general representation of the actual Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, and after all, the producer may have sparred the details because they simply could not all fit in the film or to spare the viewers the realistic gruesomeness of what really happened.
b)If I hadn’t seen this film, I would have never known about the Wineville Chicken Coop murders. For this reason, I feel that Hollywood should make horrific movies such as Changling because it helps to inform the viewers of past historic events that may have taken place that they didn’t know about. This film in particular showed its viewers how police acted and treated people back then, and to those that may have not known, this means helped to show this. In regards to the level of gruesomeness that should be allowed in the films, I feel should be up to the producers, because at the end of the day if a film is produced to show past events (whether it is appealing to the viewer or not), it is up to people to decide whether or not they want to watch the film or not.
c)If I could change one thing about the film, I would focus more on Stewart’s family and the actual killing of the boys, because this wasn’t shown in the film. I would like to have seen the film image more of the article, but I too understand that it could be difficult to do this when you know that the film can only really be so long. With this, I wish the film could have also shown the trials of Stewart’s family more as well.
a.) In my opinion the movie Changeling displayed a pretty accurate image of the real life Chicken Coop murders as it could do. Without a doubt the movie was cut a little short of some details that really happened in the real life murders, but it was necessary for Hollywood to do so due to the graphic content. However, I feel the movie should have went more into detail about Stewart Northcott, and the way he raped the boys before murdering them brutally. I think by including some of the details left out of the movie, we as viewers would have become more informed of Stewart Northcott, and the reasons he did what he did.
b.) I do feel it is a good thing that Hollywood makes movies about horrific crimes such as the Chicken Coop murders. It allows viewers to become aware of historical crimes of the past, while also being entertained in the process. Without the movie Changling, I would have never been informed of the Chicken Coop murders. Hollywood allows society to be informed of horrific crimes that happened forever ago, by producing movies such as Changling. If it weren’t for these movies, most historical crimes would simply be forgotten over time.
c.) If I could change anything about the movie Changling, it would be to incorporate more of the real life events that actually took place. I know that this would make the movie much more graphic, but honestly this movie was made for an older crowd anyways. I would like to have seen more of what actually happened, as apposed to how the police corrupted the situation. The police corruption was also interesting, but I feel viewing what actually happened in the murders would have been more entertaining. Regardless, I really enjoyed the movie as a whole.
a. Well, certainly Hollywood was trying to make a buck by making this movie but I don’t think they stretched the truth too far to make it interesting. After reading the article about the Wineville Chicken Murders, there are numerous things that the movie didn’t mention, the most notable difference is the absence of Stewart’s mother, Louise, who also was heavily involved in the murders. Louise helped during some of the murders, she was at the ranch often and was present in the hearings (along with her husband and Stewarts father George). Besides the lack of Stewart’s parents in the movie there were many other aspects that were not accounted for. Most of these occurrences or people were, in my opinion, omitted simply because there just wasn’t enough time in the movie to detail every aspect of this twisted tale. Some differences include no mention of the Mexican man Steward beheaded; no mention of the lucky one’s, or how many times Stanford’s sister Jessie tried to help him escape, and it wasn’t shown that Stewart had police officers going on wild goose chases for the remains of his victims. Also, in the movie Changling Walter Collin’s was never explicitly said to be dead by anyone, therefore leaving a glimpse of hope for the audience at the end that he could possibly be alive. Yet, in the article it explains that Louise, Stewart and Stanford all attested that Collin’s had been murdered. Another difference is in the article it explains how Colleen Collins hosted a 10th birthday party for her missing son, this was not shown in the movie. Overall, I think that the movie Changling was a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because although some things had to be omitted for the sake of time, most of the facts remained the same.
b.I do believe that it is good practice for Hollywood to make movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders because it allows people to learn about things that have really happened in this world, whether or not they are good or not. I believe that they should be done tastefully without too much gruesome detail, for the sake of the audience , but it exposes the realities of this country and the world. Before watching this movie, I was unaware of how much corruption had and probably still is going on in the United States. Without a movie like this, I probably never would have known about this tragedy. Also, I believe that it is best that the movie be made in an extended length of time after the event has taken place in order to spare the feelings of people personally affected by the disaster.
c. If I could change anything about the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, I would have added in Louise Northcott because I feel that she was an integral part in this disgusting occurrence and her character would have made the movie more realistic to what exactly happened. She played a role in why Stewart was the way he was and also she helped cover up the murder and would have made the trial more accurate and probably more interesting.
a) Both the movie “Changling” and the true story presented the main points and crimes committed by Stewart Northcott. While the movie did only present the crimes that Stewart committed it is understandable for there is only a certain amount of time the movie could be explained so too much details were not presented. The movie “Changling” is more than just a Hollywood story; it actually explains what happened in the true story while still not explaining everything but the key points. This is one of the rare cases where the movie actually underrepresented the true story. The movie was a true rendition of the major crimes committed by Stewart while on the other hand it did not explain the true events leading to Walter Collins murder, yet left the story open with a possibility that Walter actually survived. I believe the story was a great representation of the story of Christen Collins point of view of the events that happened.
b) I found the movie to be very interesting as well as educational about what truly occurred during that period of time in Los Angeles. While people might not see it as an issue in current society such murderers and crime should be shown to the public to explain to them what has happened in the past and what criminals are capable off. I believe these story help people understand the past better and are just as important as movies about WWII for they do portray issues which occurred in those period in time. Just as how we study serial killers in our criminology class I think it is important for society to learn of past criminals to understand today criminals and relate stories. Such crimes are important events in American history and should be presented in an education way to explain what the country once went through and how the crimes were resolved.
c) I believe the movie was a very powerful movie which explained the crimes excellently yet I think it stuck too much to Christine Collin point of view. While I would make the story more about the Northcott family and the crimes they committed a key aspect which I would add to the movie would have to be George and Louise Northcott. Both of them play a key role in the Wineville Chicken Coop story and neither of them are represented in the movie. Another aspect which I would add is what Stewart Northcott went through while on trial and bring his story more into depth. I think the story is more than just about Walter Collin and should be explained more about the numerous other boys which were murdered. While Walter Collin story does stand out due to the things Christine had to go through after fighting for the fact it wasn’t her son, I think the movie should concentrate more about what Stewart did rather than the wrongful acts by the LAPD. Overall I think the movie is very good and has many key events which happened in the Wineville Chicken Murders. While I believe the part where Stanford and Stewart were captured and the consequences they faced was rushed I think a normal person would be able to understand what both did and the crimes they committed. I believe the movie should have ended with a little information about Stanford and both what he witnessed and endured as well as his life after the whole trail.
A) After watching the movie Changeling and reading the “true life” article about the Wineville chicken coop murders, I believe that the two had more similarities than differences. Both the movie and the article conveyed the corruption in the LAPD, Walter’s disappearance, Sanford’s confession, the Code 12, etc. The main difference that I noticed was the Northcott’s family involvement with the murders. The true life account of the Wineville chicken coop murders go into great detail about other members of the family and how each were tied and associated with Stewart Northcott and the boys who were murdered on the ranch. Another difference was that the movie showed Christine Collins making a huge impact on her community and changing laws because of the unveiling of corruption within the LAPD. The article focused more on the Northcott’s family involvement rather than the police forcing Christine Collins into falsely believing that her son was found and returned home.
B) I do think that it is acceptable to make films about important issues such as historical events and controversial topics. Films are a great way to reach different demographics and expose what has gone on and what is currently going on in society. I do believe that certain Hollywood films have crossed ethical lines and should be more censored. On the other hand, Hollywood has desensitized viewers so much that almost anything can be shown on screen and will attract fans. There are so many films that focus on horrific crimes and show bizarre situations (like the Wineville chicken coop murders) and without the film most people wouldn’t know about the issues.
C) I thought that the movie Changeling did a great job accurately portraying the “True Life” accounts of the Wineville chicken coop murders. If I had to change something about the film I would incorporate the Northcott family involvement in the murders further than just Sanford’s character. I think adding in the Mother’s character would make the film more complex and definitely more bizarre. The movie could benefit more from adding another element of surprise or some kind of twist. Since it is not clear who was actually involved in the murders, the film could get confusing with so many different confessions. To make the film more interesting while still being comprehendible I would have liked to see what “actually occured” from the viewpoints of Louise, Sanford, Gordon and Walter. Obviously each character would have a different story but the audience would be more intrigued by making connections between the different character’s and their stories.
(A) The movie “Changeling” and the story of the “Wineville Chicken Coop Murders” are quite different. The movie did not touch on the gruesome treatment that these boys faced as much as it should have. Rather, the film seemed to follow Christine and her fight with the LAPD more. It seemed like the basis of the film was to display police corruption and the power that law enforcement has. The article was much more interesting and disturbing. While the film touched on some of the treatment that the boys went through, it was not nearly as vivid as the reading. The movie also bypassed Stewart’s sister, niece, nephew, and brother-in-law. It did not explain their full involvement in the murders. I though the movie was interesting and completely off the wall, however the reading shocked me more than the film.
(B) I think it is perfectly fine for Hollywood to recreate events like this on the big screen. Movies like this are a realistic approach to what people in this world are capable of. It is an eye opener. This is why I don’t think a movie based on a true event should be in any way transformed. If you tell viewers that what they are watching is true, it needs to be completely true. The movie would have been much longer if more detail of the events were produced, however I think this movie lacked quite a few important events that should have been shown.
(c) I would definitely give the movie much more detail of the treatment that the boys went to. I would also focus less attention on the battle between the LAPD and Christine. The movie would have had more twists and been more enjoyable if the Stewart family was acknowledged much more. This also would have gave the movie more truth and information.
A) After reading the actual events that took place regarding the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders it was seemingly different from that displayed in the movie “Changling”. I feel like the movie only showed parts of the actual events and that the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were a lot more complicated. Like Gordon and his background really made a difference in the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders but in the movie was not even portrayed. In the movie only one boy was shown but in the actual events the boys immediate and extended family all had a part in the events. Stewart’s whole family actually played a part. Also Gordon and Louise changed their stories multiple times during the written version of the story and it was not changed as much during the film. This could be because of time for the film that these details had to be left out. The other glaring difference to me was in the movie after the court rulings it seemed as though there was going to be a big change in the police department but really in real life there was not too much of a change. The similarity in the movie to the actual events was with Christine looking for her son and her constant effort in doing so. Also was the corruption of the LAPD. So the movie did have some similarities to the actual events but had many glaring flaws as well.
B) I believe that it is very hard for Hollywood to make movies about real life crimes because I believe that with the time restrictions it is hard to incorporate all of the details and all of the information necessary. I think that this is clearly stated through the movie “Changling” because many key aspects and background information was left out and could have played a major role in the movie. It is hard to take a real life crime and make it into a movie because in Hollywood the producers have to keep the viewers interested and wanting to find out more while trying to show every detail that went into all of the events. It is very hard to do this. It is beneficial to make movie like these though because it does show how society was and how it can be. It shows people the real sides to situations and what really goes on past the smoke and mirrors.
C) I really enjoyed watching the movie “Changling” about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. If I had to change anything about the movie it would only be about adding more background to the movie as best possible and to try to go into a little more detail about the actual events. I think it could grab the audience’s attention more and make this movie overall a better one. I did think it was a great movie though and really showed what goes on in society regarding murders and what sometimes even happens in the law enforcement. The final thing I would add to the movie is to add Northcott’s family. Since they had a lot to do with the events I think that they could have been shown more in the movie instead of just being mentioned.
a. I do not believe Changling to be an exact replica of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders for several reasons; first Changling was made primarily to highlight the corruption of the LAPD; they used the Chicken Coop Murders as proof of their lack of duty. Changling painted a faint picture of what kind of family the Northcott’s were. Clearly it can be proven that sociopaths and serial killers can be traced genetically by family mental disorders; especially in this case. Furthermore, Changling focused more on society’s fight against corrupt policing and revealed the consequences citizens faced if they questioned or tried to prove them wrong or “show them up” on their duties. One main example was the lady sent to an asylum because she would not comply with what police were saying even though she was harmed by an officer and did not want to keep quiet in which they also tried to keep Mrs. Collins.
At any rate, Hollywood was trying to reveal two main crimes in one movie – police corruption, and kidnapping/ murder amongst other horrendous crimes. The truth about the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders are still unknown because not one member of the family told the complete truth nor did any story coincide with the other. However, it was enough to show what type of person Stewart was and the extent, framework, and plots the family did to hide the acts as well as tolerate them. I believe if it was any more gruesome or detailed the crimes of Stewart anymore it would have been more of a horror film than suspense/drama.
b. I believe it is good practice to reenact horrific crimes that are true in order to help society become aware and educated on what kind of crimes occur as well as shed light on the fundamentals of investigations, police, backgrounds, and types of people. As years pass on people are more and more aware of their surrounds and are not as relaxed and trusting as they used to be about letting their children play outside without anyone watching because crime has increased therefore you cannot trust society like many people did years ago. Another example would be not being about to leave your front door open for fresh air, go in the store and leave your car unlocked for 10 mins.; these types of everyday acts have been altered as society smartens with crime tactics and crime evolves from criminal masterminds.
Movies such as Changling help broaden a person’s perspective of crime, corruption, safety, and society in general. These are events that people should know more about and should be shared with the public instead of concealing and forgetting about them.
c. The only aspect of the movie I would change is adding other characters from the Northcott’s family into the movie for viewers to know it was more so a dysfunctional and mentally disturbed family and not just one particular serial killer involved but that family members were equally guilty. Also, by just watching the moving you do not get the full extent of the crimes committed, how many, nor how sick Stewart really was. Perhaps if a few more scenes on the background of the family were shown it would give a clearer understanding without you wanting to google the case after the movie to fully grasp what happened because not only are you shocked at the police corruption but you are shocked at the horrifying crimes committed to innocent children.
A)I believe the film Changling and the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders were not exactly the same in that in the movie, it mainly focused on Christine Collins’ search for her son and the change she was trying to make in her community in regards to the corrupt LAPD; the movie left out a lot of imoprtant details. The article focused on the murders that were carried out not only by Northcott himself, but sometimes with the aid of other family members such as his mother. Another aspect that caught my eye is that the movie, in the end made it seem as if Walter may still be alive, however in the article, Northcott and his mother testified that he was killed. I wouldn’t say that Hollywood was trying to make a buck; they brought the story to the public and had they not, I probably would have never known about these events.
B) I do believe that Hollywood should bring stories like these to light so that we can be exposed to today’s reality. Many movies focus on different crimes such as rape, kidnapping etc.and not based on an actual happening but I believe there ia a different effect when the movie is based on real events; atleast it is for me.
C)If I could change anything in the movie, I would have focused more on the murders and Northcott’s family involvement. The movie left out many interesting parts, however there is only so much you can fit it. I still enjoyed the movie and thought it was informative with what it focused on.
a) I feel the movie was more for Hollywood, it had alot of truth to it but it left out so much about the full story.In the movie it doesn’t show anything about his mother helping out with the murders, or his brother’s killing habits, in the movie Stewart’s family seems surprised and appalled at the crimes he’s accused of, but in real life they knew about his crimes, that he was a pedophile, and they helped him to cover it up,his mother even encouraged his habits, and did whatever she can to help her “beloved son”. The Northcott family was just one twisted and demented family.In the movie the plot failed to display that.
b) I think it’s a good idea that Hollywood makes movies based on true events, but only when they show the true nature behind the whole story and don’t choose to show only half of the story.
c)I would add on to the movie I would go more into depth about the brutality behind the murders, and show how demented the Northcott family was.The movie focused on one side of the story about police corruption, it never went into detail about the crimes themselves.In the movie it appears that Stewart and Sanford are the only killers when in actuality there was more to it. Stewart’s family was helping him and they knew about his habits and they failed to report it. The only person who cried out to someone was Sanford’s siser in an attempt to set her brother free.
A. I feel that the movie Changeling and the Chicken coop murders were alike but not the same. Changeling showed more of a story about the police and the impact Ms. Collins had on the LAPD, while the Chicken coop murders was more about the murders. Also it is sad to say but the movie was less gruesome then the real life story, which is odd because usually its the other way around where the movie is a dramatization. The Chicken coop murders were awful, and you could never find the truth. Stewart would continuously lie and change his story relieving different murders and different accomplices. In the movie, however, it was simply and man and a boy killing the boys. Also in the real life story a boy was buried alive, this was not so in the movie, only a dead boy was found buried, and we were not told weather he was buried dead or alive.
B. In the case of Changeling I believe it was a good idea for this movie to be remade. Most of the time when a story like the Chicken coop murders is recreated it will be made into a horror film. In this case though, it was made into a drama/ thriller in a way. The movie showed parts of the Chicken coop murders but only enough to really get the point across. It is also a good way to make the people aware of what is going on without fully terrifying them. Like I said before many of the murders and crimes like this have been made into horror films and made out to be way worse then they actually are. But Changeling, was a good rendition of the Chicken coop murders and was a good choice.
C. I do like the movie the way it is, but if I were to change anything it would be to make the man, Stewart’s stories more like those in the real life story. I would like to see how crazy he was when he lied so many times and made it seem like so many were involved. I also feel it might of had more of an impact if they showed that the whole family was basically involved in the murders like in the real life story. This would of shocked people more, knowing a whole family could be that messed up. But other then that the movie portrayed enough of the real life story to be informational yet hollywood make it more viewable!
a. The movie “Changling” and the “true life” chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders have some similarities and many differences. The actual murders that took place were way more brutal and there were a lot more people involved in the murders. Stewart’s whole family knew something about some murder but never informed anyone. They never stood with the same story which made it hard to find the whole truth, which is still unknown. Also the movie portrayed a lot about the corruption of the LAPD and the impact that it had on them but in the “true life” it had very little impact. I believe that it was hollywood trying to make a buck because it was probably easier for them to make a movie on the emotions of a young mother trying to find her son than the poor truth of multiple horrible and brutal murders of many young boys.
b. Yes i believe it is a good idea to make movies on true horrific crimes. This shows events that can happen in the future that have already happened to other people. People can learn from what has happened and not talk to or get in the car with strangers.
c. There are a few thinngs that i would change in the movie “Changling”. I think the movie should focus more on the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders to show more of what truly happened. They could also add more on the life and what happened on the Northcott Ranch to show what had gone on and maybe why he committed these brutal acts.
a.) I think the movie was very accurate compared to the true life chronicle. I had never heard about the Wineville Chicken Coop murders, maybe because it happened so long ago, or maybe because I am from Delaware and it happened in California. Either way, I feel that the movie did a great job with informing me with all that went on during the Wineville Chicken Coop murders. I feel that there are many similarities to the movie, and the true life chronicle. The movie focused mostly on Christine and Walter, but there were other things going on in the true life chronicle. Maybe Hollywood thought it was best to focus on the story behind Christine and Walter so that the movie would be more interesting.
b.) Yes I think it is a very good idea. I like it when movies are made about true life events because I want to know about things that happened in the past. Movies such as Changeling inform me about what happened when I was not alive. Some people may not like movies like this because it will upset them. It is very upsetting, but it is also very interesting to me.
c.) I think that Gordon’s mother should have been involved in the movie. She seemed to have played a large role in the real Wineville Chicken Coop murders. Also, in the movie, Gordon seems to be around the age of 30 or 35. But in reality, he was actually younger than me when he did all the killings. I am 22, and Gordon was 21 when he was killing these boys. It is crazy to me to know that someone so young was doing this. A lot of little things were left out in the movie, such as the fact that Walter was on his way to a movie when he was taken. But I still think it informed me, and many others about a tragedy that is very important to our history.
A) I think the “events” depicted in the movie were somewhat similair to what happened in real life. Northcott’s actions as well as Christine Collins actions were portrayed realisticly. Northcotts killings and sexual conduct were very accurate to the real life events. As well as the way Christine Collins went about trying to find her son. However, the movie did leave up a few key things. Mainly, the involvment of Northcotts family in the chicken coop murders. Obviously, northcott did not kill all those children without being caught without recieving help. The movie is somewhat realistic, however they are missing the key component of Northcott’s family being involved.
B) I think it is a good idea for Hollywood to make movies of these killings. I dont think that hollywood should glorify the killers and make their crimes seem less intense than what they are. However, when you take a serial killer and put him in a news paper you get some people that take it to heart. However, when you re-create a serial killer and his actions on the big scren it really connects with a lot more people. Thus spreading a huge public knowledge of seria killers and how real the threat actualy is. Also as creepy as it might sound there is a entertainment factor for movies that focus on serial killers. People are drawn to movies such as that since it seems so un-real but that it is real.
C) I wouldn’t change much in the movie as compared to the real live events. However, I would have liked the movie to incorporate and focus on the involment of Northcott’s famiy and little more background detail on Sanford as well as Northcott. I feel that this a crucial part of the real life event since there is no way he would have gotten away with it for so long. Without the help of his family. Also I think there should have been more focus on what happened to Walter Collins. In the movie they just assumed he was dead, but they never went into the accounts of the “ways” he was killed. Also there was no mention of the escape in the real life encounter. I feel that this would have brought more clousure to the viewers instead of just assuming he might either be alive or dead. I could understand why hollywood might have wanted to leave us with a bit of doubt of what happened to Walter. However, the truth is that he was killed and the movie should have focused on it more.
Ryan Barlieb Blog #5:
(a) After reading the chronicle of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders I feel that Hollywood did change the story around to some degree. However, I felt that the movie was almost less gruesome than the details in the chronicle. Although I feel that the movie was very realistic and well done, even the article said that, such a story is impossible to depict a movie on it exactly. The fact that this is one of the strangest criminal cases America had to deal with is astonishing enough. The description that the chronicle gives of the death of Walter Collins is horrific and disturbing. To hear that he was raped, whacked to death by an axe, and laid on a bed in a chicken coup to suffer just sounds inhumane to me. Another, important difference I noticed was how much more of a role Sanford played in all of these kills and his wife (female in the household) wasn’t even in the movie. Although this movie wasn’t the exact story it is truly well made and very intriguing.
(b) I feel that it is a good practice to make movies on real life, horrific crimes because it does educate our society with what kind of crime is actually out there. It makes people be more aware and cautious of there surroundings. Especially because of recent events here around the University of Tampa I only feel safer being as much educated as possible of what kind of criminal acts I could expect from living in Tampa. However, I feel that Hollywood needs to be respectful to the town a crime happens in or the people it involves and make sure their picture is not offending anyone. I enjoy watching movies like the Changeling, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and American Gangster, all of these movies are worthwhile to watch, realistic, and keeps my attention going; mainly for the pure fact that this is based off of a true story. I feel that Hollywood should continue to create films such as the Changeling.
(c) I feel that the director of this movie did a great job in depicting the real Wineville Chicken Coup Murders. He created well-done film for people to both become educated about crime in America and an enjoyable film to watch with the family. However, the only thing I would change in the movie is more of an introduction. I feel that I would of liked to hear more about his father and why he was home alone most of the day by him. I feel that a more detailed background of there past would have left me without some questions I had. Another aspect of the movie that I would change would be how they glorified how many murders there actually were. The movie had said some number like 10 or 11 murders when really there was about half the amount. I feel it just made it seem a lot more intense, although it was an intense film/ story I feel that a detail such as how many victims this man had is an important detail to stay consistent with. Overall, a great movie to watch that was both educational and enjoyable to watch.
A.
I found the movie “Changling” NOT to be a true rendition of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders after reading the actual story posted here; however I do not believe it was simply Hollywood “trying to make a buck”. The movie did a great job to expose a horrific and tragic story of gruesome murders of little boys as well as a case of injustice suffered due to police corruption and abuse of power and authority. The main reason I believe it was NOT a true rendition is because the movie focused heavily on Christine Collins battle against the LAPD that ends in the movie with a huge blow being dealt to the police force. In reality, this was not the case. The actual story reveals that no significant changes were made to the force following the Collins/Code 12 scandal. Also, there were many other people (the sister, mother, father, etc.) involved in the real case of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, not just the nephew Sanford. These people seemed to play a vital role in the trial and conviction of Northcott in the actual happening.
B.
I have no problem with the practice of Hollywood making movies about horrific crimes such as the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders. My reasoning for this stance is due to the fact that movies such as this based on true events reveal the story to a large audience who may never be exposed to the story otherwise, myself included. Although the actual story and movie plot differ the main issue of police corruption on the LAPD’s part was still exposed. It is important for people to be aware of our country’s history, both good and bad, to ensure the bad never happens again.
C.
If I had the opportunity to change anything about the movie “Changling” I would change two things. The first would be the ending of the movie where Christine Collins struggle with the LAPD ends with the upheaval of the department and dismissal of some of the key personnel of the police department. Although this creates great drama it is far from the truth of what really happened and misinforms the audience. If I did not have to do this blog assignment I would have been strongly misled. The second aspect I would change in the movie would be to show more about what happened with the Wineville murders and the trial that ensued. Specifically, how there were more members of the Northcott family involved with what went on at the ranch and trial than just the nephew and Stewart/Gordon himself. The reason I would change these two parts would be to better depict the actual happenings. Because it is such a strong story of injustice I feel that a closer rendition of the truth would make the movie stronger in terms of a history lesson.
A) The movie Changling did change the true story of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders a little bit. In the movie Changling, the murders didnt sound as complicated as they did in the “true life”. The movie only involved Stewart and Sanford in the murders of all the children. In the story though, Stewarts family was in on it. Louise was never even mentioned in the movie Changling. Between Stewart constantly lying and changing his confessions, and then Louise also trying to take the wrap for her son, there was a lot of inconsistancy that is still to this day uncovered. So in my opinion, this movie represents the “true life” story as much as it could. Since officials were still unsure of what really happened anyway, I believe that Hollywood depicted it as best as they could.
B) I believe its a little bad and a little good. Of course, any violence on movies or TV influences others. Some kids repeat things that they see on TV, and maybe even murderers try to find new tricks and schemes. So Hollywood making horrific movies about crimes can be viewed as wrong, but at the same time, Changling was a really good movie. Hopefully the majority of people who watch these Hollywood movies dont take after the crimes or get any ideas though. Some people may watch one of these horrific movies and learn something new, as I did. So I believe that Hollywood making these movies are okay.
C) If I could change something in the movie Changling in order to make it more similar to the “true life” story, I would probably want the crime in the movie to have been a little more depicted and vivid. Also, I would want Louise to be part of the movie since in real life she was such a big part of what really happened. Also, in the reading of the Wineville Chicken Coop Murders, they stated that the exposure of the LAPD, “didnt even result in significant changes to the force”. In the movie Changling, though, it was one of the biggest aspects of the movie.
a. I do not think it is possible to make a true rendition of any real life event. It is just not possible for Hollywood to give a completely accurate account because they want and need to make money. So instead of giving us a documentary, Hollywood will always give us a feature film, all the exciting parts and leaving out valuable details. That being said the movie was a reasonable representation of the real Wineville Chicken Coop murders. Most of the main points of the case stayed intact even if a few people were cut out of the movie like the parents, Louise and George.
b. Personally I do not think it matters if Hollywood produces movies about horrific murders that happened years and years ago. The family name has probably already changed and making movies about real events doesn’t inspire people to do the same. It actually makes people wonder how others can do horrible things like this.
c. If I had to change any thing from the movie “Changling” to make it more similar to the real life Wineville Chicken Coop Murders I would start out by having all of the family members in it. I would put the parents, Louise and George, in because they are important parts of the story. One is a crazy mother who does Stewart’s biding while the other is a fragile old man who is terrified of his son. The next thing I would change is the focus of the movie, it would be almost entirely on the ranch and all the murders and beatings that were happening. I would focus less on the mother of a missing child, Christine, because she isn’t the only mother that has to go through mourning.