The Slashing of ‘Benjamin Button’ Continues
After catching 20 minutes of clips from David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button at Telluride, SlashFilm’s Peter Sciretta seems hell-bent on taking the film down. He was disappointed with the compilation, which by his own later admission contained clips that were mostly one minute plus with one romantic scene going over two minutes.
Now he’s seized upon Paramount’s supposed concerns over the film’s length and he makes the jaw-dropping suggestion that maybe Paramount is on the right side of the argument. In his mind Zodiac “could have benefited by losing 20-30 minutes on the back end.” What? Really? And what exactly would Mr. Sciretta have left on the cutting room floor? He doesn’t say because he’s not an editor.
To bolster his argument, he drags out the useless AICN post from some punk who caught an early screening and felt it was too long. At least this guy saw the whole film, unfinished as it may have been. Peter caught 20 minutes. Sorry pal, get back to us when you’ve seen the whole thing yourself.
It sounds to me like Fincher has potentially made a more mature film that’s going to piss the fanboys off. It’s no Fight Club and that’s excellent news. I loved Fight Club, but it’s past history. In fact, the more I hear about Button, the more I hope that it’s an artistic jump for Fincher the way No Country for Old Men was for the Coens and There Will Be Blood was for Paul Thomas Anderson.
What’s irritating is that, no matter how the film really turns out, these days this kind of buzz based on nothing can stick to a film like a bad smell. It starts with one guy trying to make some hay out of being at Telluride and suddenly everyone is talking about a disappointment and a troubled production.
Of course, I haven’t seen the film and it could turn out to be a stinker, but who am I going to listen to? Some guy who caught 20 minutes of footage? The studio bean counters? I think I’ll give Fincher the benefit of a doubt, thank you very much. He’s earned it.
Filed under: Buzz
Tags: David Fincher, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Related Posts: - Karina Longworth on ‘Benjamin Button’ preview
- More Critical Bloodlust
- Hey, tired of awards yet?
- Muriel Recap and the First Big Surprise
- National Society of Film Critics Honors ‘Blood’
There’s nothing that irritates me more than pissed off fanboys. They need to get over their short attention spans and let Fincher make the movie he wants.
He said ZODIAC should have been shorter?? I could have happily watched a longer version. As Ebert said - no good movie is too long and no bad movie is short enough. Or something along those lines.
I don’t understand everyone’s need to vilify this film. Also, who was the idiot (either Fincher or studio exec) that agreed to show 20 out-of-context minutes off? That kind of stunt only works with comic book movies, i.e., show them 20 minutes of Iron Man blowing crap up and they go bat-guano insane. But showing off 20 minutes of a film that will likely live or die by atmosphere and mood? Stupid, stupid, stupid. Of course people are going to get faulty impressions. I’m not sure what’s worse - trying to pull a stunt like that or kicking the film in the shins when you’ve seen what amounts to 15% of it. In “stupid” terms, they’re probably tied.
Agreed about Zodiac Matthew. It’s my first clue Sciretta doesn’t share my sensibilities.
As for the 20 minutes, it worked well for There Will Be Blood last year at Telluride and obviously they hoped for a repeat. Reports in Variety and more sober minded internet types like Karina Longworth were positive. I think the problem is that, in wake of TWBB, there are more fanboys at Telluride than ever before and they’re the internet equivalent of back fence gossipers.
Maybe Mr. Sciretta would like to tackle a recut-and-paste of Touch of Evil, as well.
What worked last year may not work this year. Oh well, I’m just hoping they don’t shelve this one or shuttle it off to February in the wake of this small-fry bad buzz.
I also am perplexed by the concept of a shorter cut of Zodiac (with just the murders, less procedural?) but then I’m equally lost by the decision to show this 20 minute clip package. I had no idea they did that for TWBB and I’m sorta surprised it worked for that film either. I’m guessing Johnny Greenwood’s score and DDL’s crazed acting must have made quite an impression.
I want to know just what 20 minutes he thought could have been cut from ZODIAC. I couldn’t imagine it losing anything.
In fact, the more I hear about Button, the more I hope that it’s an artistic jump for Fincher the way No Country for Old Men was for the Coens and There Will Be Blood was for Paul Thomas Anderson.
Hear hear. I’m psyched for this one, whatever the fanboys say. As I did for No Country and TWBB last year before I finally saw them - with the regular people who don’t go to special early screenings ;-) - and as I’m doing this year with Burn After Reading I’m ignoring trailers, hype, good/bad word-of-mouth, and any other expectation-raising or dashing ploys and will see this and form my own impression.
Telluride and Toronto are the last big chances for serious buzz before awards season but since the film isn’t finished, they decided to just give a taste.
With TWBB, I wouldn’t be surprised if they just showed the opening 20 minutes.
Hopefully I’m overreacting to the isolated negatives here. The official Variety stance is that the preview delivered. If this movie appeals to a crossover audience, the bleating of fanboys will become meaningless.
I don’t get it. We’ve just had a summer where a two hour and forty minute film became the second highest grossing film of all time, yet people are still reacting like a bunch of panzies at the prospect of a long film, a film made by someone who just last year had an artistic triumph that also ran long. Am I missing something?
That about sums it up Alynch. I’d only add that Paramount already had its way with the still-brilliant Zodiac which could’ve been even longer in my opinion.
Oscar winning Best Pictures over the last 50 years aren’t exactly known for brevity, so this whole length issue is mostly about one whiny anonymous jerk on AICN being reverberated through the internet echo chamber. I won’t even bother to list them, but let’s not forget that people openly complained about RotK being too long and it not only cleaned up on awards but made a sturdy hunk of change. I’m not trying to compare the content of the two films, I’m just saying. People are generally kinda dense.
I take it all at face value and ignore it, but timid studio execs are another story entirely.
AICN has done as much to harm films as they’ve done to help with their ridiculous “user reviews” from test screenings and sneak peaks.
I get the studio being concerned, particularly if the movie costs $150 million as has been rumored, but people who supposedly love movies?
Does anybody actually take the opinions of AICN seriously anyway?
Not having seen the movie or the trailers or the ads or the clips, I’m a little shocked to see it cost that much to make but then I still live in a mental time when $30 million seems like a decent chunk of change to make a movie.
$150 million dollars, huh? Wow.
Still, all this whining about the length is pointless.
There’s probably a lot of special effects stuff, and you know how picky Fincher is. Odds are it’s money well spent, but it is a lot of money if the reports are true.
As for AICN, I don’t take any reviews from a test screening seriously no matter where they turn up. There are a couple of regulars who write proper reviews I like but mostly…..no.
I’m pretty sure I read that the TWBB 20 minutes was a 20-minute continuous clip, not a bundling of scenes. A much better concept, if you ask me. That’s enough time to give viewers a real sense of how a few scenes work, make them curious about what comes next, thinking about these characters, etc.
It sounds like they just took a little bit from each part of this movie a pieced it together, Frankenstein-style, like the 8-minute Hamlet or something. Who’s going to get excited about that? It amounts to a string of spoilers with no narrative meat on the bones. I mix metaphors with abandon.
I guess they were trying to give you a taste of the Brad Pitt de-aging wow factor, but I agree a whole chunk would’ve probably been smarter. You know, just a little tease.
The studio marketing people screw up everything. They’re to blame.
Brings to mind one of my favorite movie exchanges ever:
Emperor Joseph II: My dear young man, don’t take it too hard. Your work is ingenious. It’s quality work. And there are simply too many notes, that’s all. Just cut a few and it will be perfect.
Mozart: Which few did you have in mind, Majesty?
EXACTLY!!! Peter Sciretta is Jeffrey Jones.
Alison, I once got into a fight with a marketing person on a message board by referring to “Studio Marketing Weasels”. He wasn’t even a studio guy, just in marketing and he sort of resented my suggestion that his profession could go away tomorrow and the world would not be any worse for it.
Of course I was exaggerating…but jeez, sensitive much?