Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) **** 1/2
Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
It is said that youth is wasted on the young, but in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, the title character is blessed – and cursed – to live life the other way around. Born a frail, infant-sized old man with cataracts and arthritis, Benjamin grows younger as he grows up – shedding years as he increases in size and developing mentally as his body ages backward. It’s a trick that adds a level of suspense to an otherwise simple tale of a man’s journey through life, but it also brings the routine stages of that life into sharp relief. Ordinary occurrences – like a boy leaving his mother to make his way in the world, or a couple deciding whether or not to have a child – take on an added urgency and poignancy. The result is a whimsical but uncommonly moving examination of a life lived and lost. It’s also one of my favorite big movies of the year; one that pulls off the sweeping sense of satisfaction that is almost unique to big Hollywood productions at their best and which are a perfect compliment to this wintry and reflective time of year.
Taking as a starting point the kernel of an idea behind F. Scott Fitzgerald’s same-titled short story, director David Fincher and screenwriter Eric Roth quickly steer the narrative in a different direction. In Fitzgerald’s story, Benjamin is (somehow) born aged and fully-grown only to regress both mentally and physically over the course of the story’s 9,000 or so words. Here, Benjamin begins life as an infant – one who is wrinkly and infirm but otherwise a newborn inside and out. Ultimately he learns to walk and talk (in an eye-popping feat of special effects looking for all the world like a tiny old Brad Pitt), but as he grows and develops mentally he physically de-ages.
Where Fitzgerald’s story gets most of its momentum from the contrast between Benjamin and the rest of the world, Fincher and Roth have found further depth in the material by enhancing Benjamin’s internal contradiction. It’s a shift that highlights the imbalance in all our lives where there is seemingly only a brief window of time when we’re perfectly aligned both physically and mentally. This spin gives the story a more human slant and keeps it from being lost in its own gimmickry.
It is this humanity that elevates Benjamin Button artistically above Robert Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump to which Fincher’s film has been frequently and unfairly compared. There are structural similarities and the films share a certain whimsy, but where Forrest Gump the character is used to trace the sweep of history with a sentimental, revisionist and slightly-too-clever-for-it’s-own-good eye, Button turns it around and instead uses the passage of time as a canvas against which a life can be examined in clearer detail. It’s a more introspective and probing film. It is fascinated with life and death, with love and loss, with twists of fate and with the fragility of history.
Benjamin Button is also at its heart a love story. If life offers only a brief window of perfection, it’s a rare thing that those moments can align for two people. Love is a matter of timing, being with the right person at the right time, and here the timing is complicated because the lovers are aging in two different directions. Benjamin meets Daisy when he’s chronologically 11 years old, but physically he’s closer to 70. She’s roughly the same age but a normal little girl. There is a spark between them, but the timing is wrong even as their paths cross repeatedly throughout the story. This is the nature of things. It’s is also the nature of things that, even if we’re lucky enough to find the right person at the right moment in time, it’s going to end in sadness for someone no matter what paths our lives take. There’s no escaping that.
As it follows Benjamin from his infancy though childhood to his going off to war and returning, the story is largely episodic, held together mostly by Brad Pitt’s narration as he traces the ups and downs of his odd life. Serving as a bookend to the narrative is a part of the story told in the present day as an elderly Daisy lies dying in her New Orleans hospital bed while her grown daughter Caroline reads to her from a diary that had belonged to Benjamin. Every incident of which Benjamin writes is another layer to the story; each one building upon the other thematically and narratively as the whole emerges in all its richness and we discover the true nature of Benjamin’s relationship with they dying woman.
Carrying the bulk of the film is Brad Pitt as the title character. Even as a special effect placing his mannerisms in the body of a strange, tiny old man or buried under old-age makeup, Pitt comes through and we see his personality develop from that of a little boy into a mature, middle-aged man. Considering the circumstances it’s a fairly restrained performance and it works convincingly.
As the object of his desire, Daisy is played by Elle Fanning at age 6, Madisen Beaty at age 10 and a luminous Cate Blanchett thereafter. In less screen time than that afforded Pitt, Blanchett must bring her character from a wide-eyed young girl to a selfish and somewhat pretentious 20-something to a more mature middle age and finally to an elderly dying woman. She hits a different note at each stage, but they’re all clearly a part of the same character. She’s also assisted by special effects and make-up, but it’s her performance that makes it work.
Among the large and capable supporting cast, Taraji P. Henson stands out as Queenie, the New Orleans old-age home caregiver who finds the strange looking infant Benjamin on her doorstep one night in 1918 as the country celebrates the end of World War I. Though she doesn’t give birth to Benjamin, she gives the man-child a life, at first assuming that life won’t be very long, but eventually easing into the assumed role of motherhood. She’s the warm beating heart and moral center of the first half of the film, bringing it dignity and giving it direction.
Also excellent is a weary and distracted Julia Ormond in a small but important role as Daisy’s grown daughter. She beautifully captures the awkward mix of concern and frustration and guilt and sadness of a woman losing a mother. There is the weight of history behind her performance and you get a real sense of the lifetime between these two women even after the briefest of introductions.
Another star of Benjamin Button is the miraculous work of the special effects crew. The ample CGI here is deployed completely at the service of the story rather than the other way around. Such effects-heavy films run the risk of getting caught up in their own gee whiz flashiness and drowning their story in technological wonder, but Fincher never loses site of the human core of his narrative. The effects, though amazing, are blended seamlessly with reality. Rarely a distraction, they’re all the more remarkable for not standing out. It’s a shame that their careful disguise might keep them from getting awards attention in the shadow of a couple of superhero pictures for which the special effects are more of an obvious crutch.
Where the film appears to stumble a little bit is that some of the episodes and subplots are a little undercooked. There’s a thread involving Benjamin’s real father for example that isn’t quite fully developed. Also, the modern day bookends risk feeling tacked on, especially with a Hurricane Katrina component. In retrospect however, each element is simply another layer to the story. Some are deeper than others, but none of them necessarily stand on their own and all of them combine to enhance the richness of the whole – a whole that works beautifully.
Compared to other mainstream films of its type, Benjamin Button is also not so nakedly manipulative. It never stoops for the heavy drama or easy sentimentality you’d expect from such a film, but I have to admit personally I was in the mood for a little more in the way of emotional pandering. Time and again the film brought me close to tears, but then backed off and I wish that it hadn’t. However, every viewer’s response will be different and in the end I think it’s a better film for showing a little restraint.
Overall, from the thematically layered story to Alexandre Desplat’s sensitive score (punctuated with carefully chosen and mostly unobtrusive pop music to help establish the ever-shifting time and place), Claudio Miranda’s beautiful cinematography, the remarkable effects work and finally the carefully tuned performances underpinning the whole thing, Fincher’s film is an elegant, finely modulated and nearly flawless piece of work. In the scope of what the director is attempting, he leaves himself open to nitpicking and not everyone will fall for his vision, but for those of us so smitten, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a joy to behold and easily a late-inning candidate for the best movie of 2008.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. USA 2008. Directed by David Fincher. Screenplay by Eric Roth from a story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. Cinematography by Claudio Miranda. Music composed by Alexandre Desplat. Edited by Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall. Production design by Donald Graham Burt and Kelly Curley. Costumes designed by Jacqueline West. Starring Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji P. Henson, Julia Ormond, Jason Flemyng, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, Jared Harris, Elias Koteas, Phyllis Sommerville, Tilda Swinton, Elle Fanning and Madisen Beaty. 2 hours 47 minutes. MPAA rated PG-13 for brief war violence, sexual content, language and smoking. 4.5 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Tags: Alexandre Desplat, Angus Wall, Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Claudio Miranda, David Fincher, Donald Graham Burt, Elias Koteas, Elle Fanning, Eric Roth, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Jacqueline West, Jared Harris, Jason Flemyng, Julia Ormond, Kelly Curley, Kirk Baxter, Madisen Beaty, Mahershalalhashbaz Ali, Phyllis Sommerville, Taraji P. Henson, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Tilda Swinton
As I’ve said in other threads, I had some problems with the structure of the second act, but Fincher brings it all together so beautifully in profoundly in the third act that it more than makes up for it.
I don’t think the “Forrest Gump” comparisons are unfair. The middle stretch, with Captain Mike as Lieutenant Dan and Daisy as Jenny seem awfully familiar, and as I’ve said before even my mom commented on the similarities, even though she knew nothing of this film’s connections to that one. But I think this is a superior film artistically, and much more probing than anything in Zemeckis’ overly sentimentalized film. I think Fincher is a much more accomplished artist, and the film ultimately succeeds.
Great review. I thought it was dazzling, beautiful and heartbreaking all at once. Pitt had a great year.
Rarely a distraction, [the CGIs] are all the more remarkable for not standing out.
That’s for sure, Craig. I really credit Fincher for exercising a good deal of subtlety and restraint. Elegant indeed.
This is one of the best reviews you’ve ever written, Craig — especially considering the brief amount of time that has passed since your first viewing. Your analysis of the film’s themes is thorough and perceptive.
Although I don’t wish to fault Pitt, I do find myself trying to imagine another actor playing Benjamin — and how that would’ve changed things.
I wonder if seeing the young Benjamin would have had the same impact if it had been someone other than Pitt. *MINOR POTENTIAL SPOILER* When he walked in Daisy’s dance studio near the end, it was almost like he just walked off the set of “Thelma and Louise.” It nearly took my breath away.
Pierre, that’s precisely what I think about Pitt — I just wrote on my blog how I couldn’t help but wonder what DiCaprio or Damon would have done with that role. Again, I think he’s highly effective initially, but then goes back to his old tricks. I thought he had shed them after “Babel” and “The Assassination of Jesse James…” but alas, there they were there again. I’m frankly surprised Fincher let him, pardon my pun, regress.
SPOILER – Matthew: Totally. That and “A River Goes Through It.”
Would that regression not be, in a sense, a regression into his younger years himself?
As you say, Pitt starts out very effectively, but as he ages backwards his acting tends to reflect who he was as a younger man.
Perhaps it was intentional?
The thought crossed my mind, Matthew. That would be seriously cool, if that was the intention.
Matthew and Dorothy, I think it was intentional. Pitt did something similar in Burn After Reading. Frankly, I feel his acting ability is limited. More important, though, I suspect that he’s been going through some sort of identity crisis the past few years that’s showing up in his performances — whether it’s appropriate to his character or not. I harbor no ill will toward him because he appears to be trying. Truth is, I feel a little sorry for him, and for some reason I get the notion that the longer he’s with Angelina Jolie the more difficult it’ll be for him to reach his next level. Don’t get me wrong, I like Jolie — I just have this subjective notion that the mutual benefit of their union has its Pittfalls.
There were several times near the end I was reminded of “Meet Joe Black,” and not just by his younger face, but by his performance as well. It’s like he was able to step back in time somehow.
You know, the more I think about it the more I appreciate what he achieved here.
I certainly feel that Pitt was more than adequate here. I believed the love story between him and Blanchett, which to be honest I originally was skeptical about.
That’s funny Matthew, Thelma and Louise raced through my mind as well, but it didn’t feel like old acting tricks to me…it felt like a performance.
I think my mental block against FG keeps me from seeing the connection between the two clearly. Smart people keep telling me it’s there, but I seriously just don’t perceive it.
There is one moment, when they’re sailing around the Florida Keys and you see an Apollo rocket launching in the background that felt Gumpy to me, but the Captain MIke stuff did not.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I do want to see Gump again just to see if I’m missing something (it’s been a while).
Pierre, you should watch the Charlie Rose interview I just posted. Near the end Pitt talks about being a father and it’s pretty clear to me that it’s not so much a negative effect that Jolie has had on him, but that he’s found a new thing (children) that juices him more than acting.
I’ve never thought of him as an actor with tremendous range, but that’s not a criticism. Some of my favorite actors hit similar notes each time out, but they do it so well I love to watch them. Pitt I think has grown, but I think he will always be in a certain range. And that’s ok.
I’d also like to add that I’ve seen so many minimalist, narrowly focused American indies this year….great stuff like Wendy & Lucy, Ballast, Momma’s Man, Chop Shop…that it’s nice to enjoy something a little more expansive and epic.
That’s not a judgement call about which kind of film is better, but Button was a nice change of pace for me.
Excellent comments all y’all. Pierre, Dorothy, and Matthew, I think you’re all on to something there regarding Pitt’s performance. Pitt does seem to be tapping his younger, less refined self in those later scenes and for better or worse, it’s a very interesting choice. I found young-looking Benjamin to be oft-putting for the same reasons Dorothy did, but at the same time there was a melancholy to it and I had to wonder if Pitt’s performance in those moments wasn’t just a little bit self-aware, as though maybe he was feeling a bit like Daisy might in her later years…wasted time, maybe?
And I agree Pierre, that Pitt appears to be undergoing some sort of transformation or crisis the longer he stays with Jolie, although I think it might be for the best. He’s finally decided to take himself and life seriously, I think, which is probably good for him and Hollywood. Whether or not his acting chops are up to the task is another matter, but so far I like what I’ve seen of his efforts.
Matthew, I won’t deny that there are some superficial (and possibly structural) similarities between Gump and Button, but beyond superficial connections I don’t think the movies could be less alike. Gump is everything I dislike about Hollywood’s movie-making machine (granted it was a runaway success) where as Button is at least trying to get at much more profound ideas and in much more subtle ways. No one is uttering truly idiotic dialogue such as “Life is like a box of chocolates” in Button, but I’ll grant you that the lightning guy is awfully close to delivering a diatribe on shrimp dishes.
Great review, Craig. I found myself questioning certain aspects of Button early on yesterday evening and then today did a turnaround and began to actively defend the film in spite of my own quibbles with it. I think we’ve come back into line regarding the film, which is nice. I don’t think Button is as strong and assured as Zodiac was but I also don’t think it’s a misfire or a cold slice of cinema either. Roth be damned, this is a great film.
I’m about to disappear and watch Burn After Reading again for a second time, and I’m praying that I come away with a better sense of it this time but I’m reminded of how F&%$ing great Tilda Swinton was in Benjamin Button. Sorry, but she was one of the best parts of the film for me. She really lit up the middle section and I loved the resolution of her character.
Tilda’s the one.
I’m in agreement with the praise for Fincher’s restraint. It is somewhat odd that I’ve seen some people criticize MILK for being too manipulative and the same ones to BUTTON for being too restrained. But you can’t win them all, I guess.
The film’s concept carries a lot of retrospective ideas about life for one to think about, but I thought it was Fincher’s own visual language — the movement of time, the celebrative movement of the people — that won me over and the key of the film’s sucess. There’s a continuous focus from Fincher on the language of the bodies — the expressions, the faces — that I found quite perfect and I wise decision for us to contemplate them and see ourselves in them.
There’s a beautiful humanity located — epitomized in Daisy’s showing off when she dances in front of Benjamin, alone, or when Benjamin’s father dies — that expresses so well the celebrative appreciation for life that the film wants us to cherish that I didn’t exactly mind the depressive events. There’s no deep emotional kiss, or dialogue, or dramatic “I love you,” but rather our attention is given to interaction of the people, old and young, as the characters almost flow through life, from impulse to impulse. I guess that I’m more mesmerized by the film’s beauty than the unfortunate (but expected) events is a testament to the film’s success with me.
The project is pretty lucky to have found a director so visually apt (not just in CGI, but visual language in general). Definitely one of the highlights of the year.
Craig, killer review!
Cannot wait! To see it, and to read that review.
MAJOR SPOILER:
There’s one thing that happened that completely snapped me out of it – Having been abandoned himself, I didn’t buy that Button would abandon his daughter for any reason, particularly the weak one given. I though that was a nakedly manipulative touch.
Other than that, though, I thought it was a pretty good film, with a lot to like technically. Not great, but pretty good. I like Henson and Swinton a lot in this film.
I can not wait to see this film and I am a huge Brad Pitt fan and have watched everything he has done, I think with Angie he has totally matured and he is at his best time.
This is a great review for certain, I guess I’ll have more to say about it when I have time, and when I finally firm up my own position on the film, which is quite favorable. I just scanned all the comments above and was enriched by them. Thank You.
As to the review, it’s one of your finest, comprehensive, impassioned, lyrically-crafted and insightful. Yes, I quite agree it’s a love-story at heart, yes I agree that Claudio Miranda’s cinematography and Alexandre Desplat’s beautful score contribute mightily to the emotional impact, and yes the special effects work and the makeup are exemplary. I still think Fincher went overboard with the Pitt close-ups, but I agree with you and Pierre, et al, that his work was mature and affecting nonetheless. It a very minor concern, and it doesn’t come within hailing distance of tarnishing the superlative accomplishments of the film. I think the four-and-a-half star rating you assigned your review is dead-on. In the end, I think it’s a top ten finisher, despite being skeptical on that point yesterday.
I guess it’s called “resonance.”
KB, at first that bugged me a bit but as the movie progressed I felt it was clear that Benjamin’s choice was based on his fear of mortality and the perceptions of strangers than anything else. Plus, it’s really not surprising to see children repeat the mistakes of their own parents. Happens quite often. Further, Daisy ultimately understands and accept’s Button’s decision because she realizes he was right all along.
The lead-up to the decision itself is not well-supported (one of my nagging issues with the script), but it fits in the long run of the film.
KB and joel, I had no problem with that aspect of the story. I accepted it as a function of the premise. Besides, one can view Benjamin’s curious condition as a sort of health problem; people with health problems often make decisions like that in an effort to protect loved ones.
Below is an excerpt from an interview with BB scribe Eric Roth, where he addresses the inevitable comparisons to Forrest Gump:
“Movies Online: One of the things I’m sure you’ve heard and probably makes you cringe but I do want to ask you is…
“ERIC ROTH: I’ll ask you, why is this like Forrest Gump?
“MoviesOnline: Exactly. You know how we struggle to say, it’s like such and such in pitching the movie, and I’m sure that’s frustrating to you, but do you see…
“ERIC ROTH: I don’t find it frustrating. It’s obvious. Look, I wrote the other one. It’s become a classic, it’s certainly part of the movie fabric, I guess, and there are certain ingredients that feel similar in this — the picaresque nature of the piece, the episodic nature, you know, the journey of a man’s life per se. But I like to think at least, and I hope I’m right to some extent, that they’re just very different. This deals with much different subject matter to some extent, and also, not to disparage Forrest Gump, but I feel this is more mature in my writing. Some of it is much more personal because both my parents died while I was writing this, so there were obviously personalized things about love and life and death. Forrest Gump is sort of of a time in a way. I don’t know. They just feel different to me. If other people feel comfortable with Forrest Gump and this reminds them of it, I don’t have a problem with that, but I just think they’ll find this is a different experience.”
The full interview can be found here:
http://www.moviesonline.ca/movienews_16098.html
First of all, thanks for stopping by Nadia. Always nice to see a new face around LiC. Obviously I’m biased, but if you like Brad Pitt, I think you’ll find a lot to love about Benjamin Button…and I hope you do!
Also thanks to the rest of you for the assorted kind words. I’m horrible at taking compliments (I blame dear old mom…long story) so that’s why I often don’t express the proper gratitude. But in the past and for the future, please know that I thrive on it.
Pierre, my feelings are roughly in line with what Roth is saying in that interview. I do see surface and structural and even occasionally tonal similarities to FG, but I agree with Roth that BB is a different work and more importantly a more mature work. So I guess in a way you and I (and others) don’t really disagree except by degrees. I resist comparisons because it’s usually meant in a derogatory way.
KB, I struggled with Pitt leaving at first too, but I warmed up to the idea. He was making a sacrifice in his mind, rightly or wrongly. I will say that Cate seemed to let him go a little too easily.
Joel, I’m glad you brought up Tilda Swinton. I almost added a paragraph about her right before I posted, and I probably should have, but the thing was already pretty long and I didn’t want it to be just a list of “I liked this or that performance” so she got overlooked. She didn’t go without notice however. She was terrific as always. She’s settled in to playing variations on a bitch lately, and she started out that way here, but revealed a very human center as the character went along. It was good stuff.
Alex, well said about Fincher’s visual sense. In general, I think he showed a lot of restraint and used a lot of subtlety in conveying what could’ve been maudlin or over sentimental or manipulative, and his visual technique had a lot do to with that.
Sam, I’m glad to hear you’re warming up to this one a little bit. I usually wait longer before writing reviews so we’ll see how this one resonates. It would be ironic if I ended up not liking it so much….(unlikely)
pitt is perfect in this movie,is fantastic actor,damon is a bad actor,di caprio no godd for this role
di caprio no good for this role
Brad Pitt was phenomenal
good to read one more good review of this film…
i really think this film should be given a credit it deserves…
fincher, bradd pitt, eric roth, and all crew.. worked so hard to give us this film…
im really looking forward to seeing this film here in the Philippines on January 08…..
Thanks to all three of you for stopping by and expressing your enthusiasm for one of my favorite movies of the year.
It’s funny, as I was sitting in the theater watching it, I was thinking “Ok, this is the one that everyone is going to fall in love with”…and then it turns out not so much. There are strong passions both ways, but it looks like the most loved film will be Slumdog.
As I started reading the comments I wondered how long it would take someone to bash Pitt’s performance and then blame it on his relationship with Angelina Jolie. That is just so damned trite it’s ridiculous.
As for Pitt have “limited range”. ALL actors have limited range. No actor can do everything and anything. ALL actors have their tricks they fall back on. Name an actor you don’t think has a fallback or a limit and I’ll be more than happy to point out what it is.
For instance – someone said what would Damon have done with the role? Matt Damon is a stiff actor with little ability to vary the tones and inflections of his voice. He hasn’t really shown me anything more these last 5 years than Tom Cruise or Will Smith or ever the god of them all, Daniel Day Lewis.
It’s a simple fact that because of Pitt’s overly high profile life people think they know him and know JOlie and have an opinion about that relationshp and THAT colors any commentary or opinion about the work either of them puts on screen. It’s a pretty sad day when a man can’t grow and change in a direction HE is comfortable with and not have everybody and their dog, no Aniston pun intended, second guess and proffer opinions on why his life and/or work is suffering because of it.
I’ve followed Pitt’s career for a number of years and I can honestly say that for the first time since Paltrow cheated on him and he broke their engagement Pitt FINALLY looks like he’s satisfied with his choices and where his life is. The man made a choice – either like it or lump it. Judge his work on screen for what’s there, not what you THINK you see or what you THINK are the motives behind it.
Jiminy, I don’t buy the argument that Angelina ‘ruined’ Pitt as an actor, but I do think people grow and change. Their priorities shift, especially as they get older and have children and sometimes this effects the risks they take and the energy they bring. Sometimes actors lose their youthful verve without quite maturing into solid adult actors.
I’m satisfied with Pitt’s performance and I think some of the problems with it stem from the fact that Benjamin Button isn’t always the point of his own film, but more the characters he interacts with. In some ways he’s an observer allowing us to observe ourselves.
“In some ways he’s an observer allowing us to observe ourselves.”
That is so Happy-Go-Lucky. Expect he is a she.
You know, it might have been what you originally said about HGL that guided my thinking about BB in that way…not to mention warming me up to HGL itself.
I’m glad you say that, so whenever I get to see Ben Button, I will go in with that perspective in mind and hoepfully I will end up liking it as much as you did.
Craig -
I agree that Pitt is fine in CCOBB. I think he was more than fine – he was fantastic. Some critics are complaining that he underplayed the role, but I found he struck just the right chord and appreciated that he never let Benjamin become a caricature or self-pitying. You see that too many times in films about offbeat characters. Too often the character is a drudge and you can’t bring yourself to root for him. That’s not he case with Pitt in BB.
Also, I do agree that people grow and change and I believe Jolie HAS had a profound affect on Pitt, but having read the handful of interviews he’s given since they’ve been together I’d say it’s definitely a positive influence and not just because she gave him that passel of the kids he’s been saying for donkey years was his dream.
Another poster, Pierre De Plume, IIRC, said he thought Pitt was going through an identity crisis these last few years. That’s rather humorous because Pitt himself said in a V magazine last year that he went through a major “midlife crisis in my 30s,” had drifted and gotten off course and that turning 40 had brought clarity and direction to his life. He turned 40 shortly before he started working with Jolie on M&MS. David Fincher, in interviews to promote CCOBB has commented that he’s amazed at how much Pitt has changed, how Pitt is much more centered and sure of himself and what he wants. Pitt’s mother said as much also at the CCOBB premiere when asked by a nosy CNN reporter. So whatever crisis Pierre thinks Pitt is having…it’s Pierre’s crisis, not Pitt’s.
Jiminy, you’re clearly more wired in to Pitt’s day-to-day then I am and I appreciate your input, but I’ll continue to judge his onscreen efforts and try to ignore the other stuff because to me it’s mostly just celebrity background noise. I agree with you that Pitt has definitely mellowed and taken his acting more seriously in recent years (as I posted previously) and I also agree that he’s doing some really strong work here in Button although I thought some of the later scenes felt a little underworked, mostly by the script kinda tripping quickly through Button’s later years, and so I can see how some of the earlier comments find some frustration with that part of Pitt’s performance.
For me, he’s done two great pieces of lead work in Button and The Assassination of Jesse James and I hope to see more of this from him. But I’ve always liked Pitt, even his manic, over-the-top, batsh*t crazy stuff in movies like Twelve Monkeys.
But I will disagree about your Matt Damon comments. I think he’s a much better actor than you…but we can disagree on that.
Jiminy: I’m sure Pierre can defend himself, but when you make derisive assumptions about a person who is as honorable and as knowledgeable as Pierre, I have to take issue. If you read his comments closely, you may realize that Pierre, in fact, appreciated Pitt’s performance.
Most of us are not as familiar with Pitt’s private life as you appear to be and choose instead to focus on his screen persona. Being informed solely by his performances, one can see how his choice of roles has evolved drastically in the past five years or so.
Personally, I think he did fantastic work in “Jesse James,” “Burn After Reading,” and “Babel” but he fell short in “CCBB,” specifically in the second half of the film. This has nothing to do with Angelina or gossip or whatever, but just my opinion.
But like Joel, man, I really hope batshit crazy Brad comes back to us soon; “12 Monkeys” (not to be confused with LiC’s monkeys) and “Fight Club” remain my favorite performance of his to date!
I saw “Button” on Christmas Day and I’m still digesting it. There are some nagging problems, stemming primarily from the script, that tarnish an otherwise deeply felt rumination on life and, it’s counterpart, death.
First, I think the actors–especially Taraji P. Henson–deserved better dialogue and more nuanced characterization. Queenie especially is there to serve one purpose and really only one purpose. She gives Button stability–a home, moral structure, and a support system to fall back on. Yet, too much of her dialogue is written as platitudes. It’s all too *written*, too warm and syrupy, the kind of stuff we’re used to hearing from southern matriarchs. Henson (and Fincher’s direction?) adds a great deal of nuance to an otherwise stock character, but I wish the script had given her more to work with.
Second, the framing device was a little awkward and occasionally grating. Hurricane Katrina is mostly incidental to the story. It’s an “oh yeah” element that feels out of place in an otherwise meticulously constructed narrative. And I didn’t buy the whole reading from Button’s memoirs. I shared my newspaper clippings with my dad while he was dying, so there’s something real there, but it’s a bit of a stretch that Daisy would choose this sly, roundabout method of revealing the identity of her daughter’s father. For me, the switching back and forth between Button’s world and New Orleans 2005 was somewhat distracting (and incidental to the point of the story). It brought up comparisons to the similarly awkward framing devices in “Flags of Our Fathers” and “Bridges of Madison County” (and multiple others–not trying to rag on Eastwood, but they were the first examples that came to mind). [For contrast, the framing device in "Slumdog Millionaire" worked more effectively for me, although the movie as a whole felt like a lesser accomplishment.]
This is a problem for all romantic films, but the chase is almost always better than courtship. I liked the relaxed pace of Button and Daisy’s sailing trip. However, the montage of marital bliss felt like a crutch to move the plot forward and forgive the shortcomings of Roth’s screenplay. It’s a necessary layover in order to set up Button’s coming descent into “childhood,” but I felt it could’ve been better developed.
I was fully enthralled by the first act and moved by the deterioration of the the third (the parallel between the early stages of development and the late stages of dementia is a poignant one). The middle portion sagged a little for me and I was pulled out of the experience by narrative devices like the marital montage (something also used in “Forrest Gump” if I’m not mistaken).
Having seen what Fincher was capable of in “Zodiac” (and “Seven” and “Fight Club,” and hell, practically everything), I was expecting a great deal from “Button.” While it was rewarding on a number of levels and will require at least another viewing, I can’t help but linger on its few rough patches.
Thank you Dorothy for your words of support. Jiminy, when I made the above comments about Pitt, I thought someone might react strongly to them and so I hesitated a bit before hitting “send” because I’ve already gone into more detail about this over a year ago and wasn’t really anxious to do it again. But I did, and here we are.
First, I don’t follow Pitt’s private life closely, so I don’t claim to have intimate knowledge of that or of his relationship with Jolie. It would be simplistic for one to suggest that 1) Pitt currently has significant personal/professonal problems and 2) these problems are a negative result of his relationship with Jolie. I’m not really saying that (more in a minute).
Next, my comments refer more to Pitt’s thirties than to this moment in time. I acknowledge I was a bit inexact to refer to the “last few years.” (If you’re nearly 58, like I am, the “last few years” is sometimes a more figurative expression than literal.)
Going further, the conclusions I’ve reached about Pitt — or, more accurately, theories — are based on not just print and video interviews I’ve seen him do over a period of recent years but also some of his performances. As a former actor, theatrical producer and journalist, my assessments in this regard carry some weight but are by no means sacrosanct.
To be honest, I feel that Pitt took a step forward through his involvement with Babel, not in front of the camera, mind you, but behind it. My sense is that there were too many things going on for him, personally and professonally, at that time and that his performance suffered. On the other hand, as I said, this seemed to be a step in the right direction for him because Babel was a good, ambitious project though definitely not a total success for him.
I’m talking more about Pitt’s relationship with celebrity and progress in his art than about his relationship with Jolie, per se, and any cause-and-effect on him. That said, for all the benefits of his being with her, it cannot be easy living with someone of her talent, stardom, charisma and power while trying to cultivate a demanding family life and Hollywood career in the wake of a very public breakup with another popular star (Aniston).
I was impressed with Pitt’s work in The Assassination of Jesse James. . . . That film seemed like another step forward for him even though his performance was overshadowed by that of Casey Affleck.
In Burn After Reading, Pitt was able to play around with a persona from his earlier life. To me, that signifies self-reflection and understanding, another step forward.
Benjamin Button to me is another transitional role for him. Solid work if not stellar and a good blend of commerce and art.
I hope that Pitt makes it to the point where his work is more confident and freer. For quite some time, now, his acting limitations have been all-too-evident to me. I don’t mean to put him down, really, because he’s clearly trying to go beyond being a personality and bankable star. I hope he makes it, and thanks, Jiminy, for challenging me for more clarify on what I said.
WJ, as for the dialogue and the characterizations, for me this was very much in the style of a fable so the ordinary expectations of those things don’t apply in the same way.
I think Queenie’s character borders on a classic stereotype, but in part because of the performance I think it’s a lot better than people are giving it credit for. She stands for things more than she’s a flesh and blood character perhaps, but that’s the kind of movie this is. She is one aspect of womanhood that impacts Benjamin’s life.
The dialogue, yeah it was platitudinous (is that a word), but I was caught up in the magic and the fantasy and it didn’t bother me in the slightest.
I have to say though that more than a few people have expressed problems with the middle part. I’m not sure exactly which middle part they’re referring to (it was a lonnng middle), but there it is.
For me the middle part that goes off track starts when Button goes back to NO and up to his last visit to Daisy. Everything before and after was great to me.
Don’t care for Button? Check out my review, which I plan to post in a few moments!
(Sorry. I’ll contribute to this thread later today. Suffice it to say, I was disappointed.)
Firstly, you write what I thought you would, which is a highly impassioned and articulate review, Craig. You brought to the fore many of the film’s strengths.
Ultimately, I found the film too obsessed with the surface of events. And I agree with some who say that the Forrest Gump comparisons are completely fair and can’t be dismissed. There a host of links between the two films. At its worst, Benjamin Button is a little like Forrest Gump in its best, artiest dress.
Many subplots that could have been fascinating are given short shrift. You admit that, and I completely agree. And I have to say I agree with Dorothy and others who say that Benjamin Button was something of a step backwards for Pitt, especially after Jesse James and Burn After Reading.
Blanchett was rather good, however, that cannot be denied.
I’ll spare the bulk of my comments for CCC when I read your review (soon!). Suffice it to say for now that I agree (and said so in the review) that BB rarely goes too far below the surface, but there are so many surfaces (layers), that it ends up being deeper than it’s being given credit for.
And I think Pitt was fine, but as I said above Benjamin Button is not always the most interesting character on the screen, nor is he meant to be.
I’m not going to continue denying a Forrest Gump connection until I see FG (and preferably BB) again, but no matter how many people say it’s so, I’m not seeing it and more importantly I’m not feeling it. Honestly I’m not entirely clear what people mean when they make the connection. My sense is that it’s an accusation that both films traffic in a bland, feel-goody hokum. If that’s the case, I reject the idea completely…if it’s something else, well maybe someone can help me understand and I’ll agree.
Again, more when I read your review Alexander.
I’d say Forrest Gump traffics in “bland, feel-goody hokum,” whereas Benjamin Button simply feels informed by Roth’s previous effort. I’m left unmoved by Gump and consider it, at best, suspect but Benjamin Button didn’t make me feel good, nor bad. Robert Zemeckis may or may not have contributed very much to Roth’s Gump, but his sensibilities did match it. Fincher is probably too specifically gifted at crafting his own stylistic to overcome it when it becomes a handicap in bringing Roth’s screenplay to complete life.
I look forward to further discussion, Craig, as always.
To me, the movie had so many nagging issues that hurt the good involved. It kind of feels like I’m taking a #2 in everyone’s Cheerios, here, but, still, my thoughts. Spoilers herein so be warned.
The first, primarily, was the modern day scenes. I did not buy Julia Ormond in the role, in addition to my issues with the way the story was framed. For example, when she finds out Benjamin’s her father, she reacts for about 10 seconds and then it’s never really touched on again. I also didn’t buy any kind of pre-existing relationship with her mother, especially on her deathbed.
I thought the Katrina stuff was tacked on and almost exploitative, in the sense it had nothing to do with the actual story or really even the mediocre modern scenes, but just felt kind of ham-fisted on the idea of loss, when the meat of the story deals with the concept plenty.
In addition, I felt at times that the movie really, really felt it’s length. The scenes with Tilda in Russia were a big example. It felt like there were about 900 meetings before anything actually happened that moved the plot forward.
I dunno, I just didn’t really feel like Fincher’s direction really helped things in this case. In a movie that takes a really fantastic approach, it felt like he handled the picture as drably as he possibly could in points. By comparison, a recent film that there could be a lot of parallels, Big Fish touched on serious terms while still maintaining a lot of whimsy, and this, while not feeling melancholy, despite the fantastic story, kind of felt… a little redundant and certainly not sweeping.
That being said, there are parts where the greatness comes out. I’d compare this to The Dark Knight, where it felt bloated and ultimately unsatisfactory. It’s not a bad film, per say, I’d probably have it at *** 1/2, but it, to me, is definitely not one of the best of the year.
Michael W., I agree with a number of your criticisms. Fincher’s detachment, and “one-notedness,” to create a term, worked against Roth’s screenplay, and perhaps vice versa. The further I get from the film the truer that seems.
Don’t feel bad Michael, all of your criticisms are completely valid and it’s increasingly clear they’re shared by a lot of people. The film has its fans to be sure (me included), but at least an equal number of people were disappointed in some way.
I’m a little surprised the film is so divisive, but that’s what makes this fun in the end and keeps it interesting.
Benjamin Button was very Fincher-esque… almost as good as his other stuff if not for some nagging plot holes
thanks for dropping in Coffee Fiend. I tend to agree the movie wasn’t flawless, but somehow it delivered exactly what I wanted on Christmas morning. Good times.
Ugh, I loved it a lot and I am a fan. Thats all I can say.
Though you liked it just a little more than I did, Craig, I agree with Pierre in his early comment that this is one of the best reviews of yours that I’ve ever read. I’m sure it was easier since you liked it so much and could just let yourself flow. It worked out really well.
Anyone who needs to be convinced of this film’s many pleasures or to validate their own enthusiasm for it, should be directed to this review. I agree wholeheartedly with Daniel that it’s one of the greatest reviews Craig has ever posted at this site. It’s full of genuine love and cogent insights, and it’s poetry.
I saw it over the weekend and liked it quite a bit. It’s flawed, but still lovely. Probably four stars out of five.
I do think the screenplay was the weakest element.
Any story that attempts to cover an entire life necessarily lacks a certain focus and narrative tightness–my problem with so many biopics, and why I like them best when the cover only the most interesting bits–and Button’s fictional life is no exception to that. I’m of two minds about it. On one hand, it winds around like life, shifting locations and focus as characters come in and out of it; there’s an aesthetic honesty to that I admire. At the same time, I think it would be a more powerful film if it didn’t try to include so much–so many incidents, loves, people met along the way, however interesting and kept to certain pertinent and emotional beats. Individually, the different sections all worked within themselves, but together, I think they needed trimming.
Mostly, I loved it. The performances were predominantly first-rate, the story engaging, the direction artful and considered, and the special effects were both subtle and eye-popping, as Craig says. My mother sobbed throughout the last 30 minutes or so and I teared up as well.
Here are the parts I didn’t like as well (watch out for falling spoilers):
1) The Mr. Gateau story seemed to go on a little long, though I generally liked its inclusion
2) Mr. Weathers’ Shakespearean knowledge = good. The fact that it was learned from John Wilkes Boothe = unnecessary stunt allusion, ala Forrest Gump. Please.
3) Although the cinematograpy was beautiful, I think the Fincher-brand sepia tones create an ever-present layer of artifice that removes us from the intimacy it tries to create. Those sepia tones have a way of being both warm and distancing at the same time.
4) Sorry Craig, the many Forrest Gump similarities were jarring. I thought of Gary Sinise, Sally Field, and Robin Wright Penn on a good many occasions during the film. I would agree this was a more mature and restrained effort than Gump. Still, somebody get Eric Roth some new character templates for his birthday and revoke his platitude license.
5) The Russia and Navy sections particularly seemed to go on and on. It seemed odd to go into so much detail about those years and then montage over most of the last half of his life, and I felt like it was because the aging makeup/CGI was easier than the “youthening,” rather than being what the story needed. Tilda Swinton part was good, but too much of those talking scenes. Also, my mother was confused because she thought Swinton and Blanchett looked so much alike–that pale, high-cheekboned redhead thing. I suppose Benjamin has a type.
6) I hated the chain-of-consequence sequence in Paris. It felt way too long and un-original. I’ve seen or read that sort of thing countless other places, even if I couldn’t have told you where, and honestly, the fact that Daisy couldn’t dance any more didn’t have much of an emotional punch. We knew she survived. It seemed like the sort of idea that would be fascinating to a 12-year old. I get that it was reflecting Benjamin’s thought process about it, and that it mattered very much to him. Still. I just wanted that part to be over, even though it probably only added a couple of minutes.
7) Was it just me, or did some of that teenage/young adult Benjamin overseas look like extra footage from Seven Years in Tibet? That’s what I kept thinking about, at least.
8) The hummingbird? Too much. And I love hummingbirds.
9) Framing device not a complete success, despite capable performance by Ormond. It distances, rather than brings us in. Roth does love those framing devices.
10) I would have liked to have had a more organic, less formal introduction to some of the ancillary characters like the woman who taught him piano, etc. But that’s pretty nitpicky.
All that said, my brother who had seen it previously, saw it with us, and said the audience made a big difference. What felt profound and touching the first time he saw it with a rapt audience seemed more of a slog with our audience of chatterers, candy-wrapper openers, etc. in a theater where Bedtime Stories was booming through the walls. I thought the audience was pretty responsive to the film (laughter, tears, etc.) but he said it was way different in tone from his first time around.
I’ve been playing revisionist screenplay today, imagining what if Daisy and Benjamin had never gotten together (due to timing and temperament more than due to his ‘curious case’) and she had the need on her deathbed to tell her daughter about the great love of her life that she never gave a chance to blossom. I kinda like the idea. Or if she needed her daughter to adopt this tiny baby who was doomed to die, and she had to explain why. In the short story, the son ends up caring for the aging child-father, so I sort of thought the film might wind up there.
Those are interesting ideas, Jennybee, although I’m not sure if I would have preferred either ending, especially if her mother had saddled her with Button’s final days. That seems even more coldly indifferent than revealing her daughter’s true parentage through a diary reading, which was an overtly melodramatic element I found somewhat frustrating.
I also had issues with the framing device, mostly because of the storm that never amounted to anything, but I agree it was an odd choice in retrospect.
And the further I get from it and the more I hear both for and against the film, the more I concede the Forest Gump connections than I did after I first saw it. I will continue to argue though that Button and Gump, regardless of structural or narrative similarities (or downright cribbing), are thematically miles apart. I think the character’s journey in Button is far more emotionally resonant and his portrayal far less cynically simplistic than Gump. But I admit I’m probably feeling defensive over this issue because I thoroughly dislike Gump in every way and actually enjoyed Button.
You’re right, thematically, they are completely different films. I think that’s why I find it frustrating that so many of the same ingredients are used in both. I don’t hate Gump (well, parts of it, at least), but Button is a much much better film. I would much prefer that it have gotten the mainstream lovefest instead of Gump.
And for the record, I’m not advocating other endings, just musing on possibilities.
“Sorry Craig, the many Forrest Gump similarities were jarring”
Hahahah…I think I’ve come to terms with the fact that I’m just not seeing it because I take it as a grave insult. The logic circuits say: I don’t like Forrest Gump and I like Benjamin Button so it can’t be like Forrest Gump. I still insist that the similarities are surface level and mostly easily ignorable to me.
Having said that, the Wilkes Booth reference and the rocket shot bugged me. Had they been more frequent, I would’ve started to call BS on the whole movie.
The framing device worked fine for me and I wasn’t troubled by Mr. Gateau either, it wasn’t necessary, but it was one more layer.
I also agree with your thought that the film tried to cover too much of BB’s life. It’s like they felt the need to carefully connect the dots from each step to the next, whereas with a bio that goes in the normal direction (from young to old), it’s easier to skip chunks of a life without confusing people. I think they could’ve gotten away with some trimming here.
Interestingly, my feelings about BB are roughly the same as they were when I first saw it…maybe a little of the buzz has worn off, but Doubt has grown in my mind. If I redid my Top 10, Doubt might be higher.
As always your thoughts are interesting and insightful jennybee. I’d be making many of the same suggestions for what worked less well when critiquing the screenplay. But the craft and performances sufficiently touched and drew me in that I could forgive the limitations and missteps of the writing.
Look what I just discovered. Having noticed sartre’s name on LiC’s “recent comments” and, always interested in what sartre has to say, I dropped by to discover some perceptive, thought-provoking comments by jennybee and others, as well. First, let me say I regard BB as a very good film, but I do have some reservations, the bulk of them involving the screenplay. Now on to jennybee’s well-expressed reactions:
Any story that attempts to cover an entire life necessarily lacks a certain focus and narrative tightness–my problem with so many biopics.
Your comparison of BB’s life to those portrayed in biopics certainly is valid. In one respect, though — and an important one — we might do well to avoid regarding BB’s life as a biography. It is literary fiction, a sort of “fly” that doesn’t have all its feet in the “ointment,” so to speak. To me, this makes the case for a kind of story structure that doesn’t need to follow a more traditional or anchored pattern. One logical result of this is that a more sprawling, epic tale — even if less focused — can legitimately work. Your phrase “aesthetic honesty” seems to acknowledge this.
I think it would be a more powerful film if it didn’t try to include so much. . . . Individually, the different sections all worked within themselves, but together, I think they needed trimming.
I agree that some trimming might have improved the film, but, in terms of how powerful it might be, to me that’s a matter of quality (writing), not quantity (simple editing).
John Wilkes Booth = unnecessary stunt allusion, ala Forrest Gump
Your phrase, “unnecessary stunt allusion” carries a great deal of meaning to me, succinctly characterizing a qualitative aspect of the film that not only bothered me a bit but referred me to Forrest Gump — though I agree that BB is a more mature and restrained effort than Gump.
Still, somebody get Eric Roth some new character templates for his birthday and revoke his platitude license.
Haha!
I think the Fincher-brand sepia tones create an ever-present layer of artifice that removes us from the intimacy it tries to create. Those sepia tones have a way of being both warm and distancing at the same time.
I’m not sure that Fincher was trying to create intimacy through this “artifice.” Maybe this was intentional or just part of his overall vision.
It seemed odd to go into so much detail about those years [the Russia and Navy sections] and then montage over most of the last half of his life.
I think you may be right that Fincher was especially drawn to the challenges of age makeup and CGI. But also, Benjamin’s global forays represent a creative choice made by Roth (perhaps in collaboration to some extent with Fincher — I wouldn’t know).
I hated the chain-of-consequence sequence in Paris. It felt way too long and un-original. The fact that Daisy couldn’t dance any more didn’t have much of an emotional punch. We knew she survived.
The Paris sequence and also the Navy section, exemplify to me the similarity of nature and tone between BB and Gump. The Russia section fares considerably better, largely due to Swinton’s acting. Besides, it may well have been more convenient to Roth as a writer to dream up Daisy’s accident as a plausible means of getting her to that nursing home.
The hummingbird? Too much. And I love hummingbirds.
Ditto.
[The] framing device [was] not a complete success, despite capable performance by Ormond. It distances, rather than brings us in.
Agreed.
What felt profound and touching the first time he saw it with a rapt audience seemed more of a slog with our audience of chatterers, candy-wrapper openers, etc. . . .
My feeling is that this film was intended to appeal to both groups.
Overall, jennybee, I think our reactions to the film are similar. Despite addressing what I consider to be some of its flaws, I feel quite forgiving about this film because of its lyrical yet epic nature as well as its novel use of CGI, its good acting, and the basic concept as executed by Fincher.
Now Joel. You say that BB and Gump are thematically miles apart. Maybe I’m just talking semantics, but I think the themes are similar — it’s just that they’re on different planes, with BB on a higher one, of course. To me, these two films share the similarities of essential being one would expect in step-siblings with one parent (Roth) in common.
Wow, what a treat to read this discussion. And these latest comments from jennybee, joel, and M. de Plume absolutely crackle with eloquent intelligence. Craig, you attract the cream of film bloggers and non-blogger commenters alike. Bravo everyone.
I think my brain is wired to the same circuit breakers as Craig’s on this one, Pierre. You’ll have to forgive my possibly irrational intellectual unwillingness to allow Gump and Button too much kinship in themes.
I read your last paragraph there and a red light came on in my brain, flashing in conjunction with a siren and word “ERR-ror!” repeated loudly over and over. Either I don’t agree with you or Romulans have locked their phaser banks on my frontal lobe.
We stand united Joel. Though, yeah, being written by the same guy, it’s no surprise they share commonalities. I’m sure what I write has commonality with what I wrote 15 years ago, but I hope to god it’s better. BB most certainly is. Except for the couple of cutesy throwaway bits that have been mentioned, they’re just different. They may be different sides of the same coin, but one side sucks and the other one doesn’t.
Going back to some of JB’s excellent comments, I have to say Paris worked for me as well. Yes, Daisy ’survived’, but her dream was dead. I supposed the chain of consequences is a shallow concept, but it has always appealed to me and it worked for me here. The whole idea of “What if I’d just….” is very intriguing to me.
As I said above, the framing device also worked. It grounded the fantasy in a tiny bit of reality. It was an entry and exit point and it was another layer to the story.
Finally, I think Swinton and Blanchett were supposed to look alike. I think they were aspects of the same thing for Benjamin at different moments in his life.
(boy will I feel silly if/when I watch FG again and think “oh hey, yeah. This is like Benjamin Button”)
The thing is, I only ever watched it one time, on video years after the hype and blacklash had played out. It didn’t really stick in my head but I remember thinking it wasn’t as bad as I’d been told.
Inside Joel’s brain: I’ve just picked up a fault in the Pierre de Plume AE35 unit. It’s going to go 100% failure in 72 hours. It can only be attributable to human error.
I just read the latest submissions on this thread and i must admit they are fantastic. Pierre’s lengthy disclaimer is particularly sobering (and insightful, and eloquent, and perceptive, etc.) but i admit i do like the film ore, and am basically with craig and company. The issues of “literary fiction,” “length,” the Parisian ‘chain of consequence’ sequence, the “hummingbirds,” “the framing device” (I must say I liked it more, and it recalled for me ‘The English Patient,’ but I know you feel Julia Ormond was “distancing”) and the Roth sibling argument are all quite fascinating.
I do think that you are right in saying that BB is “on a higher plane” though. I am not sure what to make of your issue with the film skirting the last half of his life with ‘montage sequences’ and if it does indeed compromise the narratives gtructure and the characters ‘metamorphosis.’ I guess the filmmakers thought the earlier years needed to be delineated.
I included the film in my own Top 10, and continue to be moved by it, but i agree with you pierre, that the film did try and cram in too much.
Magisterial submission by Pierre!!!
Oops – what’s that I stumbled on just as I re-entered this thread? Why it looks like . . . a gauntlet, though no doubt a friendly one.
Although admittedly I’ve done my share of LSD during days of yore, I’m a little surprised that neither of you, Craig or Joel, sees common themes in BB and Gump. This could be related to the differences between the two films or, as Craig suggests, reluctance to liken Benjamin Button – an admirable intellectual and artistic effort – to its more cornbred [sic] kissin’ cousin Gump. These factors notwithstanding, I’ll try to address your challenge which, after all, was provoked by a comment I made previously.
I believe these two films advance the overall notion — and they both do so episodically throughout expanses of time and space — that life is to be lived to its fullest, that each moment is to be experienced as organically as possible, in real time and at its essential core level. Though destiny and chance are part of the hand that humankind is dealt, each of us has the capacity of free will that can overcome loss or adversity through determination that comes from loving not just oneself but others in ways they can accept. Put simply, riding with the tide – wherever it comes from or takes you – works better than fighting the current.
From an overall symbolic view, Gump’s recurring feather in the wind, something cherished and saved by Forrest, shares thematic commonality with BB’s fragile hummingbird. Qualities evoked include the mysteries of chance, the passage of time, the fleeting nature of life, survival of the weak or innocent in the face of all-powerful nature, and so forth. Hurricanes figure prominently in each film.
Both films share supporting themes, as well, including the following:
Similarities in the lead characters and relationships with their environments feed common themes. Both Forrest and Benjamin are abnormal in some way. Each has physical peculiarities. Through determination and inspiration, each successfully defies strong odds – despite their rather passive natures — to overcome these limitations. Forrest rids himself of braces by running; Benjamin struggles from his wheelchair and wills himself to walk. Both take on the world despite handicaps related to their lack of knowledge and sophistication. Both come to flourish through maternal nurturing.
Both Forrest and Benjamin experience romantic love under often frustrating, changing circumstances, including abandonment and indifference. Perhaps to underscore the essence of this emotion, neither film sees its central character actually marry the woman he wins over (each with some difficulty), but each eventually shares but ultimately loses these intimacies. The potentially infinite fruit of these relationships, however, in each case manifests in the form of a “love child” in the higher sense.
In both Gump and Button, the central characters take what they have learned from numerous characters and pass it on to others. In many cases, more than one attempt is required, all of these factors influencing thematic content.
Suffice it to say, I believe that Eric Roth’s particular life view and core beliefs are indelibly etched into both Forrest Gump and Benjamin Button. Certainly the passage of time between the two screenplays has contributed to richer layers of meaning in the latter film. Moreover, the differing philosophies, talents and techniques of Robert Zemeckis and David Fincher have significantly affected the end result and effect of each film, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Nevertheless, I find some fairly obvious thematic similarities, some of them described here.
Don’t get me wrong, Sam, I really like BB. Although I haven’t compiled my top ten yet, I’m sure it’ll be there. I wouldn’t spend this much time writing about a film if I considered the film negatively.
I believe the most significant flaws of BB are there because of Roth, and I also feel that Fincher is mostly responsible for having created a film that’s clearly superior to Gump.
By the way, Sam, it was jennybee who spoke of the montage sequences. Regarding the “distancing” of the nursing home scenes, my take was that “I’m not sure that Fincher was trying to create intimacy.”
With such long posts, I know it gets complicated reading, especially when one quotes other people’s comments.
Naw, my beloved Pierre, I’m damn good at grasping the subtext.
Your post (#67) was a gorgeously detailed explanation of the strong similarities between FG and BB. Your writing is exceptional. Very fine analogies.
It’s become rather commonplace for the cool kids to diss FG. I’m going to go on record as admitting that I liked it. A LOT. It’s corny as hell, rather simplistic and it meanders all over the place. But it does feature very fine performances from TOM HANKS (in particular), ROBIN WRIGHT and GARY SINISE.
Did it deserve to win BP? Especially with SHAWSHANK, PULP FICTION and QUIZ SHOW in the mix? HELL NO.
However, I’m not crazy about seeing it excoriated so vehemently – everywhere – on a regular basis. It’s no work of art. But (IMO) there is certainly more good in it than bad.
It can’t hold a candle to BB, though…
Bravo, Pierre…
Thanks, Miranda. I do remember walking out of the Gump screening with my sister, and we both acknowledged having enjoyed it on the whole. But I also remember feeling a little “dirty” about that. . . .
I saw Button again last night, and liked it even better. Even though I saw the same things that bothered me in it before–and often even more of them–somehow it all bothered me less. Go figure. It’s a good film.
And my husband, the Fincher hater, liked it quite a lot, too. His take on the Gump similarities was that while there were similarities, the elements were greatly improved on in Button and that, really, that’s all that matters.
Nice writing, Pierre.
Thanks to Jennybee and Pierre for reigniting the BB debate.
Peirre, I see all those similarities you mention thematically but I happen to like a lot of those themes and I see them in lots of movies.
If people would stop using the comparison as an insult, I’d probably let go of my resistance.
In the end, maybe I’m just a cornball. Maybe I’d like FG more than I’m supposed to.
My own considerable dislike of the sanctimoniously toned Gump isn’t just down to its craft. I struggle with it as a cultural expression. Whether deliberate or not, it celebrates and romanticizes anti-intellectualism. Too many Americans as evidenced by the elections of Reagan and Bush the Younger have embraced the myth that an unsophisticated and uncomplicated thinker somehow has more commonsense and truth to him than a more intellectual and nuanced one.
I think that notion has been effectively disabused by the man taking over in about a week.
Let’s hope it takes.
Ironic that a movie that came from a bunch of liberals can be equated with making the cultural mindset more accommodating to W, but I’d have to agree with that assessment, sartre, if on nothing more than a superficial level.
And I’d agree with Craig that the pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme. If nothing more could convince me, this whole segment of the Daily Show did.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=215905&title=Six-Days-Seven-Nights
I meant to include this one too.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=215336&title=President-Goofus-and-President-Gallant—Peer-Pressers
Thanks for the links Joel. They’re terrific. Stewart and his writers are such wonderfully astute political satirists. Hilarious yet incisively illuminating of BS. I’d already enjoyed the second segment that so cleverly contrasts the outgoing and incoming styles.
I think one of my favorite moments of this entire political sideshow that is the end of W will be John Stewart explaining the actual meaning of “disappointment.”
No worries though. We’re less than a week away.
I’ve completely sat out this discussion, which has gone on longer than most here, but I just have to pipe in and say that I find Forrest Gump to still be a worthwhile, successful, if somewhat problematic film. And in some ways, I think it’s better than The CC of BB has turned out to be. As a _movie_, FG simply works better than BB in that it actually has a protagonist with an arc and a propulsive narrative, which are no small things.
I too have sat out a good portion of this discussion, but like Jeff, I agree that Forrest Gump, while easily knocked around, benefits from having a director attuned to its needs, story and atmosphere, whereas Roth’s teaming with Fincher proved to make a film not altogether satisfying.
I’ll grant you Jeff that FG may have been more fully realized and successful at its mission. I think BB was reaching for something bigger though and I appreciate that even if its flaws keep it back in some people’s estimation.
You’re in one contrarian mood today, Jeff. Obviously audiences agree with both of you as FG was a massive success and BB, not so much, but that means little to me. I think you’re overselling the strength of FG’s character arc and propulsive narrative. I’ve seen Lifetime TV movies with both, but I’m not enshrining those as great works of art.
hahahaha.
Man, I seriously have to see FG again. I honestly have little memory of it other than as I said not hating as much as I’d been led to believe I would.
I”m curious though if there’s an inherent sappiness to me that draws me to these kinds of things.
You are a sap of the best sort, Craig. Wouldn’t have it any other way.
Me, though, in the right (or wrong) mood, I cry at every other commercial. Most of the time, if I see something that’s supposed to be touching, I’m touched. A least until later when the bad aftertaste sets in. It’s taken me a long time to build up my cynical defenses/standards.
hahah…it’s taken me a long time to break my cynical defenses DOWN ! :)
Joel, fair enough, but I can only grant so much to a work of art that I feel is pretentious (which I ultimately, reluctantly, have to conclude is the case with Benjamin Button).
It’s a close case, but ultimately the simplicity of FG’s arc/narrative has greater emotional weight. Fincher is trying for more in Button but Roth’s script just doesn’t take him where he wants to go and the character is, for me, very hollow for big stretches of the film.
I enjoyed the final hour of Benjamin Button very much, because that’s the part of the movie that really kicks in after an hour or so of dithering.
On a scale out of ten, I’d give FG a 7+ and BB a 7-.
I think I’m being worn down by the Button-bashing and getting reactionary, Jeff, so I’ll accept that I’m in the minority on this film and similarly on Forest Gump, which has legions of fans that will tell me otherwise on its value.
I completely agree that Roth’s script has weaknesses and that not all of Fincher’s choices pan out to anything successful.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Button is the one of the leading five to miss out on a nomination Thursday morning, in favor of say, Gran Torino. I just don’t know if enough people will put it as their #1 choice. It seems to have a lot of people who like it pretty well, a good number who don’t think much of it (ala Alexander) and a bunch who haven’t seen it, not so many who think it’s the best thing all year. It’s not the cultural phenomenon that it was supposed to be, or that Dark Knight, for instance, was. The Curious Case of Cold Mountain, perhaps.
Don’t get me wrong, Joel, Gump still has plenty of problems.
In one of my college film classes, the professor was trying to explain what he, as a boomer-age liberal, found objectionable about it, and I had to point out that nobody else in the class was old enough to remember any of the events depicted in the movie, which I think actually makes an important difference in how you perceive it.
I absolutely love BENJAMIN BUTTON, have read this recent thread with a combination of fascination and some sadness, but always with respect for people who I now consider friends, one and all.
I fully concur with Craig, Joel and sartre, and will shortly have more to say about Pierre’s magnicent final submission on this thread.
BUTTON finished in the top 10 of my year-end list, as it did on Craig’s and Sam K.’s.
[In voice of Lieutenant Colonel Bill Kilgore]
Some day this war will end.
jennybee, although I agree that Button may not get enough #1 votes, I don’t see Gran Torino doing any better on that score. The Wrestler, maybe.
Hello Joel. I assure you that you are not in the minority on BENJAMIN BUTTON, neither when considering the professional critics, who favored it at least 60-40, nor with LIC regulars who seem to be split with the edge to the yay-sayers, from a compilation I made.
JennyBee: In th eend you could be right, but in all honesty, the Oscar race is shaping up as a two-horse race between SLUMDOG and BUTTON at this point. Neither MILK, F/N, nor DARK KNIGHT have any kind of realistic chance at this point, so based on this theory BUTTON will receive the “second-highest” number of votes on this voting. The film has everything Oscar voters want and expect in a film, and it isn’t easily forgotten or shaken, which is a reason why this LIC thread won’t ever die. This is a testament to fecund contributors, and to the power and beauty of one of craig’s finest reviews ever.
“My own considerable dislike of the sanctimoniously toned Gump isn’t just down to its craft. I struggle with it as a cultural expression.”
That was sartre there and I would like to second that motion, so to speak and then leave FG alone as far as this discussion goes. I do NOT believe FG to be as good a film as BB, hence I will continue to play up BB’s many attributes and lingering deep emotions.
I finally got back to Pierre’s submission #67, which surely must rank among the greatest ever composed for this site. But that’s hardly surprising when one considers who wrote it. What DOES suprise me however, is that the stellar case made for the film, which includes these observations in comparing the film with its erstwhile Roth predessessor:
“life to be lived in the fullest”
“organically lived moments”
“go with the ride”
“thematic commonality with BB’s fragile hummingbird”
“mysteries of chance”
“passage of time”
“fleeting nature of life”
“hurricanes”
as well as these two probing paragraphs:
“Similarities in the lead characters and relationships with their environments feed common themes. Both Forrest and Benjamin are abnormal in some way. Each has physical peculiarities. Through determination and inspiration, each successfully defies strong odds – despite their rather passive natures — to overcome these limitations. Forrest rids himself of braces by running; Benjamin struggles from his wheelchair and wills himself to walk. Both take on the world despite handicaps related to their lack of knowledge and sophistication. Both come to flourish through maternal nurturing.
Both Forrest and Benjamin experience romantic love under often frustrating, changing circumstances, including abandonment and indifference. Perhaps to underscore the essence of this emotion, neither film sees its central character actually marry the woman he wins over (each with some difficulty), but each eventually shares but ultimately loses these intimacies. The potentially infinite fruit of these relationships, however, in each case manifests in the form of a “love child” in the higher sense.”
–that Pierre’s opinion may not seen as predominantly favorable, especially since he later admits he likes the film.
With all the comparisons to GUMP in a positive sense, one can easily come to the conclusion that BB is deeper and more intimate, an almost expected expectation in view of the material here.
Thanks for your thoughts Sam. I’m torn between agreeing with JB regarding the film’s chances and the exact opposite. If I went with my gut, I wouldn’t have pegged it for Oscar love, but all the evidence seems to be pointing that way. We shall see.
I’m with Joel though. My defenses of the film are worn down. I can only conclude that I loved it and not everyone agrees with me and there’s nothing to be said or done about it.
I have to say though, Im deeply worried about seeing it again. What if the naysayers are right? To an extent I already think they are, but their problems didn’t have the same impact on me.
Oddly, I have to agree with Jeff’s assertion that BB is a more pretentious film than FG, but again, it didn’t bother me. In fact, I’d argue that Jeff is perhaps confusing pretention with ambition.
I saw it a second time Craig, and loved it even more.
“I have to say though, Im deeply worried about seeing it again. What if the naysayers are right?”
The only right is our own Craig. I struggle to believe that a film you loved quite so much on initial viewing is suddenly going to evolve into one you see as flawed.
Join the Dark Side, Craig.
(I’m actually planning to see it again today. We’ll see if the film de-ages as much as its protagonist.)
Sartre, I think you’re right. I think I can pretty clearly see the flaws everyone is talking about, but as I said they don’t concern me so it’s not like I’d be seeing a different movie.
It might have more or less of an emotional impact on me, but that can be chalked up to mood.
Alexander: You’re not my father!
Craig, I’d definitely agree that BB is a more ambitious film than FG; but I also think that when ambition stumbles, it takes on another name.
“Craig, I’d definitely agree that BB is a more ambitious film than FG; but I also think that when ambition stumbles, it takes on another name.”
OW! Good one, Jeff. I can’t necessarily argue with that, although I’d mention that some there have been some truly ambitious stumblers out there that are far more fun to revisit than some of the “successful” films sometimes are.
First one that comes to mind is Barry Lyndon. Another candidate would be The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. Another might be The Hudsucker Proxy. The point is, where you draw that line is subjective and time tends to look better on these things than the harsh light of newness.
Well yeah, definitely. If a movie, on balance, offers enough good stuff then I’m more than willing to give it credit and overlook the parts that might not work as well, it’s all up to the individual. And I still like Benjamin Button, I just don’t love it.
Also I think Barry Lyndon is just about flawless, so you’re on your own there, kemosabe.
I don’t consider Barry Lyndon a stumbler at all (I think it’s Kubrick’s last true masterpiece)–in fact I have used it with some other films as a contrast with Benjamin Button. That said, I agree with your point overall, Joel. Many films that were tarred as being overly ambitious and flawed are more interesting than movies that are successful. (Gump is “successful,” but I don’t find it interesting.)
I’d say the reason why Benjamin Button is ultimately pretentious, as much as I hate to say it, is that it takes on just about all of the elements belonging to certain formula–here seemingly from Roth’s own previous, most famous work–and strives to present itself as artistically exalted.
Hindsight I think has shown what a terrific movie Barry Lyndon is, but in its time I think it got kicked around pretty good so I take Joel’s point.
I agree Jeff that the chasm between us on BB is not that wide, it’s just deep.
As I said before to Alexander, my usual angle of approach to a movie these days is an emtional or visceral one. If the film works on either or both of those levels, then I tend to overlook things that might bug me in another movie. If the movie fails on those levels (see Silent Light), then I tend to use its flaws against it like a cudgel.
Christmas morning, Button just went down perfectly. I was in the exact right mood at the exact right time and with a couple of exceptions (the one JB mentioned for example about the John Wilkes Booth reference) there wasn’t a false note struck.
And I don’t see the artistic exaltation at all. I see a work of populism with an little extra attention to craft and detail. Compared to Ron Howard’s brand of the same? There’s no comparison.
Yes, not wide but fairly deep in those places where it happens.
One note that I think is important in comparing BB and FG: When Forrest Gump came out, it wasn’t intended to be an awards-contender at all, but merely a Summer popcorn movie. BB was always intended to be an Oscar contender.
Yeah, Alexander and Jeff, you both illustrated my point pretty well, which Craig picked up very astutely. Barry Lyndon had it’s fair share of love and hate when it came out. It has since been redeemed over time, but it still has its detractors.
I’m not saying Benjamin Button is an overlooked masterpiece necessarily, but I am saying that the same of mix of opinion exists today on it. How it shakes out in the long term is anyone’s guess.
All true, Joel. That is more than fair enough.
After stubbornly holding out for some 30 odd years, Alexander and Jeff will eventually admit their misguided analysis, drop to their knees and declare ‘we’re not worthy’ :-)
Let’s not get hasty.
Perhaps I got a little ahead of myself there.
Which misguided analysis? There are so many.
See you in 2039.
I think he meant mine.
And my own.
That’s a very nice compliment Sam . . . especially considering most of what I said was copied & pasted from Cliff Notes Online.
(Kidding, of course.)
I recently re-watched the first hour or so of BB, during which I paid more attention to how Fincher has created a look and mood, the amount of thoughtful effort invested in each aspect of what appears on the screen — lighting, framing, hues, transitions/editing. Also I paid more attention to Pitt’s performance. There’s a lot going on to savor aside from the initial emotional reaction to something new. A sort of conversation piece of the mind.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say, as Alexander has, that BB is pretentious; I’m not sure what word I would use. My take is that the marriage of Roth and Fincher is not a perfect union. While I see Roth as dealing in broad and rather showy thematic strokes, Fincher’s approach is quieter, more studied, focused and lyrical.
Great to hear more of your thoughts, Pierre.
I’d be happy for the word pretentious to be dropped from the lexicon altogether (absolutely no offense intended Alexander). I never use the term myself as I find it too pejorative in a way that fails to acknowledge that all such judgments are highly subjective – who am I to refer to something as pretentious (and risk conveying contempt) when I know that others will find richness of meaning in it? My problem is with the word not the man who used it.
Well, there has to be some word, pejorative or otherwise, for a work of art that intends towards lofty artistic goals for which the artist is incapable of reaching or where the parts simply don’t jell; and I say that still meaning, once again, that TCCofBB is a good, entertaining, emotional movie that I like but don’t love. I agree that ‘pretentious’ is a sort of fightin’ word, but I feel like it’s still a necessary concept in need of an appropriate term.
Language police! Thought police!
I kid. And no offense taken, Sartre. I believe Jeff has covered the appropriate bases here. I tend to avoid the word myself, if for no other reason than its obviousness as a criticism, though some films do beg for its application. Especially ones directed by Sam Mendes. Wait, wrong thread here.
I did see Benjamin Button again today, and I will say this: the parts/aspects of the film I already liked were even better, but the parts/aspects of the film I did not care for were worse. So it just about evened out for me.
It’s a personal bugbear, I really don’t care for the word because of the connotations it holds for me. I appreciate that it’s a useful shorthand for many and that’s fine.
“I did see Benjamin Button again today, and I will say this: the parts/aspects of the film I already liked were even better, but the parts/aspects of the film I did not care for were worse. So it just about evened out for me.”
Let’s hope it doesn’t cause some kind of fundamental psychic split and you start talking like Gollum or your right hand takes on a treacherous mind of its own.
Seriously though, Sartre, do you have an alternative? I object to reviews that contain words like ‘loathsome’ or ‘insufferable’ or ‘ass’ for being inflammatory, but the p-word is really a specific and necessary bit of vocabulary with no good synonym (‘fatuous’?)
I wouldn’t care to use any of those words, Jeff. It doesn’t mean that I don’t sometimes indulge in unqualified and more disparaging reactions to film. But I prefer to describe what it was that did or didn’t work for me, e.g. “I found the film overlong”, “The use of… irritated me” etc. God forbid that everyone would express themselves the way I do. Can’t think of anything more boring. I enjoy how we all bring different ideas, personalities, and communication styles to our discussions. But after Pierre made reference to the use of pretentious I decided to voice my longstanding feelings about it.
Edit: to better answer your specific question. I’d say something like “X strived to communicate… but for me it seemed to fall short of those goals because…” I’d use a bunch of words rather than a single one.
I would say there is a place for most words, but it should be used with thought and discretion. Though blunt honesty can be just as useful in communicating thoughts on film as deep analysis. Or perhaps a bridging of the two. For instance–to steal an example from myself–I found Revolutionary Road’s treatment of an already unpleasant story made it only more perpetually unpleasant, for little purpose. Yet, one can describe why it was unpleasant, through giving details. I suppose this is all a round-about way of saying I agree with Sartre’s larger point, though if someone can supply reasonably sturdy intellectual abutment for these more pointed interpretations, I say, all the better.
Only tangentially on-topic, or perhaps more on-topic–that YouTube video comparing Forrest Gump and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is amusing and funny.
I think this touches on the difference I have with Jeff between pretention and failed ambition.
I’m a big fan of the word pretentious, but I think it’s often used in the wrong instances. To me there’s more to it than failed lofty ambition, there’s a degree of pretending that the ambition succeeded (or simply a delusion that it’s so)…pretending you’re something you’re not.
Button may not have succeeded in what it set out to do (that’s kind of down to personal choice), but to call it pretentious puts it down for even trying.
I guess it helps that I never really approached it as Art with a capital A. As I said above, I think it’s a smart, well-crafted bit of populism. That’s how I went into it, and that’s what I got.
As I’ve said before, part of me hopes it doesn’t win the Oscar. I don’t want to suffer the backlash, and I’m not prepared to exalt the movie in that way (even though it takes a lofty place on my own Top 10 list).
I’m more comfortable calling a movie like Crash pretentious because not only did it fall short of its lofty ambitions, it’s still exalted and I just happen to be on the side of the people who don’t like it. If I hadn’t liked BB so much, I might be a lot more comfortable with the word.