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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

(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.

See you in 2039.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Also I think Barry Lyndon is just about flawless, so you’re on your own there, kemosabe.

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.

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!

(I’m actually planning to see it again today. We’ll see if the film de-ages as much as its protagonist.)

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.

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.

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.