What the hell's a Feed?
Stick it in your email!
Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
 |
F. Scott Fitzgerald published the story “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” in 1922 as part of a collection entitled Tales of the Jazz Age. As with so much of his work, the story, a fantasy about a man who ages in reverse, was a clever way of addressing pet themes concerning class, social standing and our tenuous hold on the conventions that root us to life. But, as Fitzgerald acknowledged, it was also about the meaning and value of maturity in a disordered world following the end of World War 1 where an entire generation of young men were robbed of the chance to grow old. The story begins in arch satire and ends in melancholy reverence of (lost) innocence.
Eighty-six years later, Hollywood and its special-effects wizards have discovered the story and brought it to the screen with Brad Pitt playing Benjamin Button and Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton playing his loves. Director David Fincher and his screenwriters depart from the original story fairly significantly and, sorry to say, not for the better. The film starts out promisingly with a parable — not in the original story — of a blind watchmaker who loses a son in the Great War and, out of his grief, builds a clock for the city that he lives in that runs backwards, as a tribute to all the boys who have lost their futures. It’s a moving little story unto itself, but the movie that follows doesn’t do it justice.
Fitzgerald, able to fully exploit satire for satire’s sake, has Button arriving into the world as a fully-formed old man — cranky and obdurate, arguing with all around him and frustrating his already distraught parents by sneaking cigars into his crib. Button starts out stolid and resigned and, as he “ages” grows more quixotic and finally, as death approaches, innocent. But the film, apparently feeling the need for verisimilitude (in a story about a man aging in reverse…), lingers too long on Button’s origin and rearing by a black foster mother who works in an old folk’s home. Too much attention to the special-effects wonders of a little old Brad Pitt. The Washington Post critic in reviewing the movie summed it up by saying “Forrest Gump, Meet Joe Black” and there were many times that it seemed the filmmakers had simply borrowed the plot of Forrest Gump wholesale: an oddity thrust into normal situations without much made of what it means. Like Gump, Pitt’s Button is a remarkably opaque character. Things of significance happen around him and to him (World War 2 with his buddy Lieutenant Dan, er, I mean Captain Mike; travel to all corners of the earth; the Space program) but he remains aloof, almost a bystander in his own story. Only the lifelong love of Jenny, er, I mean Daisy engages him. There is a chance, I suppose, that, like Forrest Gump, many people will love this movie precisely because — as when listening to a piece of minimalist music devoid of its own meaning — they can invest the story and character with whatever emotional meaning they bring to it. But to me it was just bad.
Why make the movie of this story now? After eighty-six years? I think a story about a man who cheats age by growing younger as time passes might be pretty appealing to a generation of movie goers who are notoriously in love with their own youth. Whereas Fitzgerald’s story arose from angry regret over interrupted maturity, the emotional tone of this movie is more dread of mortality. The closest thing to a moral comes when the youthful Button counsels his aging wife that “it’s never too late” to strike out for the life one wants. Tell the audience what they want to hear. And how does the end finally come? Wrapped in swaddling and cradled in the arms of his lover/mother. It was meant to be beautiful but I found it very sad. A cheat.
Posted in Blather 12/29/08 | 
Email this | Comments (10)
Share/Save this: 
Hmmm, thanks for the review – *almost* went to check this out over the weekend. Now I think something else would be better.
Comment by Webomatica — December 30, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Jason,
A rental, maybe. If you can, check out The Reader. Very good. Winslet is brilliant.
Comment by Sprague D — December 30, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Nice review. It sums up my thoughts on the movie pretty well. It was disappointing that they had so many directions they could have went when departing from the original book and they took the boring and bland route.
Comment by Mike — December 31, 2008 @ 7:54 am
It’s really sad how bad Hollywood is these days. The ratio of original story concepts in mainstream film has dwindled to almost nothing, and the remakes and big-screen adaptations are so poor sometimes it’s a wonder how they can muck up a story that has already been written for them. Not even just written for them, but that has already been tested and accepted into the culture at large. You’d think it would be pretty straightforward to make a good movie out of some of these stories, but they always find a way to ruin it.
Comment by itsalljustaride — December 31, 2008 @ 8:04 am
Mike, thanks — glad you liked it. It was only after I wrote that I realized the movie was written by Eric Roth, who also wrote Forrest Gump. So that explains why this movie seemed so reminiscent of the earlier film.
And, Itsalljustaride, that may also explain why the movie was disappointing — they clearly went for a “formula” that had worked before. I agree with you — it’s unfortunate that Hollywood often plays it safe instead of taking risks that might be worth seeing.
Comment by Sprague D — December 31, 2008 @ 9:52 am
Hollywood really needs to stop ruining classic books.I would rather they take the concept of a book and name the movie a different title.At the end of the movie put,sort of based on the book of blah, blah.
Comment by ppp — December 31, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
PPP, I agree that a bad adaptation is worse than none at all. I’d rather see lots more original stuff that takes advantage of what only cinema can do — like The Matrix (Part 1, only).
Comment by Sprague D — December 31, 2008 @ 5:33 pm
I haven’t seen this yet, but can’t help noticing that you always seem to be driven to reviewer mode when you don’t care for something. Perhaps a Reader review for balance?
And I can’t help but wonder, how does a baby that ages backwards die?
Comment by Aatom — January 15, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
Cate Blanchett with a southern accent FTW; but Benjamin Button kept dragging on, always pausing dramatically on Brad Pitt’s face, a lot like Meet Joe Black
Comment by coffee — January 18, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
Aatom,
I probably tend to publish negative reviews for the same reason most letters to the editor are critical rather than laudatory — we’re more motivated to action when we disagree with or disapprove of something than when we agree with it. It’s a psychological attempt to “put things right”. A minor human foible.
BTW, re: how does a person aging in reverse die? Without spoiling the ending for you — think about where a baby’s consciousness is before it exists…
Comment by Sprague D — January 19, 2009 @ 1:08 pm