Advertisement
Yesterday, Anne Thompson posted “an early review” of David Fincher’s The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, which she says was emailed by “one of [her] industry spies.” David Poland quickly huffed that “running an anonymous ‘friend’ as a ‘review’” is “just bullshit”, but for our purposes, skepticism over where the comments on the film (which are effusive regarding every aspect of the production) come from is neither here nor there.
I’m just wondering what happens now. The film has screened for some long-lead press as well as a couple of guilds, but until now everyone who has seen it (including yours truly) has kept quiet in the interest of playing nice with the de facto embargo. Should we now consider that vow of silence null and void?
I’m guessing probably not; I imagine that if I were to post what I actually think about the film in any significant detail, I would be punished. And I kind of really want to see Revolutionary Road, so I’m gonna hold off on incurring the wrath of Paramount a little bit longer — at least until a review hits the web with its author’s name attached.
All I’ll say for now, is that for me, the image that Thompson used on her blog post (which I’ve appropriated above) says it all. Look at Taraji P. Henson’s eyeline. What is she looking at? Not [the make-up-caked face of] Brad Pitt [superimposed via digital magic on a smaller man's body] — her eyes eyes seem to be directed at the tippy-top of his head, if not higher. Which is weird, because she’s ostensibly watching him miraculously rise from his wheelchair and walk for the first time, so you’d think she’d be looking at his legs, or maybe try to make eye contact, as a way of connecting with him personally during this special moment. Instead, it’s like she’s grinning at something that isn’t there … and now I’ve started to say too much.
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
You are an idiot.
is it possible that this frame was chosen because of the pose that Pitt takes and not the eyeline of a secondary character (in the sense that she is not the focus of the shot)?…her head is moving, her eyeline is moving…maybe watch this shot in the trailer? - sheeesh…
“Not [the make-up-caked face of] Brad Pitt [superimposed via digital magic on a smaller man's body]…” - this sentence makes no sense…find out a bit more of what you’re talking about before you judge it.
Karina, what the hell are you talking bout???
Eyeline, make up caked face???
You think this is an article to publish??
I think What she is talking about is the film, all this “where is she looking..etc” stuff may be a metaphor or a hint of what she thinks of the film in general. She can’t state her case plainly (write a review) due to the embargo. So she is dropping hints. OR, maybe it is Not a hidden opinion of the film, but of Thompson’s blog. This phrase: “All I’ll say for now, is that for me, the image that Thompson used on her blog post (which I’ve appropriated above) says it all.” — says it all about the film or Thompson’s actions and Thompson’s slight violation of the embargo?
This phrase: “so you’d think she’d be looking at his legs, or maybe try to make eye contact, as a way of connecting with him personally during this special moment” — perhaps it means she felt the film does not connect on a personal level?
and this one before it: “Which is weird, because she’s ostensibly watching him miraculously rise from his wheelchair and walk for the first time,” — so it is weird that such a grandstand film, a film of love/death/intimate themes, a film that SHOULD connect on a personal level, does not. ??
I am now thinking about it too much, so i’ll move on. All in all, I can’t wait to see the film, i really hope it does connect, i really want to be blown away by it. My question is, Can a young viewer, who does not reflect on Death and Aging, still be blown away by the story? I am anxious to read the actual review and see if the buzz is worthy of the film.
Katie, nothing I wrote above is meant as a comment on Anne Thompson or her blog or her choice to run the review or her choice to use that image. But that image does, for me, say something about general problems with the film, which you guessed pretty accurately in your second comment.
I’m working on a full review that will explain this more in depth.
“find out a bit more of what you’re talking about before you judge it.”
Um…seeing the film isn’t enough to qualify Karina as someone who knows what she’s talking about? Have YOU seen it Goldfarb?
Seriously, Fincher fans are psychopaths. You have to be onboard or nothing else. It’s like Dark Knight fans. They’re all basically republicans - you’re with us or you’re against us with a black-and-white view.
Re that still: I”m just really happy to see that Hume Cronyn is back.
@Craig Kennedy
I was referring to the statement about the ‘make-up-caked face’ - which, if I have my information right (and I believe I do) is factually incorrect…unless you know something about the visual effect in this film it’s wiser, and more responsible to say nothing, the phrase ’superimposed via digital magic’ is less than I would expect from Entertainment Tonight.
@goldfarb: I’ve heard Fincher talk about the process at two events now. To synopsize what I learned from these events: For a large chunk of the film, scenes were shot with shorter actors in his place first, and then a year later, Pitt came into a studio, had his makeup done, and had his face shot in a process that recorded from 6 angles simultaneously. The footage of his face was then digitally inserted into the scenes, on the bodies of his stand-ins.
How does that differ from your information, and where does that information come from?
Karina seems to think that Brad Pitt sat down in a makeup chair, got made up like an old man, and then made old-man faces into a computer, which they then carefully photoshopped onto other actors’ bodies. That’s not the case. What they did was a new technology called contour mapping, which means the makeup *itself* was digitally created as a computerized facemask and then coded to move in time with Pitt’s movements in performance. Pitt in all likelihood had on a slathering of green face paint. It’s very similar to the technology Zemeckis used to make his animated people in The Polar Express, only now they use supercomputers and can track hundreds of thousands of tiny facial movements, in order to better capture ‘emotion.’
My source is someone who worked on the film.
The criticism makes no sense
“What is she looking at? Not [the make-up-caked face of] Brad Pitt [superimposed via digital magic on a smaller man's body] — her eyes eyes seem to be directed at the tippy-top of his head, if not higher. Which is weird, because she’s ostensibly watching him miraculously rise from his wheelchair and walk for the first time, so ”
“To synopsize what I learned from these events: For a large chunk of the film, scenes were shot with shorter actors in his place first, and then a year later, Pitt came into a studio, had his makeup done, and had his face shot in a process that recorded from 6 angles simultaneously”
So what are you saying??
Because the first quote seems to suggest that her eyeline is wrong because she is looking at something that is not in the scene with her and therefore not looking in the right place.
But then in the second quote you state that she had the person in the scene with her, so why would her eyeline be wrong??
Was the actor who’s body was in the scene not the correct hight?
Was she just not focused on set and watching the lunch line over the top if his head???
I am seriously confused by your criticism. Why would her eyeline be wrong?
Why should she be focused on his feet and not him??
If the film is flawed because people eyelines are wrong then the movie is seriously flawed or you might be a dim wit.
I’m sorry I called you a dim wit but I have to speculate because what you’ve written is as nonsensical as anything I’ve ever read.
It is too lazy to be taken seriously.
You have violated the embargo. To to pay the piper.
Actually, if you look at a clearer picture she is looking down at him. Taraji has unique/Exotic eyes ( I thought you were making fun for a minute). The picture you have is really blurry.
@ Karina Longworth
@ Ryan Stewart
the process is similar to what has generally been called ‘performance capture’ but in this case doesn’t use make-up or ‘dots’ on the actors face…Ryan’s description is reasonable (except for the green paint and supercomputers)…I’m (deeply, technically) involved in this same work right now, on a different film, with the same company that did the Benjamin Button work.
This information has been around for a while (NYT etc), I realize there isn’t much genuine interest in the real details of VFX work…but these painfully vague generalizations are a disservice to everyone, especially when the information (and plenty of people willing to give clear, accurate summaries) is available.
Everyone, please–
Enough mincing words about the technology; enough criticizing Katrina for any lack of know-how, or information; enough discussing whether or not, in the film, the eye lines match. Let’s skip to the point of the article–which has been delivered in METAPHOR, obviously (for some of us) ineffectively– expressed in Katrina’s final image, “grinning at something that isn’t there.”
This is not a statement about FX or eye line matches. It is a poke at the content of–and at the skill of storytelling in– the rest of the film.
I hope I disagree with you, Katrina, but at least I respect you enough to follow your writing and grapple with your conclusions, rather than your asides.
@ theplaylist
um. no. i like some of fincher’s films (fight club, zodiac), but i dislike a couple of them as well (the game, alien 3). i truly couldn’t care less if people like his stuff or not–it doesn’t invalidate my opinions. also, i think you have the dark knight fans confused w/ twilight fans. there were no riots or mob scenes at dark knight showings; that’s been the province of twilight fans. and btw, i love the dark knight and i voted for obama (and i voted fuck no on prop 8). all of my friends love the movie and voted for obama as well. let me guess: you see batman as a stand-in for bush, right? funny since at the end, it’s *batman’s* absolutist morality that’s exposed as foolhardy and the *villain* who is proven right. seems to me that if you dislike black-or-white thinking then it would behoove you not to think that way yourself. all fans of X do not vote for Y and so forth.
at first i thought you were just a troll but after reading your blog, it became obvious that you definitely take these little opinions of yours very seriously. but i know, man, you’re a fucking renegade and i’m just a sheep, baa baa.
It was a good film, very interesting and great effects BUT it was WAY too long (almost 3 hours) and it d-d-d-r-a-g-g-e-d all the way through.
Not the kind of movie you would want to sit through if you were tired.
Seriously, it could have been minimized into 2 hours.
I think rather than looking for all the mistakes in the movie coz its not what u would do, cant yas just enjoy it and try to understand the story that the dirrector is trying to present. So what if the eyes werent in the risht place you got the point didnt u. n yes it was long but they were showing a persons whole life n theres bits u cant miss out . the extra scenes give character to the story. I think a good movie makes u feel like you are right there beside the characters and b. button did that.