Advertisement
To borrow a line from Lou Lumenick: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is this year’s Forrest Gump. This is not really arguable. In addition to sharing a screenwriter (Eric Roth), Robert Zemeckis’ 1994 Best Picture winner and David Fincher’s 2008 Best Picture front-runner (at least, as of this writing) both put groundbreaking special effects to the service of sprawling stories, spanning many decades and weaving a breadcrumb trail through modern American history, in which a man holds a torch for a woman who can’t reciprocate his love until her dreams of autonomy are spectacularly dashed. For me, the Gump comparison is a pejorative, a shorthand way to say, “This film will likely make a lot of money and win a lot of awards, and yet is so phony and cloying and gimmicky that its success will some day be seen by some as a tragedy.” But to others, the second coming of Gump would be a blessing. An Oscars-bait blockbuster? As Lumenick put it, apparently before seeing the film, “Paramount would be thrilled, and possibly the Academy would be as well.”
Watching Benjamin Button, occasionally I actively loathed it, but mostly I just felt genuinely disappointed that it seemed so lacking in genuine feeling. I’m a realist — I understand that the masses will probably go the other way on this one, and I won’t begrudge them that. But as a critic, it is my job to clearly state, for the record, what ignited that loathing and disappointment. This is something I did not do the last time I wrote about the film, and now that the film has screened for a larger portion of the press, I’d like to rectify that mistake. I’ve tried below to lay this out in as plain language as I can muster, so as to hopefully avoid any misunderstandings. After this writing, I promise –– I’m going to try very hard not to waste my energy trashing the inevitable prom king. There are so many movies that are so much more worthy of my attention, and frankly, I’m tired of fighting for my right to disagree.
So: Spoilers ahead!
First things first: this is a film in which the following things happen:
But before any of that, there’s a prologue. Shot in the palette of the Zapruder film with scratches and fuzzy grain to match, this tells us that at some point during World War I, a French-born, New Orleans-based clockmaker was commissioned to make a piece for the train station, and he deliberately made a clock that ticked backwards, “so that the boys we lost in the war might come home again.” An initially befuddled crowd is thus turned awestruck and appreciative, to which the clockmaker barks in a heavily accented monotone: “I hope you enjoy my clock.”
Cut to 1918, the last day of that war, and the birth of a baby “with all the infirmities not of a newborn but of a man well into his 80s, on the way to the grave”. When the mother dies in childbirth, the freaked-out father snatches the baby out of its cradle and runs it over to the back porch of an old age home, where it’s tripped over by the proprietor, Queenie. Because Queenie is a magical negro, she ignores her boyfriend’s non-interventionist admonitions and takes the baby in, raising it as her own kin.
“You never know what’s coming for you,” Queenie intones portentously when this opportunity arises. It’s a line that’ll be repeated throughout the film a number of times, and in the context of the film’s big fake Southern accents and big fake period detail, it plays like a whimsical, pie-eyed rewrite of the thesis statement of last year’s Best Picture winner; “You can’t stop what’s coming.”
What’s coming, of course, is that this aged baby will, thanks to the magic of a performance capture process developed for this purpose, slowly grow into a flawless specimen of man in the form of Brad Pitt. With few exceptions, the technology that puts Brad Pitt’s head on the body of other actors for the first quarter of the film (to describe the process with more finesse would be to give the philosophy behind it too much credit) achieves its intended result: it fools the eye, it almost looks real enough to drown out the inner knowledge that it is not real at all. But it’s hard not to question whether or not this lavish effects process is really necessary, if it’s anything more than a show-offy gimmick. In the last section of the film, when Benjamin ages backward from drinking age to infancy, he’s played by child actors who bear a resemblence to Pitt but aren’t asked to digitally wear his face. Fincher obviously thought pure casting was sufficient for his final act, so why wasn’t it good enough for his first?
Even if one were able to completely get over the gimmickry that makes that verisimilitude possible, there’s still something that feels off about this first section of the film, in the way the characters often seem to interact with Benjamin as if playing to the back row of a theater instead of to a person, smaller than them and right there in close quarters. This sense of a disconnect dissipates as the character ages and becomes more recognizably embodied by Pitt, but Fincher never goes long without finding an excuse to let an effect fill the frame and distract from what’s going on between people. In one of the first scenes where Benjamin is actually connecting to someone on an intimate level, he does so amidst a fog of almost comicly painterly CGI snow. A few scenes later, a hummingbird (which, it’s implied, carries the spirit of Button’s counterpart to Forrest Gump’s Ltnt. Dan) buzzes over a scene of World War 2 carnage, swooping across the screen like Tinkerbell. When this hummingbird popped up again, very near the end of the film, I half expected it to be wearing a tiny little Brad Pitt visage.
Though the use of certain of these effects may be unprecedented, there is precedent to the genre of the romantic effects epic, and while I’m not the biggest fan of Titanic, or Peter Jackson’s King Kong, those films succeed on a level where Button fails: their spectacular effects serve to support the romance at the core of the story, while Button’s effects only get in the way. The inner evolution of the characters seems incidental to Fincher. Increasingly as the film wears on, it seems as though the crux of each scene is the juxtaposition of a slightly younger Brad Pitt with a slightly older Cate Blanchett, and Fincher seems to move from one juxtaposition to next as quickly as possible as if he’s convinced that if he just hits every point on his predetermined timeline, the relationship itself will happen organically. It doesn’t.
And this isn’t fully the fault of the effects. There’s no doubt that Fincher is in love with his imagery (this is the only explanation I can come up with for that chaos theory sequence, which plays as nothing but a flaunting of Fincher’s contractual right to final cut), but he doesn’t seem to trust it. Eric Roth’s script tells us over and over again, in very literal language and often via narration, that this is a film about loneliness and difference. Every feeling and every story detail is telegraphed in advance, underlined throughout and commented on after the fact.
Button is the opposite of Pitt’s last Oscar hopeful in that respect: The Assassination of Jesse James was a film in which every frame seemed to invite contemplation. Benjamin Button is a film in which every cut seems designed to block thought. Maybe the earlier film’s failure says it all about the philosophy behind Button’s construction: for audiences and Oscar voters, thinking is bad. Spoon-fed artifice is good.
Kevin Buist
FilmCouch #114: The Final Show
Christopher Campbell
5 Independent Films That Dared Open...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
TWO LOVERS on DVD
Paul Moore
SITA SINGS THE BLUES available free...
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
Your assumption is correct; I have not yet seen this movie.
Hey,
I’m disappointed you did not enjoy Button since I am incredibly excited for this film. After reading this, I was wondering what your feelings are on Fincher’s other films that rely heavily on the use of special effects like Zodiac and Panic Room?
Thanks for an unapologetic deflation of yet another picture that will invite gigabytes of chin-stroking blogscussion, and a “Round 1.”, “2.”, “3.”’s worth of GreenCine Daily links — what with 95% of the blogosphere assuming, as it does, a veneer of ‘intellectualism, in the guise of concerted consideration’ that would serve to obfuscate what are basically middle-brow compulsions to indulge A BIG ERECT YEN for American Hollywood. –
– An entity I would be happy, incidentally, to see choke to total death on the nitrate fumes of the history it’s banished and the talents it’s marginalized.
Long live those who embraced Erich Stroheim in friendship.
craig keller.
- “thinking is bad. Spoon-fed artifice is good.”
If you honestly believe that movies are worth intellectual investment you should get involved in something that’s truly mentally stimulating and productive.
When I was a teenager I used to look for really wise films to attempt to prove to my peers how smart I was. The truth is that I was just a regular dumb fuck watching vague films that could have been interpreted any which way. Luckily I didn’t resort to criticizing people’s years of hard work in the form of some shitty blog.
And hey, If you truly believe in what you’re selling here, and you think you know what makes a film good or bad, perhaps you should attempt to create a better film. I’d love to see it.
[...] • Failing to understand that “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” actually DIDN’T screen for a “larger portion of the press,” and having bashed “Changeling” for all the wrong reasons earlier in the season, Karina Longworth launches into a dismissal of David Fincher’s film. [Spout Blog] [...]
Well, you thought Changeling is bad either, so seeing how people in general positivly reacted to that one, I somehow do not beleive your judgement!
Well observed, yet I can’t agree with you.
You’ve seen the movie, I haven’t.
Judging by Fincher’s work, his preoccupation with film language is something that bothers you. It is one of his strengths, his visualization skills, and thus Benjamin Button would benefit from this.
BB is old style hollywood formula dressed by top of the line technology, an update of the old fabric. Can’t judge the movie that I haven’t seen it, but I wished you would have juxtaposed this concept instead of validating what it’s like going against the grain. I respect your opinions, await judgement once the film opens.
Nice review, i think i will agree with you once i see it. i’ll be seeing it for the artifice, while fully aware it is spoon fed. kind of of sad, but it looks sooooo pretty, can’t resist.
Having attended yesterday’s screening at Paramount, I cannot tell you how well you have summed up the film’s numerous problems. It was thin, superficial, and overlong, and its similarities with Gump are indeed numerous and depressing.
“Watching Benjamin Button, occasionally I actively loathed it, but mostly I just felt genuinely disappointed that it seemed so lacking in genuine feeling. I’m a realist”
“Button is the opposite of Pitt’s last Oscar hopeful in that respect: The Assassination of Jesse James was a film in which every frame seemed to invite contemplation. Benjamin Button is a film in which every cut seems designed to block thought. Maybe the earlier film’s failure says it all about the philosophy behind Button’s construction: for audiences and Oscar voters, thinking is bad. Spoon-fed artifice is good.”
You sound like a collage freshman raging against the old fogies in ACADEMY in order to bolster your cred as a rebel.
Good for you. You are SOO COOL.
PS can I change my name to Fincherrimjobgiver.
I love the knee-jerk defenses made (tantrums thrown) by people who admit outright to not having seen the film.
[...] · “Watching Benjamin Button, occasionally I actively loathed it, but mostly I just felt genuinely disappointed that it seemed so lacking in genuine feeling. [...] Button is the opposite of Pitt’s last Oscar hopeful in that respect: The Assassination of Jesse James was a film in which every frame seemed to invite contemplation. Benjamin Button is a film in which every cut seems designed to block thought. Maybe the earlier film’s failure says it all about the philosophy behind Button’s construction: for audiences and Oscar voters, thinking is bad. Spoon-fed artifice is good.” — Karina Longworth, Spout [...]
You review!
We drink!
You review again!
We drink again!
We sing of your insight and chuck up our breakfasts!
(Change your photo. You look like you live on sour grapes.)
[...] Longworth of Spout: “Watching ‘Benjamin Button,’ occasionally I actively loathed it, but mostly I [...]
[...] to their opinion and while many other critics had remarkably positive comments Karina Longworth of Spout in contrast had this to say: Watching Benjamin Button, occasionally I actively loathed it, but [...]
So Eric Roth sorta-rips himself off in extrapolating a bizarre vat of shiny human treacle from a Fitzgerald short story, and he’s set to take home Oscar no. 2? Depressing…
I’m likely not the only one who hopes that either “Slumdog Millionaire” or “Revolutionary Road” topples “Button,” the way i assume fans of “Quiz Show,” “Shawshank Redemption” or “Pulp Fiction” were gunning to take down “Gump.”
In the end, you make the oldies cry or retink their comfy, bubbled, blessed lives, you got your award. And that seems to be what Roth (assisted by the nearly for-hire Fincher) has achieved here.
“…thanks to the magic of a performance capture process developed for this purpose, slowly grow into a flawless specimen of man in the form of Brad Pitt. With few exceptions, the technology that puts Brad Pitt’s head on the body of other actors for the first quarter of the film (to describe the process with more finesse would be to give the philosophy behind it too much credit) achieves its intended result: it fools the eye, it almost looks real enough to drown out the inner knowledge that it is not real at all.”
again you comment on the VFX of this film without any apparent understanding of it’s origins or technique at all…
the technology was NOT developed for this film - there have been plenty of articles on the VFX for BB, try Google…
if you found the VFX in the film distracting or unconvincing - that’s fine, based on your perceptions…but just stick to saying that…but please, saying “to describe the process with more finesse would be to give the philosophy behind it too much credit” is a huge cop out…and actually doesn’t mean what you think it means…if anything at all…
[...] Brad Pitt in THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON Take a LOOK at the newest and last trailer to THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON. The film, directed by DAVID FINCHER (Zodiac), is getting a lot of Oscar buzz. Brad Pitt, starring as a man who ages backwards, has a Forest Gump like feel (its screenplay was written by Gump’s Eric Roth) and should be a top attraction when it hits theaters on Dec 25. While most of the early reviews are very positive, there have been a few detractors who say the movie has a coldness that might turn some people off. Here are two raves from Variety and Entertainment Weekly, and one negative from Karina Longworth of Spout. [...]
Saw a press screening in Seattle on Tuesday night. Totally in agreement. I thought there was no emotional connection with the characters. The suspension of disbelief worked on occasion, but because I felt nothing for the characters, all I focused on was how amazing the effects were (They were pretty amazing). I wanted a tear jerker and there wasn’t even a tug. Best parts were the guy who gets hit by lightning. This was Forrest Gump II.
I have not yet seen the film, but it seems to me that you chose to hate this movie arbitrarily, (most likely because of the huge hype surrounding this movie.) Whats interesting is that your review of this movie is so poorly thought out, so obviously the product of a less than capable mind, that I don’t even have to see the movie to talk about what you said about it.
It seems like you can’t say “this isn’t my thing” and move on, because the reasons you give for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button being a bad example of filmmaking are flimsy and vague at best, and, in my opinion, just you talking out of your ass in order to look like film critic.
I know you consider yourself much, much better than “the masses” you refer to, but, even if that WERE true, is that really a valid reason to hate a film? Just because people who “don’t understand movies” like a given movie does not automatically make it “lacking in genuine feeling” or “spoon-fed artifice.” And to accuse Oscar voters (and audiences in general) of hating movies that provoke thought on a deeper level is, well, absolutely absurd, and is a demonstration of YOUR lack of thinking skills, and your over-abundance of narcissism and snobbery.
Almost all of the best picture noms for last year were tremendous films, and SEVERAL of them definitely made me think. NONE of them were what people like you would call “mindless entertainment.” This said, I don’t think that the Academy Awards are always 100% fair, or even always “right” or the best choice, (how could they be?) But I will say that it really infuriates me to read people like you talking about Oscar voters being inane and having tunnel vision when it comes to voting for films they feel deserve recognition. It’s not like you have better taste in movies than them. And from the majority of their past choices, they certainly appear to be alot more logical and holistic than you.
Another thing: Is there something wrong with setting your film in the south? Or with actors using southern accents while speaking in a film? Because it’s one thing to judge the execution of something, and something else entirely to simply dislike a piece of art because of the style, setting, tone, themes, or content that the artist chose. In and of themselves, these things cannot be good or bad. Again, if you are just tired of something, or personally don’t like something, (apparently movies set in the South? Did you have a bad experience there?) then you can just SAY that like an honest critic, instead of making Eric Roth sound like a moron because he chose to set this story in the same place that F. Scott Fitzgerald originally set HIS short story in. Are you going to whine about HIM too? Because that would actually make a lot more sense.
Also, and you may not be aware of this fact, but finding a baby who looks like an old man and who talks could be a little problem for the people who cast this movie. Are you really completely clueless? I mean, you ask why David Fincher used real kids at the end of the movie to portray the reverse aging Benjamin Button, and why wasn’t “it good enough” to simply do this for the beginning of the film? Are you serious? How else could this character have been shown? Because if you have the answer to that, maybe you should switch from writing bullshit movie reviews and start making a living off being some sort of special effects advisor. Oh, I know you love bashing the special effects in this movie, (in this case, because they supposedly get in the way of the “romance” of the movie, whatever the heck that is supposed to mean, I think even you don’t know what you are talking about,) but I’m sorry, your comment, (”Fincher obviously thought pure casting was sufficient for his final act, so why wasn’t it good enough for his first?”) actually made me laugh at loud and cringe at the same time.
This review demonstrates not only your sad lack of intelligence or knowledge, (forget film, you obviously don’t even understand ART in general,) but also a strange bitterness and an apparent desire to bash, criticize, and denounce any film that could even come close to being called “mainstream.”
I suggest that tonight, as you sit alone, watching pretentious, art-house films that you yourself don’t even like, that you think about what your goals are as a movie reviewer, because they seem to completely lack artistic integrity in any way, shape, or form. And someone who doesn’t understand the huge responsibility of being a critic doesn’t deserve to be one.
Wow, wow, wow. The last post by Derek was something else. I mean you do know this is a review blog, right?
I assume Derek works for the production or maybe one of the principal’s agents because otherwise Derek wouldn’t be such a pit bull.It has all the earmarks of a street teamer complete with the “go watch you pretentious art films” remark at the end. Its the kind of Internet bullying that was originally developed at Miramax and now seems to be de riguer for all Oscar bait films these days.
I will probably never view another Fincher film because of obvious bullying he and Paramount have done in order to promote this film. Seriously, if he spent as much time on storytelling craft as he did on telling everyone how brilliant he is he might make a decent film some day instead of the mindless thrillers he dresses up as art with his endless supply of student film tricks.
I love these upset comments from people who haven’t actually seen this movie. Guys, it’s contrived and painful to watch. I was at the infamous canceled DGA screening and you could hear a note of quiet panic in the audience when it appeared that we may have to rewatch the first 20 minutes following a projection problem. The movie fails to resemble real human emotions in rare and painful ways and everyone knew it. When they finally canceled the screening no one seemed very disappointed and quite a few people were visibly relieved. I doubt very much that it will win any awards. Nominations, sure, but these things are more or less preordained. Deal with it.
Just screened this at the DGA and I second the majority of the ideas you put forth. Overall the movie is artificial and fails to satisfy. Over the past two years I’ve tried numerous times to read the first draft of the screenplay - to be fair, it was a first draft vs. a later draft - but couldn’t get through it; so my expectations weren’t high. Despite being ignorant of the writer’s history on first read, I immediately thought the text read like ‘Forrest Gump.’ Which of course was quickly explained by a film credits check.
Both Hummingbird (a.k.a. Forest Gump feather) and snow are ridiculous. The sequences toward the end between the leads wherein their ages are close and there is less makeup/CGI and more acting are the best and do manage to coax out some catharsis, but a few scenes does not a film make. I had a difficult time with the way the opening is shot/treated in general. Even some of the vocal mixing drove me crazy. I was tired of all the montages and voice over. And I happened to like ‘Forrest Gump’ and ‘Titanic’ just fine for studio films. ‘Button’ simply isn’t as good as either in terms of similar tactics.
The budget on this is way off scale. I don’t see this as a smart risk to be supported, as some “reviewers” have suggested. Movies like ‘The Fountain’ deserve the support-this-because-studios-should-take-more-risks-like-this title, not ‘Button.’ This project has been through numerous writers and directors over the last decade and, finance-wise, seems to run amuck.
Anyway, nearly all wide-release studio movies with marketing budgets are poor in quality. The Oscars are just another part of that system: Of course stuff like this will do well when the studio is already in enough to anti-up on prestige marketing campaigns and the bar is so low. It’s a shame; the literary idea behind the film’s theme is interesting and universal, the execution just isn’t high-minded enough to do the worthwhile ideas justice. And yes, that makes it (to agree again) gimmicky.
I saw it last night. I also found the hummingbird device a wee tacky, but otherwise completely disagree with you. I totally enjoyed this as …surprise… a movie. I don’t get too bent on the particulars unless something is so annoying (like Titanic which seemed like too much fluff and sugar crammed down your throat all at once, or Kong Kong which was a beautiful looking overwrought mess imo) that I can’t stay in the film. That said some people will like this some won’t. The snarky 20 something (not saying all 20 somethings are snarky mind you) after the film doing his best (bad) bayou accent talking about all the “pussy he gets as an old creepy man” tells me that it’s not going to hit for certain age groups. I’m a bit older and deal with some of the main themes in my life now that 10 years ago I might not have. And that - of course- affects my take on viewing it. I guess my only comment on your take is that JUST because a film can be enjoyed by many people and you don’t have to work for it (and I’m a fan of many types of film making) doesn’t make it bad either. Frankly “Button” does make me think, if not for days on end. And maybe it has led me to a very specific set of thoughts as opposed to free ranging it, but that’s ok too. Not every cinema experience has to challenge me. I can handily move from “There Will Be Blood” to “Madagascar 2″ (yep - I have a kid) and enjoy them for what they offer artistically. I will say I’d see this film again but have no desire to see “No Country For Old Men” again even though I recognize it’s genius. Sometimes I just want a plate of entertainment with a side of good old fashioned storytelling. And this fits the bill for me.
I am going to say mysteriously that I’ve seen this film…and it is bad.
Really bad. Boring. slow. pointless. after it is done being boring slow and pointless - it becomes more boring, slower, and adds a pointless b-plot.
And i really wanted this film to be good. But it is just bad, Bad, Bad.
I watched Benjamin Button last night and was really bored by this film. At 2 hours and 50 minutes it is way to long. I did enjoy the production quality of this film which was wonderful. I had a much better time watching the detail of the sets and costumes. The best part of the movie was the lighting strikes which broke up the slow moving story.
The Forrest Gump comparison can be made only because most of the film is narrated by the title character as was Gump. With Gump you hung on each word waiting for the story to unfold. With Button, you really don’t care.
This is a slow moving boring story. Don’t waste your money on this one.
To be fair, The Assassination of Jesse James didn’t invite contemplation (the whole opening is just telling the audience what they’re watching), as much as leave plenty of room for thinking in its wandering, tedious narrative.
“big fake period detail”
a lot of what you wrote made sense, but not this. this is a beautifully designed production. i don’t know where you get the “fake”ness.
i also don’t see much support for this:
“a film in which every cut seems designed to block thought”
Why didn’t he end the film as a giant man-baby? If he’s born as a child and old, then wouldn’t it make sense to die a man-baby?
This film would have been better as a comedy.
Wow, surprised that anyone else noticed this. After watching the film I felt so put off by the musical score, and the fact that the entire time I was able to compare it to Forest Gump that I had to Google it. Sure enough, here it is, a direct comparison to Forest Gump. If you check out the movie, the musical score near the end of the film seemed like an insane mixed bag. Instead of emotional sweeping epics during scenes of sadness, sorrow, or emotion, we’re given strange oddities that sound like they came straight out of a sci-fi flick.
You said that a man and his son coincidentally exit a whore house at the same time, but that is wrong because the very first time Benjamin sees daisy get out of the car his father is there with his driver checking on him. So really his dad has been keeping an eye on him since he left him at the retirment home.
From the way you wrote, it seemed as if you were ready to hate the movie before you even saw it. If you point out every litttle bad thing of course it’s going to seem terrible. You’re not a realist, you’re a pessimist
I enjoyed Benjamin Button merely for its premise. While I can completely understand why Katrina finds the film’s central premise to be a gimmick, I find nothing wrong with a gimmick if it’s interesting. Where Katrina is right though is that the gimmick in this film is unsupported. While I may have enjoyed watching a man go through life getting younger, my enjoyment of the film was left to my imagination. I only got through the three hours by imagining how grueling it must be to be Benjamin. I love a film that takes it’s time to tell a story, but Benjamin Button seems more like a series of vignettes rather than a linear tale. With a script that really has no plot, snapshots of someone’s life are hard to suffice. Still, I did not hate it. Sometimes the enticing experience of watching a beautiful film unfold is enough to enjoy despite the script’s faults.
I do agree with other comments that it made no sense for Ben to be born an infant and also die as one. I was so looking forward to seeing a six-foot baby on screen. Not for comedic value but for the same reason it was interesting to see a two-foot old man.
I don’t really understand why so many of this blog’s comments are angry at Katrina for not liking the film. If she had merely said “it sucks because there wasn’t enough nudity or violence,” I could understand someone’s contempt. However, Katrina articulately stated why she didn’t enjoy it and gave legitimate examples from the film to support her notion. What more can you ask of her?
An average movie is an average movie, and that is what this is.
No heart, way too long, and mawkishly sentimental to insulting levels.
They so ripped off this idea of “aging backwards” from Star Trek The Next Generation. Season 1 Episode 16. Only difference is there is a plausible scientific reason. Neat story though, no matter who came up with it first.
My wife didnt speak through all of this film (cannt be bad)