Release Date: Dec. 25
Director: David Fincher
Writer: Eric Roth (story by Eric Roth and Robin Swicord)
Cinematographer: Claudio Miranda
Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Taraji P. Henson, Julia Ormond, Tilda Swinton
Studio Information: Paramount Pictures, 159 mins.
Because of a crazy clock built to run
backward, Benjamin Button was born with a strange malady. This is not
the sort of thing we question in a film like this. We simply accept
it and move on. He starts his life with the wrinkled skin and
arthritic joints of an old man and seems to look and feel younger as
he ages. As Arthur says of Merlyn in Lerner and Loewe’s Camelot,
"He lives backward. He doesn't age. He youthens."
Based loosely on an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is indeed a curious case. Directed by David Fincher (Zodiac, Fight Club) and written by Eric Roth (Forrest Gump, The Horse Whisperer), the film is strangely mundane given the fantastical premise.
Unlike Fitzgerald's character, this Benjamin begins and ends his life the size of a baby. In text, Fitzgerald had the freedom to make the weird newborn as big as a seventy-year-old man (he just skipped the details of the birth), but Fincher leans toward something more realistic, you could say, by trying to visualize Benjamin literally, inspiring an impressive slate of special effects but a distinct lack of imagination.
How strange to see Brad Pitt's face on a shriveled old body, the film seems to say. How strange to see him resemble Robert Redford—at different ages—or an elderly Henry Fonda. And even when Pitt inevitably syncs up with his character's physical appearance, allowing the effects to recede for a time, the freak show curiosity lingers in absentia: how will Brad look when Benjamin has the face of a teen? How will they do it?
Maybe it's my own fault for wondering about the facade instead of paying more attention to the romance and the life lessons, but I can't help thinking Fincher set us up to wonder about the surface and little else. Born in 1918, Benjamin lives through a depression and several wars, and he maintains a strong connection to a nursing home run by his adopted mother (the place where he spends his formative years), but he's an idle observer to most events. "You're so young," his life-long girl Daisy (Cate Blanchett) says after a long separation, and in that soft, aww-shucks way of his, he replies, "Only on the outside."
What's on the inside, I really can't say. Animatronics, perhaps. Or maybe a couple bushels of buttons from his father's factory. You'd think that someone who lives backward would approach his high school and college years, the years when he looks like a young man, with an odd blend of wisdom and inexperience, wisdom gained from his sixty-some years on the earth but inexperience from using fresh muscles for new tricks. But Benjamin is as bland and passive in those years as he is the rest of the film; his supremely unusual circumstances don't have any noticeable effect on his outlook.
It's only when poor Benjamin shrinks to the size of a newborn late in his life and curls helpless in Daisy's arms that the movie achieves a weird poetic hum, a sadly busted-up situation for a couple of sweethearts who had the misfortune of being star-crossed by reverse aging. (Plus, hurricane Katrina is bearing down on Daisy’s reminiscence. She’s got hellish timing.) There's symbolism in that motherly embrace, I suppose (the nurturing lover whose drive to coddle her man enables his unfortunate childishness), but those are themes that exist nowhere else in the film. Curiously, they echo the plight of Forrest Gump's girl, Jenny, but after hours of empty special effects and golden-hued sets, this philosophical conundrum amounts to a tiny non sequitur, a clever couplet at the end of a mind-numbing soliloquy.
Watch the trailer for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button:


Here's your problem and, in my opinion, the problem for a host of reviewers these days: Forget the technical stuff, get into the story. Use your imagination. You know, that part of our nature which allows us to be scared, say, without actually seeing the head being lopped off - if you get my meaning. Being "curious" about the cgi effects probably caused you to miss most of the subtlties of the film. Go see it again and open your mind.
DH, I wish the filmmakers had taken your advice. Lumping me in with "a host of reviewers these days" based on one review isn't encouraging me to see the film again, but someone else whose views I respect has made me spend a little more time wrestling with it. (See here.) But understand that I've thought a great deal about the movie, and just ignoring certain aspects of it probably won't change my opinion.
isn't it against the critic's code of etiquette to write condescending replies to internet comments? "someone else whose views I respect"? well now i know not to include you under that heading. pompous ass
Oops, no that's not quite how I meant that comment. The critics oath actually requires that we write our own vows, and mine say that I'm supposed to write flippant remarks without caution, as described in the subsection on like-kind exchanges. I'll always regret taking that pledge, but what's done is done.
To try again: DH has not convinced me to see the film again, in part because I'm not sure he's made an accurate diagnosis of my problem, in part because I was already prepared to love the film the first time, and in part because his complaint about the review is pretty similar to my complaint about the film: less emphasis on the gloss, more emphasis on the substance, please. However, since some folks whom I know from some other arena -- and whose work I have long followed -- also like the film, I've given it another round of wrestling. At some point I'll likely see it again, but for now there are other movies I'd rather spend time with. There are movies in theaters right now that do move me and make me think -- and whose mysteries are still unfolding -- so they're higher up on my list.
There's a lot to like, but asking audiences to engage with the film for nearly three hours is asking them to like it a lot.
I think part of our generation's problem is we focus too much on the "visual" - HDTV, CGI, how well or how poorly special effects were used... we lose track of the story. While I realize it's a film and ultimately supposed to be visual at some point we have to remember it is an art form and good art can and should make us think. There is a distinct difference between a movie and a film. In our newer-better-faster-I-have-to-have-it-now-society we want everything explained to us in black and white without any contemplation involved. It's a shame when even the critics don't want to take the time to think anymore. But then - I never listen to them anyway. I like to think for myself...
Benjamin Button was very Fincher-esque... almost as good as his other stuff if not for some nagging plot holes
I loved this movie. I just wished that Benjamin had an angry freak out moment, just for a moment. Why couldn't he lead a normal life like everyone else, why did he have to have this strange ailment?
Good call on the Henry Fonda and Robert Redford look-a-likes. It was sorta freaking me out a little bit.