Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2009 May
2009 April
2009 March
2009 January
2008 December
2008 November
2008 October
2008 July
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 February
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 May
2007 April
2007 March
2007 February
2007 January
2006 December
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| The Curious Case of Benjamin Button :Movie Review and Critique Christine Albrecht |
| 01.16.09 (1:36 am) [edit] |
|
Visit SwanktrendzRead Fitzgerald's Original Story Here.
Directed by David Fincher Original Story written by F. Scott Fitzgerald Starring: Brad Pitt (Benjamin) Cate Blanchett (Daisy) Julia Ormand (daughter) Before launching into a nit-picking, plot-questioning critique of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, I wanted to share a few film, and theatre odds and ends with the readers. The 2008 release of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (here on in noted as 'The Curious Case...') provides an interesting twist to the original short story (written by F. Scott Fitzgerald, in 1921). Ray Stark held onto his "The Curious Case..." screenplay for years. Years after Stark's '04 death, David Fincher purchased, directed, and released 'The Curious Case...' to rave reviews - especially for its artistic efforts in costume and make up.I purposely went to the 4:30 p.m., Boxing Day show, at Langley's Colosseus Cinema (during a nasty snow storm) envisioning a deserted theatre, mine for the taking. Instead, I turned the corner and found a packed house. I clearly underestimated the average movie-goer's fortitude, or the loyalty of a Brad Pitt/ Cate Blanchett fan. Then again, perhaps movie-goers are a hardy group who ascribe to the same creed as postal workers. While watching this movie, I mentally hummed the chorus to an old tune by The Faces entitled, Ooh La La. "I wish that I knew what I know now... when I was younger..."Who hasn't had a brief yearning to go back in time, yet be empowered with one's current knowledge? Through Benjamin Button's eyes, we're granted a brief replay of past dangerous naivety and interludes of awkwardness. However, this time we are empowered with wisdom and experience. Through Benjamin Button, we are able to step in and address - or wisely let pass - situations as they naturally unfold and present themselves.After viewing "The Curious Case..." I was unable to gauge any kind of audience reaction, as this movie threw a heavy blanket of silence on everyone. I have never attended a show where the audience didn't verbally assess the experience on their way out. If quiet introspection was capable of sound - like a car horn - our exiting would be on par with a New York Taxi Drivers' convention. A cacophony of deep thought.Both the book and the movie version of "The Curious Case ..." contain the line "I was born under unusual circumstances..." and this is where the similarities end. I readily admit that I understand the purpose of the differences as I am not fond of Fitzgerald's main, brazen character.We all hate getting older, but who would actually want to get younger as they progress through life? To knowingly await the agonies of painful adolescence? Experiencing the powerlessness and dependency of early childhood, while still cognizant of the lifetime one had experienced? No thanks. Yet that is what Brad Pitt has managed to portray to viewers, while maintaining a thoughtful and quiet acceptance of his fate.I have glanced through critics' reviews of the movie, and I am confused by their disregard of the glaring discrepancies between the book and the movie. I will be the movie reviewer to address the Benjamin Button elephant in the room because, after all, he's huge!Benjamin Button had the misfortune (or to some, good fortune) to be born an old man. Our character enters this world as a baby, albeit an arthritic, slow moving, cataract impaired newborn. The movie dramatically shows Benjamin being rejected by his father (after his mother dies during his birth) and subsequently abandoned. The book has Benjamin being emotionally abandoned, but nonetheless, remaining at home where his old-man behaviours are a source of embarrassment to his father who constantly demands that Benjamin behave more childlike. Aside from peripheral characters entering and leaving Benjamin during his formative years (which helps explain his varied education and philosophies) the book and movie differ in many other areas. The most serious digression from the original is in Benjamin's aging process. Fitzgerald has his protagonist born with an 85 year-old's thoughts, behaviour and attitude whereas Fincher's movie has the character physically representing an 85 year-old, but mentally on par with a newborn. As the book-Benjamin becomes more immature, in keeping with his age defying appearance, the movie Benjamin becomes more worldly and wise while physically regressing.I understand the reasoning behind Pincher's version of Benjamin Button's aging. Overall, Fitzgerald's original character is not a likable guy; meanwhile there's something bittersweet in watching movie-Benjamin experience his first drink, first love, etc. as an 18 year-old man housed in the body of a 65 year-old senior. Movie-Benjamin is more appealing to the average viewer than 7 year-old, book-Benjamin smoking cigars, cursing, and leering at woman.The movie contains a few changes that I didn't understand as necessary. Why is Benjamin abandoned at an old folks' home in the care a single, financially strapped, black woman (Taraji P Henson)? Henson delivers an outstanding performance as Benjamin's adoptive mother, Queenie, but how necessary was this change to the story's telling? I am grateful for the entertainment of the old folks' home setting as it allowed for a nice introduction to the developing love story between Daisy (Cate Blanchett) and Benjamin (Brad Pitt). As well, some of the seniors residing alongside Benjamin at the home, provided the much needed comic relief during an otherwise somber movie. For example, the comedic, intermittent presence of "The General" whose self-introductory line to Benjamin is consistently, "Did you know I've been struck by lightning 7 times?" We are then given a visual of The General being struck.I wondered if the writer(s) felt Benjamin wouldn't have been able to explore his 'firsts' during early manhood if his parents were around, or more vigilant? (However, that implies adoptive/foster parents are less aware of their children's behaviour or whereabouts.) As well, why couldn't his movie father have maintained the book father's hardware business? Why did the movie allow a simplistic 'button manufacturer' as the family business? As well, if they wanted Benjamin to be perceived as an abandoned orphan, why reintroduce his father (aside from to explain an inheritance)? Finally, although less melodramatic, the movie's ending would be equally touching to view baby-Benjamin nestled in bed, near his Nana in the home of his son, Roscoe (book), than in the arms of his lover, Daisy (movie). I will admit I was sucked into the movie's predictable moment when infant Benjamin and aged Daisy lock eyes, and exchange a fleeting moment of complete recognition and acknowledgement. Like a silent farewell. So corny, yet so wonderful, necessitating the folded arms, stare-at-the-ceiling-and- blink-rapidly, stance.I have always enjoyed Brad Pitt's acting yet I sympathize with him as his undeniable good looks immediately discount any acting talent he possesses; forcing him to work three times harder than the likes of Tom Hanks, Sean Penn, or Jack Nicholson. Cate Blanchett is a perfect counter-partner for Pitt, visually and in spirit and timing. The make-up/ visual effects artists responsible for the characters' aging demonstrated remarkable talent, as they allowed us to witness the characters realistically age, or de-age in Benjamin's case. Daisy gracefully ages from the feisty, stunning dancer to a bedridden senior resisting removal from her hospital care during the Hurricane Katrina disaster.Julia Ormond's character (as Benjamin's and Daisy's daughter) was so milquetoast, she could have been invisible. She was simply the vessel whose questions allowed Daisy to recollect and share her untold youth. Throughout the flashbacks of Daisy's recollections, I had difficulty determining which time period showed Pitt's and Blanchett's characters as they are in reality. The make-up effects should merit an Oscar nod. I suppose, in order to make money, it was decided that "The Curious Case..." should evolve as a love story, one which supports the 'love can surpass both time and age' rather than keep with F. Scott Fitzgerald's razor-sharp, sardonic look at society's celebration of youth, and open disdain towards aging. If that story had been kept, there wouldn't be much to love as book-Benjamin figuratively holds a mirror up to a class-conscious society, thus reflecting the absurdity of placing importance upon appearance and material accumulation. Both the book and the movie do drive home the importance of character. It's what inside that counts. Movie-Benjamin has 'character' in spades.I enjoyed the movie, just as I enjoyed the short story (see link to story below), and I am grateful that never the two did meet. The two versions are so vastly different; combined, it couldn't have worked. Perhaps someone will come forth with a modified 3rd version; one which nicely melds the original and movie version. I have heard there is another story out which offers more depth to Fitzgerald's original plot. Perhaps this is the third view I am searching for. It is also titled the The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and is written by Nunzio DeFilippis and Christina Weir (with illustrations by Kevin Cornell). For scenic views, Pitt's and Blanchett's artistically balanced acting, masterful make-up (10/10), and for allowing Benjamin to be portrayed as a likable character, I give the movie 8.5/10
|
posted by: OldSchool (reply)
post date: 01.23.09 (6:56 am)
I enjoyed this movie very much (even more than I had expected to). My only complaint was the length. Long movies don't bother me, but it does bother me when I feel some scenes are unnecessary or could have been condensed without losing advancement or the plot or character development. I thought that there could have been a half hour easily edited out of this film and it still would have been just as great. Other than that, I really cannot complain too much.
I will be cheering for this film to win the Oscar for Best Picture (but I have not seen Slumdog yet). Mickey Rourke is amazing in The Wrestler and I highly recommend seeing that performance.
Thanks for the in depth review.
posted by: swanktrendz (reply)
post date: 01.30.09 (1:59 am)
I agree - when my bottom begins to go numb, that's a warning. I had attached a copy of Fitzgerald's original story. Give it a read and tell me what you think.