Friday, December 26, 2008

Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button


Dir. David Fincher
Starring: Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett

Grade: B

F. Scott Fitzgerald, author of the 1921 short story on which the film is (loosely…very loosely) based describes the meeting between father and newborn son in the “crying room” of a hospital thus:

Mr. Button's eyes followed her pointing finger, and this is what he saw. Wrapped in a voluminous white blanket, and partly crammed into one of the cribs, there sat an old man apparently about seventy years of age. His sparse hair was almost white, and from his chin dripped a long smoke-coloured beard, which waved absurdly back and forth, fanned by the breeze coming in at the window. He looked up at Mr. Button with dim, faded eyes in which lurked a puzzled question.

I include this passage because, save for some fundamental elements, Eric Roth’s script is far from a faithful adaptation of the Fitzgerald original. So for you purists out there, this movie might not be for you. If you want to check out the short story (or re-visit it), click here. Glad that’s settled.

But this most curious film might not even be for non-purists, for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” while a substantial triumph of CGI technology, is under all the beautiful imagery an ultimately unsatisfying cinematic experience. While some of the performances are beautiful, and even charming at times, the film comes up short in the end. The film explores what it would be like to experience life backwards, but when the subject appears to be as emotionally disconnected from most of the people and events around him as Brad Pitt’s Button is, it’s tough for the audience to make an emotional investment that goes, for the most part, unrewarded. More...

The Plot

After setting up a clunky framing story and the film’s narrative device, which consists of a young woman called Caroline (a sleep-walking Julia Ormond) reading to her elderly mother, Daisy (an unrecognizable Cate Blanchett) aloud from Benjamin Button’s diary, the movie gets going with a beautifully imaginative sequence. Affecting a Hollywood Southern accent, we hear Pitt as Benjamin Button, who introduces the reader to a blind clockmaker named Monsieur Gateau (Elias Koteas) who is commissioned to manufacture a large clock to be featured in a local train station in New Orleans. This soft-spoken man and his wife raise a young boy who, as most young boys of that era, eventually goes off to fight in WWI. As he continues his work on the clock, the man learns that his son has died. Utterly distraught, he finishes the clock, but this is not an ordinary clock: it moves backward. In a low-key, terse speech, the man explains that this was done intentionally and as a tribute to all the young soldiers who perished fighting in the war. This speech is accompanied by images of the war in reverse motion, evoking in me memories of Vonnegut’s backward movie sequence in “Slaughterhouse Five.”

And, with that, we are transported to the night Benjamin is born, which happens to coincide with the end of WWI. A man named Thomas Button (and the owner of a button manufacturing company), is seen running desperately amidst the celebratory crowds in the dark streets of New Orleans (transplanting Fitzgerald’s story from its Baltimore setting). Once he arrives home, Button is informed that his wife, who has just given birth, will not be making it. Button promises his dying wife to take care of their son. But upon laying eyes on the child, who he later describes as looking like a sort of monster, he grabs the screaming child and runs out of the house, looking for a place to dispose of it. While contemplating throwing his newborn baby to the river, Button is interrupted by a police officer who gives chase to him. Button ultimately ends up at the steps of a lively home, which we later learn is a home for the elderly. He leaves the helpless child there but not before hastily placing $14 in the baby’s blanket.

Fortunately for Benjamin, Queenie (a solid Taraji P. Henson) and her boyfriend find him. Queenie, who we are told cannot have children, instantly takes in Benjamin as one of her own, to the noticeable chagrin of her partner. Queenie is loving to her child, who looks like a miniature version of an elderly Jean Renoir. Through truly miraculous CGI visual effects, we see “young” Benjamin grow from a baby to a toddler, to a young boy. Notably, he has the advantage of being raised around elderly people who share many of his conditions and who imbue him with an emotionally advanced outlook on life.

In his case, it did take a village to raise young Benjamin. Growing up in loving and warm environment, he nevertheless learns about loss very early on, but also about the wisdom found in old age. As a result, Benjamin is a pensive child (and adult), observing those around him, constantly learning, but not being particularly active. Colorful characters enter and exit his life – an adventurous Pygmy, a man who has been struck by lightning seven times while doing the most mundane things (these sequences are shown in playful black and white flashbacks to hilarious effect), an opera singer with a preference for Wagner, and, later in life, a foul-mouthed tugboat captain. Still, it is Daisy, the young girl he meets as a boy, who will have the strongest effect in Benjamin’s life.

The film follows Benjamin as he leaves home to work as a sailor with a drunken Irish tugboat owner named Lieutenant Dan Captain Mike (played with gusto by Jared Harris) who introduces him to the finer things in life – visits to a brothel included. While on his travels, Benjamin meets a British woman (a fetching Tilda Swinton), with whom he shares his first taste of adult love. It is a beautifully crafted section that succeeds all of its own and could have functioned as its own movie.

Love is fleeting and mysterious, and soon Benjamin is back in the New Orleans, having experienced both heart-break and war. This is the moment where the film moves from a very effective bildungsroman to an almost conventional love story. Benjamin reconnects with Daisy, an aspiring ballerina, on more than a few occasions – but unfortunately for the two, the timing is off. Daisy receives the Jenny (from "Forrest Gump") treatment from the script: she lives life to its fullest, is bold and reckless, and so she must be punished, but her punishment is necessary (almost obligatory) to the fulfillment of the male protagonist.

The film takes us through various continents alongside Benjamin, some more successfully than others (later in the film, be it because of the camerawork, the costuming, or both, I felt like I was watching Pitt’s home movies of his well-publicized globe trotting adventures). And we all bear witness to the romance between Daisy and Benjamin – a romance that is as unlikely as it is beautiful and as heart-breaking as it is believable.

In order to avoid major spoilers, I will spare you the plot details that make up the bulk of their story or an eventual (and again, almost obligatory) revelation involving the Caroline character. Suffice it to say that to one relatively familiar with the Hollywood romance canon, there is nothing surprising about the resolution of the film’s themes since, for all of its out of this world imagery and ostensibly transcendental ideas of life and death, the film remains curiously traditional in its telling, a path that, lamentably, cheats the film out of its magical possibilities.

The Performances

The film features some wonderful performances. Taraji P. Henson is the soul of the film, but I found her character was woefully underdeveloped and in several moments I winced at having to witness a fine actor being reduced to playing what amounted to nothing more than a caricature or comic-relief. While she had some fine moments with Pitt (their mother-son talks in the dark were beautiful), her character seemed to exist solely for this. But this is more a gripe with the script than her performance. Faring much better is Tilda Swinton, who is hypnotizing as Benjamin’s first adult fling. Here’s an actress who can telegraph emotion effortlessly and gracefully and who would have been right at home on the set of "Camille" or "Queen Christina."

Perhaps the biggest disappointment in the film for me is Pitt’s performance. Pitt, who has given two of his best performances in quick succession during the past couple of years (in “Babel” and “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”) almost pulls off a miracle here, but is sold short either by the script or by the direction. After an enthralling hour and a half where we see him get used to his elderly body and drink in those around him, he quickly recedes back to a well-worn bag of tricks that amount to not much more than staring blankly and posing – or more often both. This is devastating for the film – Benjamin is not a cipher or a robot, he’s a person who has seen a lot of both good and bad, but seems unaffected by either. Pitt’s Benjamin barely emotes when his mother dies or when he finally meets his father. For some reason he becomes a blank slate and only briefly does he emerge from that trance. And I fully understand that perhaps that was the point – that because Benjamin learned about death from a very young age, that he was always consciously expectant of this eventuality and did not have the same fears and melancholy about losing loved ones the rest of us do. And yet I can’t buy that argument. It’s almost too easy an answer and robs the whole enterprise of legitimacy. Again, I was not expecting a sob fest, but for a movie that deals very much so with loss, it glosses over the accompanying emotions with disturbing ease. To be honest, I can’t help but think what someone like Leonardo DiCaprio or Matt Damon could have done with the role of Benjamin.

But, like Benjamin, the film finds salvation in the form of Cate Blanchett, who gives a beautifully-crafted performance as Daisy. Looking ethereally beautiful in her early scenes, Blanchett expertly paints a portrait of reckless youth and dignified old age. She is magnetic enough that she transcends some god-awful plot imaginings to give us the most three-dimensional, human character of the film. If the film succeeds in many ways during the second half, it is due in large measure to her.

Overall

“Button” is a beautiful film to behold. Its cinematography (by Claudio Miranda) is at times jaw-droppingly beautiful and guaranteed an Oscar next year. In fact, all of the technical elements in the film mesh seamlessly. And yet, all of the visual magnificence in the world cannot make up for a flawed screenplay and a central performance that curiously loses steam in the middle of an almost three-hour long journey. Sadly, Button is a pleasant enough journey that could have been great.

22 comments:

Miranda Wilding said...

I DON'T have high hopes for this. But you have painted a most intriguing picture, D.

Scotty Fitzgerald and D.H. Lawrence are my favourite writers EVER. So I imagine it will be sweeping and grand, even if it is somewhat flawed.

Fincher doesn't worry me. I like Brad and I can deal with Cate.

(IF you know what I mean. Ha ha.)

But Eric Roth writing that screenplay may be somewhat problematic.

I have reservations. But I'm still going.

BTW, doesn't it seem to you that F. Scott was rather fixated on the name Daisy...?

Pierre de Plume said...

"While [Tiraji P. Henson] had some fine moments with Pitt (their mother-son talks in the dark were beautiful), her character seemed to exist solely for this. But this is more a gripe with the script than her performance."

Dorothy, I know what you mean. Perhaps the same could be said of Lieutenant Dan, I mean Captain Mike.

I've read Craig Kennedy's great review (at Living in Cinema) and now your expert analysis, which offers up a different perspective. I'm somewhere in between, perhaps a little more forgiving of Pitt and more willing to enjoy what's there as opposed to lament what isn't.

My suspicion is that general audiences will see this film as clever and entertaining, perhaps finding meaning where others don't. Because of this, and combined with the film's great CGIs and other strengths, Benjamin Button has the potential to be nominated and could even win the Oscar. But that's definitely not a foregone conclusion.

Dorothy Porker said...

Please do check back in once you see it. I'd love to hear your take on it.

As for the names: I suspect naming Blanchett's character Daisy is a tribute of Roth's to Fitzgerald's Daisy Buchannan. I think the woman in the short story has a strange, strange name, definitely not Daisy. I'll have to look it up. Still, there are similarities between this Daisy and Fitzgerald's Daisy Buchannan (I might be wrong about the last name there :)): both are carefree, idealized women. Almost not of their time. Ah, I really love Gatsby. What an accomplishment.

Dorothy Porker said...

Pierre, thanks for stopping by. I think you succinctly hit on quite a few issues the film suffers from on your post from last night. I like your approach and I think the more I think about the film, the more I will move toward your side of seeing it as more of a half full product than half empty. To be perfectly honest, it wouldn't bother me one bit if the film made a good showing at the Oscars. Like Craig said, for all its flaws, it is still far better than most of the films Hollywood churns out on a regular basis.

Off topic, but I have to say that your thoughts on Button, along with endless bits of your writing leaves me (and I'm sure many others) chomping at the bit. You are amazingly perceptive and an exquisite writer. I'd really love to read more of your thoughts on film -- they are incredibly instructive and complex. Any plans for a Pierre blog?

Pierre de Plume said...

Thanks for your compliments, Dorothy. I've toyed with the idea of a blog but feel that it's too much work -- too much time at the computer for me to handle.

It's easier to let others (like yourself!) do the work sot hat dillettantes like me can drop from the sky, kick up the leaves, and then fly to the next pastoral glade.

Next up, I'm curious to see The Wrestler, need to catch up on Frozen River and I've Loved You So Long, am a little worried about Rev Road, and admit a bizarre interest in JCVD.

And -- naturally -- I can't wait to see Mlle. Cotillard in her upcoming projects.

See you soon, Dorothy.

Craig Kennedy said...

I can't argue with a single one of your perceptive criticisms Dorothy (except one which I'll get to in a moment), even though the end response from me is very different.

It is true there is a calmness to Pitt's characterization that could be read as a frustrating blankness, but for me it's a result of two things. One, he's a character with a certain wisdom beyond his true age because he's been treated as an adult for most of his life. Second, I think the film willfully restrains the emotional output. For better or for worse, I think Fincher is trying to avoid blatant emotional manipulation. It's kind of a minimalist approach to the emotion and I like it, though as I said in my own review I would've been happier to have a little more juice.

The one part of your review I'll take issue with is your problem with the framing story. At first I wasn't completely buying it either, particularly the Katrina element, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. As I've already said, for one thing it's another layer. It's another angle on the idea of loss with which the film is riddled. It also offers a little of the emotional payoff we're denied when Queenie dies. More importantly (and I just picked this up from watching Pitt and Fincher on Charlie Rose from last night), I think it's the audience's real-world entry into what is actually a ridiculous conceit. This idea of a man aging backwards is absurd, but the framing story grounds it in reality.

Finally, as for the Katrina bit, I continue to question it, but the final scene where the present literally meets the pass was enough of a payoff for me. I thought it was a nice touch.

Craig Kennedy said...

Also....I've said it before but I really like your style with reviews - not to mention your perceptiveness - and I hope to hear more from you in the future.

Anonymous said...

Dorothy, did you see In Bruges ??

I saw it the other day and was impressed, great screenplay, great direction and great acting performances by ALL actors (including Bruges itself) !!

k said...

Excellent review. I was going to see this on Christmas but got lazy... I might go see it Tuesday.

It's good, because I'm going into it with no strong feelings at all. I have no expectations.

Overall I think you really captured my general problem with Pitt as an actor. He's never bad, but he just doesn't deliver enough for me -- especially when he has to portray a challenging character. I think he's great at comedy, but as a dramatic actor, I find his work pretty lacking. Never bad, never excellent, just serviceable. I actually used to feel similarly to Leonardo DiCaprio (loved WEGG, though), but I think in the past five or six years he has really grown as an actor.

k said...

Oh!

And that's great to hear about Henson! I thought she was excellent in Talk To Me, and since then I've been curious about her work.

Dorothy Porker said...

Pierre, the word dilettante was never meant for someone with your gifts :) You surely sell yourself short! If you do decide to take on a blog, I'm sure you'll have plenty of supporters to keep you motivated.

Craig, thanks for the kind thoughts. I really appreciate the feedback. I wish I had more time to write, but it's become increasingly hard to keep up. I'm glad you enjoyed the review. I think I might have come across a bit too harshly against the film -- I did give it a B, not too shabby. I suppose the thing is that I found it so frustrating because all of the ingredients for a masterpiece were there, but it just didn't reach its promise. In a way it's unfair to the film to judge it on those merits, but I couldn't shake off the feeling.

Per the framing device: it just felt forced to me. I agree that Fincher and co. were most likely looking for a grounding in reality -- but is that really necessary in a story like this one? It felt like one of those "spoon-feed the audience" devices I've never been too fond of.

SPOILER ALERT The Katrina thing...to be honest, I found it somewhat offensive (for lack of a better word). For a film that does its best to avoid any references to segregation, racism, etc., it again, felt forced to do so for dramatic purposes (not to mention predictable). While I'm at it, the second appearance of the hummingbird was just odd to me. Did Daisy even get to see it? I guess the point was that the audience saw it. Meh. The first time we see it is beautifully done, almost like a feather floating up in the air (there I go again with Gump! lol), and I did choke up, but the second time seemed to come out of nowhere and very uncharacteristic of Fincher. END OF SPOILER

K, glad you liked it. I can't wait to hear your thoughts about Pitt in it -- it seems to be a slightly polarizing performance. Again, I really appreciated his work in the first half of the movie; I only take issue with the second half, and thankfully there's Blanchett there to make things interesting.

Henson is very good, but as I stated, I have some serious qualms with the Queenie character. However loving, sweet, and salt of the earth type of character, it just had some cringe-worthy moments, to be honest.

Finally, I haven't seen "In Burges" yet. But I have added it to the top of my Netflix queue, so I'm very much looking forward to it : )

siutou_amy said...

Hey, K and Dorothy! ^^ I am surprised you are giving Button a B, but still I'm dying to see. I haven't read the whole review, because I don't want to spoil all my fun, though I'm thinking it's a little too late.

What I've seen is Revolutionary Road, Milk and (finally!) Slumdog Millionaire. On RR, I can understand why some people might not enjoy the end of the film, I even felt a little depressed LOL - Kate Winslet and Leo do so well here... especially when you think about them back in Titanic. They've come a long way.

I've seen a fair amount of 'best actor' performances, but I've yet to see 'best actress'. I'm eager to see Doubt and Rachel Getting Married.

Now, should I lower my expectations to enjoy Benjamin Button? Because I admit that the trailer blew me away when it came out... xD

Sam Juliano said...

Geez, i don't know what I could possibly add to this stellar discourse at this late stage except to say that dorothy has penned a super-perceptive compatmentall essay, Pierre is a writing genius and Craig has come to the table fully armed. I have evinced complete agreement with you Dorothy at other sites on "the pretty boy" disclaimer for Brad Pitt's onscreen time, and I know the framing device could become exasperating at times, but I must admit that the film is deeply-moving, and it does have you thinking a few days afterwards. Hence, I like it better now than when I walked out of the theatre, a positive sign. And I site the final comments in your "overall" summation as fueling my own lingering affections. I am now sure it will end up on my Ten Best List.

Unrelated to this Dorothy, I need your mailing address again--I sent an e mail a few days to you, but perhaps you won't be checking those until after the New year.

And have a Happy New Year's too!!!

Dorothy Porker said...

Amy, definitely don't take my words as discouragement from seeing the film. All the responses it has garnered are so rich and diverse it really must be seen, even if I thought the film fell somewhat short. I'm looking forward to "Revolutionary Road," but you sound a bit lukewarm -- without giving away too much, how would you rate/grade it?


Sam, check your email. Thanks for the response. I agree that the film does stay with you. Still, due to the issues described in my review, and considering all the truly amazing films I've seen so far this year, I'm pretty sure it won't make my top ten. This is a huge bummer, as the trailer for this film had me practically in tears and expecting so much.

Craig Kennedy said...

I know exactly what you mean about having a movie offer such great potential only to have it unmet. This is more disappointing than seeing a movie you know is going to stink and it does.

It's not just expectations, but even with in the film the promise is great and all the elements seem to be there...only to have it come crashing down before it ever really reaches that height you were looking for.

I also know what it's like to come across more negative than you really feel. I recently wrote a review of a movie I kind of liked but spent the whole thing criticizing the director!

And yeah, some people seem to have the skill to toss off reviews without breaking a sweat, but I think it's difficult, energy absorbing and time consuming...particularly when there's also a full time job that pays the bills demanding equal measure of both time AND energy. I wasn't trying to put the pressure on you, just offering a few words of encouragement from one struggler to another.

Dorothy Porker said...

Aw, sweet, sweet Craig. I absolutely welcome the encouragement. I'm very hard on myself but have made a resolution (yeah, one of those, argh!) to write more often. It's something I thoroughly enjoy, but like you say, it takes a lot of energy and emotional investment to put down your thoughts about such a subjective medium.

siutou_amy said...

Dorothy, I'm certainly not running away from Benjamin Button~~ still dying to see it. (by the by, you should check out YAM... i sent you a link to your email).

RR was a great film, and the acting was superb. Perhaps it's so well acted that you can't help but feel depressed for the characters or real life people in general. I gave it a 3.5/5, but could probably give it a 4 if I hadn't felt the gloom over my head after it. LOL

And to give you a better understanding of how my voting goes... I rated Milk 4/5 and Slumdog 4.5/5 LOL

nick plowman said...

I might be able to see this a little sooner than March, i.e. tomorrow or the next day, and I gotta say I am looking forward to it. I am a huge fan of the short story as well as a huge fan of Fincher's, so I hope my high hopes don't ruin it for me. Naturally, I will read your review as soon as I have seen the film, and I must admit I am loving this change of pace for Inside the Gold, you girls are damn fine reviewers.

Dorothy Porker said...

Thank you so much, Nick. I really hope to be more active in 2009.

Alexander Coleman said...

This review is richly comprehensive from beginning to end. It's one of the best pieces of film writing I've read in quite a long time to say the least, coming from an angle that I have not seen expressed about this film.

Thank you again for the very kind comment over at Coleman's Corner about my review of this, Dorothy. I can only return the favor here--this is a tremendous, in-depth review that offers many analytical points.

You thought Julia Ormond was sleep-walking? Ouch. Even I wasn't that tough. As Nick says, you girls kick butt, and stuff.

coffee said...

i believe this is the third movie David Fincher and Brad Pitt have made together; they must like working together

Anonymous said...

i would have given the movie a C+ or B-...i thought that it was a bit too long and Pitt's performance, while very good, should've had more varation in dynamics...otherwise it was a decent movie