comment #1

EricGilde says ...

This strikes me as really stupid. Trying to make it seem that the movie is somehow irrelevant because of the fact that Brad Pitt leads a successful life? Or that the film only exists "to put these crummy times in perspective."

A very narrow-minded and cynical slant. Not to mention trying to argue a point that the film isn't making--there was no economic crisis when they shot this, much less when Fitzgerald wrote it!!!

comment #2

nakedmanatee says ...

I can understand not wanting to see a tearjerker when you're depressed (although personally, I love a downer of a film--when I split with my wife, Closer made me feel warm and fuzzy inside.)
However, why begrudge Brad Pitt for having money and a sexy wife? Should we only see movies with actors we don't envy? I guess Blade:Trinity *is* more enjoyable knowing that Wesley Snipes is in trouble with the IRS. And hey, Val Kilmer's put on some weight. I'll go to his film and feel better about myself.
As far as not needing a good cry, there are plenty of yuk-fests at the theaters these days. Would "Four Christmases" do the trick?

comment #3

actionman says ...

Granted, I have to yet to see it, but this comment reflects exactly why a movie like Slumdog Millionaire has an excellent shot at winning Best Pic at the Oscars. Apparently, you leave the theater feeling GREAT.

My father, who had next to no interest in seeing Slumdog, went to the local art cinema last night to see Happy-Go-Lucky with his friend. When they got there, they stumbled into a sneak preview of Slumdog (it opens in CT this weekend) which was being sponsored by a local radio station. They didn't have passes but the woman running the event let them in anyways. He called me immediately after the film was over, flipping out, saying that it's easily the best film of the year. Now my dad hasn't seen a lot of what's been released this year, but he's a farily big film buff, and he knows his shit and has excellent taste in film. But his remark that the film's central theme -- that of hope and love -- won him over completely. He also said that the filmmaking on display was fantastic. If a 60 year old guy like my dad walks out of Slumdog with these feelings, especially after telling me no more than a few days ago that he didn't really want to see the film to begin with, you can bet that there will be lots of surprised people after they finish watching this flick. Right now, people want to feel good about themselves and when a movie makes you feel good, especially during its final act, that can be a big plus when it comes to awards.

Maybe I am just rambling, but I have a feeling that Slumdog is the one to beat.

I am personally more excited to see Button (just a tad) than Slumdog (but still quite jazzed to see it this weekend), but something tells me that a nearly three hour, somberly shot and themed romance from a "cold" director like Fincher isn't going to be what people will want to bestow Best Picture on this year.

comment #4

Scott Mendelson says ...

I agree with Eric. Similar criticisms where made of Fight Club back in 1999. Basically 'oh, who are you to preach about unrest or issues of identity and what it means to be a man, etc, when you can hop in your sports car and screw Jennifer Aniston'. If we apply that standard to any remotely successful actor than no movies would be effective on any level.

comment #5

jbf81 says ...

sorry, should I run to watch Lindsay Lohan next flick? she is as fucked up as you get.

comment #6

Chase Kahn says ...

This should be the 'Worst 12.11 Comment' -- Why limit it to just Brad Pitt? It's just stupidity.

We go to the movies to get away from all our troubles. It's like my mom said the other day to me, "the thing I love about movies is that for 2 hours you aren't worried about money, you aren't fat, you aren't taking care of your 95 year-old father" -- you can forget about it all.

Good luck, Joe Corey, finding a film that stars unemployed copier salesmen and gives you the necessary personal satisfaction for your $10...

comment #7

Josh Massey says ...

The comment reeks of basic wealth envy, and not any serious contemplation.

comment #8

Katey says ...

But Benjamin Button actually is kind of uplifting, in the way it emphasizes what really matters in life (friends, family, self-fulfillment etc.) and get some good teary moments in there in the meantime. I'd imagine movies like The Dark Knight and Revolutionary Road, which are just straight-up bleak, would be the ones more likely to suffer in public support right now.

comment #9

btwnproductions says ...

Yeah, The Dark Knight is suffering, alright. :)

comment #10

ZayTonday says ...

Benjamin Button is hardly as much of a tearjerker as this guy wants you to think, it's actually quite uplifting. You want a tearjerker to rail against then how about The Wrestler, or to a lesser extent, Revolutionary Road.

comment #11

buckzollo says ...

CCBB is a masterful epic. It resonates, certainly with those at least capable of some original thought. SDM is really good, very colorful and uplifting. Boyle, like Fincher has crafted a winner. I'll concede it looks as though it will boil down to these two, likely because the other contenders fall short in their own respective ways. SDM may be more broadly accessible, but CCBB is so finely crafted and poignant. I can't believe this site isn't yet 24/7 CCBB.

comment #12

lipranzer says ...

I haven't seen BENJAMIN BUTTON yet, but from having read the original story, and from having read about the film, I don't know if it's trying to "put these crummy times in perspective." It's trying to tell a story, and since David Fincher is directing, I'm sure it's going to try and tell it in an interesting way. What's wrong with being a part of that? Should Pitt just do paycheck movies the rest of his life?

comment #13

p.Vice says ...

A great post that demonstrates why cinema worldwide is in the shitter: the expectation that movies need not lead to enlightenment but only to entertainment and escapism.

So if you need to feel like you're not doomed and just need a good laugh or a few thrills, why not check out Four Christmases starring Reese Witherspoon and Vince Vaughn, who make HOW MUCH per film? Or how about a corny-ass thriller like Valkyrie, starring Tom Cruise who makes HOW MUCH per film? Oh, what about Slumdog Millionaire, an "indie" film? I bet Danny Boyle has a shit-ton in common with your friends' financial situation.

If Brad Pitt is going to be castigated for having money to burn, at least give him some credit for making a movie that isn't just trying to waste $10 of your money for a two hour escape from society's woes. A dimebag will give you far more bang for your buck if that's all you're after.

comment #14

arturobandini2 says ...

I get where Joe Corey is coming from. For me, it's not so much that Pitt is too wealthy, but that he's too damn tabloidy to allow for suspension of disbelief. He and (especially) his wife come equipped with what the Village Voice called their 'own Brechtian Distancing Effect.' You just cannot buy for 2 seconds that HOLLYWOOD'S SEXIEST COUPLE!! could be either Marianne Pearl or Benjamin Button. However humanitarian they might actually be, it's obvious that they love fame and publicity more than they love the craft of acting. (Consider that Pitt called a press conference earlier this year to say he wants to quit movies. Then just quit! Why send out a friggin' release?)

At the height of her career, Michelle Pfeiffer famously said she would act for free -- but charged millions of dollars for having to live in the public eye. Bullshit. So why did she come to Hollywood in the first place? Why not just do community theater? Celebrities have always seemed narcissistic and off-putting to those of us who don't subscribe to Vanity Fair. But in this economy, the last thing I want to see is a limo-hopping star pretending to be a KFC manager for a shot at an Oscar.

The big lesson Hollywood must learn is whether to keep paying the Pitts, the Jolies, the Kidmans and the Jackmans $10+ million per picture at a time when their movies tank and even the automobile CEOs are agreeing to a $1 annual salary. (SAG, are you paying attention?) Movies simply don't need glossy personalities to be successful. They never have.

comment #15

cleopatrajones says ...

This is lame. If Pitt having money and starring in a film that might make you cry has you down in the dumps then stay at home and order Deuce Bigelow off Netflix.

comment #16

York "Budd" Durden says ...

Wasn't it Joaquin Phoenix who had the I'm-quitting press conference?

comment #17

Adonis says ...

This is an absolute Troll comment, Wells, and I'm disappointing in you featuring it as some sort of representative, intelligent thought.

It is beyond cliche to attack someone who is rich and famous as being incapable of understanding or conveying realistic, emotional enormity.

Anybody who thinks Brad Pitt's life is that of a sheltered prince has done zero backgound research on the matter.

First of all, his Make It Right compaign in New Orleans is one of the most successful and inspiration to rebuild the Lower Ninth Ward. His massive efforts in getting talented, nationally-recognized architects to build small, sustainable housing for the community is to be commended.

I believe the sheer volume of the Jolie-Pitt Foundation is something in the high tens of millions... money that has gone to improve the lives of human beings where few Americans have ever gone, are even read about: Darfur, Cambodia, etc.

Whether you think much of Pitt as an actor or not, he certainly has used his fame and fortune to only fuel his ambition to seek out neglected areas of this country and this world. I challenge the author of this "featured comment" to tell us how he makes the world a better place.

comment #18

rgmax99 says ...

Phoenix broke his "retirement" to some entertainment news reporter.

I use quotes because a big hunch tells me that he's screwing around with the celeb machine and having a blast doing it.

comment #19

BurmaShave says ...

This is one of the dumbest things ever written on HE, and fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of film.

comment #20

DarthCorleone says ...

$10 for a movie ticket? I wish.

I agree with the comments above. Pitt is a good guy. Regardless I have no problems separating him from his work as an actor, and specifically I had no problem separating him personal life from the thematic content and tone of Benjamin Button.

comment #21

DarthCorleone says ...

his, that is.

comment #22

ZayTonday says ...

Burma: Agreed.

comment #23

byanyother says ...

"This is one of the dumbest things ever written on HE, and fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of film. "

It's one thing for it to be said in the comments, where it belongs. It's a whole other thing to put it on the front page and give it validity; it is not an intelligent way to view any film at any time.

comment #24

buckzollo says ...

arturobandini one question have you seen the movie? Wait let me answer that for you, NO! How dare you indict, try and convict Pitt for being "well whatever ridiculous point you and knucklehead Corey are putting forward." Pitt is excellent in the film. I stood right next to him before and after and had no problem 'suspending disbelief' and enjoying his turn as a BEST ACTOR. Not to mention that he and his wife are experts at harnessing all of the ridiculous attention they receive and refocusing it on positive causes. Go hate on a sell out if you want, but Pitt is not a legit target. For what it is worth maybe your argument holds up for Valkyrie, but as I have not seen it yet you will forgive me for not pontificating about it...yet.

comment #25

ZayTonday says ...

The only way this would be the "Best 12.11 Reader Comment" would be if you meant it like Keith Olbermann does when he give us the day's "Best Persons".

comment #26

corey3rd says ...

My comment was in reference to spoonbill writing:

"3) Why is no one mentioning that this Oscar race is largely over - "Benjamin Button" will earn the most nominations, and it will best picture. All this noodling will end once the Fincher film opens and starts indulging audiences in need of a good cry."

and

"Sometimes an artificial trigger is needed to provoke real emotions - what film will better help facilitate that release than a put-life-in-perspective tale like BUTTON's? People who need a good cry often have much to cry about but just require the proper venue.."

My point is that at this moment there are more than enough depressing crap going on in the average American's life that they don't need to pay $10 to have Brad Pitt make them cry. The guy who worked 20 years for Wachovia only to wake up jobless and seeing his company stock nearly worthless only needs to look in his kids faces as they anticipate Santa coming to cry.

Movies that came out during the great depression weren't all out to make their audiences take the pipe.

comment #27

buckzollo says ...

To reduce CCBB to "a movie in which Brad makes you cry" is such a supreme insult. Go see it if only you want to insure you get your fucking ten dollars worth.

comment #28

buckzollo says ...

PS I hope the studio executives cruise this thread lest they miss all of the absolutes about what works and why and of course, what, absolutely doesn't.

comment #29

EricGilde says ...

corey3rd,

I think it's been shown by all the other posters the ridiculousness of insulting Pitt, who aside from being an impressive actor has shown himself to have a great interest in multiple humanitarian causes.

What sticks with me is the odd pigeonholing of those who are having hard times right now. You're reducing a lot of the people for whom you're trying to speak to a singular persona. Many have been suffering, but that doesn't' mean that they are all insultingly one-sided victim figures. Victims who because of their suffering somehow maintain the same fundamental cinematic aesthetics?

If people go to the movies to forget the times we're in, some will see Button, sure. But there are just as many people who will go see the new Punisher film, or Bolt, or whatever, and guess what? There will be happy and unhappy parties on both sides.

Or, God forbid, they could also go because they like going out to the movies.

Your comment had an implication that Mr. Wachovia is somehow wrong to watch this particular movie. As though this story (which I agree is beautiful and rather uplifting), is uniquely and diabolically pied-pipering him further into oblivion.

I mean, what are you saying the right movie for him to watch would be? If he can hold out until Bride Wars comes out, maybe then he'll get his job back and be able to look his kids in the face again? It's a movie, dude; CCBB could offer him some cathartic release, and there's nothing wrong with that. But we both know that there isn't a movie around that's going to put him back to work in a bank after he see's it. And whether or not you can see it, that's really not Brad Pitt's fault.

Why point the finger at Benjamin Button? Because it's an Oscar favorite? Big fucking deal! It was a favorite LOOOOONG before the subprime mortgage ball started rolling. It's been on lists since the moment the creative team was announced.

comment #30

arturobandini2 says ...

Buckzollo, I'm happy that the movie star fantasy bubble hasn't popped for you yet. One day it will, I suspect. No matter how inspiring the great thespian/humanitarian Paul Newman was, once he got too famous there was no way I could buy him in a character role anymore. When your generation's movie stars are replaced by a new crop of pretty celebrities, I bet you'll come to notice the dramatic limitations of the star system as well.

Only the dedicated, truly chameleonic stars who rigorously reinvent themselves for each role (Olivier, Streep, Hoffman) are able to pull off invisible acting. Sometimes. Most of today's American stars skipped stage training altogether, and half are the children of former stars. The combination of fame and limited technique betray an actor every time out -- for me. The last time Brad Pitt's celebrity status didn't overpower one of his movies was probably Johnny Suede (and fellow-newcomer Catherine Keener's talent blew him off the screen, as I recall). Pitt recycled the same performance for Burn After Reading, but this time it just had the effect of "Watch the SEXIEST MAN ALIVE act like a nitwit."

comment #31

buckzollo says ...

arturo I doubt I will ever come to understand what you mean by "the dramatic limitations of the star system." Regarding your lame attempt to patronize me about the movie star fantasy bubble, nocando. My point is that despite Pitt being a superstar and mucho famous, etc, whatever; he is and was in CCBB, capable of transcending that. You sound like a frustrated actor with a resume full of acting workshops and "classes" dwarfing any actual meaningful actual roles. My point has to do with the movie in question, CCBB, without thought about entering into a debate about the realities of hollywood, fame, stardom, boxoffice, and career trajectories. Newsflash Hollywood is not a meritocracy.

comment #32

arturobandini2 says ...

Buckzollo, I haven't acted since my high school production of .South Pacific. But half the members of my senior class could've out-acted Brad Pitt, though admittedly none were as photogenic or had his abs. And "newsflash" back to you -- the biggest patronizing turd on this thread is you.