Button Hasn't Changed

email this story
read comments (21)
post a comment

My 11.25 review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, reposted with David Fincher's film opening today: Will viewers be willing to let Button be Button and put aside whatever high falutin' expectations they may bring to it? It could all work out if they do, but it didn't quite work for me because I couldn't. I enjoyed and was even heartened by this dreamy-sad glide through time and memory and the textures and aromas of 20th Century America, but I can't say I'm as hungry for a second immersion as I was when I first saw Fincher's Zodiac some eighteen or nineteen months ago.

Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton

Zodiac is a legendary art film -- a deeper, fuller thing every time I re-view it because of how it never tries to overtly persuade its audience that it's anything more than a whipsmart policier about a legendary cold case. Because the theme of obsession is simultaneously dramatized and embodied by the obsessive nature of the film itself. Because it's settled and confident in its own skin and lets the story tell itself while Fincher, remarkably, builds it into something more than the sum of its parts.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, on the other hand, feels very caught up from the start in its attempts to mesmerize and create a burnished good-old-days atmosphere. And it works like a champ in this respect. I'll never forget the ripe vibe this movie casts. And yet I'm not sure if I really know what it's saying, or it's really "saying" anything other than that life is an adventure to be savored and lived to the fullest. That's a good thing to express in any fashion or medium, but I was saying to myself as I watched it unfold, "Yeah, yeah, I agree, yes....and?"

The basic idea behind the original F. Scott Fitzgerald story basically says that the best part of life comes at the beginning and the worst part at the end, and what would a man feel and learn if the journey was reversed?

Like Forrest Gump, which was authored by Button screenwriter Eric Roth, Fincher's langorous tale is about a passive, good-natured fellow -- Brad Pitt's Benjamin Button -- who lives a kind of charmed (and at the same time somewhat cursed) life that's rooted in the New Orleans but involves much travel, traverses decades and nurses a lifelong, never-waning love for a beautiful spirited woman -- Cate Blanchett's Daisy.

It starts with old-baby Pitt -- a withered, carcassy, white-haired infant -- being born in World War I-era New Orleans, and then watches him de-age and gain strength, enjoying the lusciousness of living more and more, as he moves through the '20s and '30s and into World War II as an old and then an older middle-aged man.

And then as he gradually becomes a progressively younger and hunkier guy who looks cool and likes to ride a motorcycle and whose blissful sensual peak comes at the height of youth and vigor in his early 40s, 30s and 20s, which manifest 40, 50 and 60 years after his old-man birth (and happily coincides with Blanchett's normal-progression trajectory). And then he's a teenager, a kid, a toddler and a baby.

The renderings of Pitt's and Blanchett's various age-states are just about perfect. Face-pasting, makeup, prosthetics, digital-wrinkle removing -- all or most of it as exquisite as the wizardry of new and emerging digital technology can miraculously provide.

But you get used to all this. Pitt's reverse-aging is endlessly absorbing, but it loses its wow-ness after a while, and once it levels off you're basically left with a story about a guy just living a life. And his journey has little in the way of story tension and the rooting interest isn't really there because all he's trying to do is be with the love of his life, Daisy. Well, that happens finally when they're both young and close in age. But then time pulls them apart, and then they're together again and true-heart Daisy becomes his care-giver when he can no longer fend for himself.

Like I said earlier, it's not that you don't care for Pitt's Button but he's a watcher, an observer, an eternal quiet man. He's there to absorb and experience and love and savor, but he's nothing like a take-charge doer with any kind of primal goal or need.

We're witness to the unfolding and passage of decades here, and the movie is basically a Gump thing -- a leisurely cruise on a slow riverboat down a pastoral but mostly rapid-free river. Many intense and eye-filling things happen. The randomness of life, the give-and-take, the eternals all bleed into the whole. But the story is basically a journey of chapters -- this happens, that happens, shit happens.

Button is filled, yes,with all kinds of touching meditations and observational riches and a constant awareness of the here-today, gone-tomorrow thing. It is a moving film to sit through, but it provides only as much warmth and emotionalism as director David Fincher and screenwriter Eric Roth felt was right and true and appropriate.

Benjamin Button is a dream -- rapturous, essential, eternal filmmaking. And with a heart that is kindly, charitable, gentle, open. It's beautiful, it's unique, it's bold...and I'm not at all sure that it's going to reign supreme as a Best Picture candidate. Nor am I persuaded that it's going to make any kind of real money. It's a fascinating, very brave and half-wonderful film, but it'll be a real challenge selling it to the stooges out there, particularly the under-30s.

I agree with Variety's Anne Thompson that it's "an historic achievement, a masterful piece of cinema, and a moving treatise on death, loss, loneliness and love" and that "it may pack a more powerful punch the older you are and the more people you have lost."

But it doesn't feel like a Best Picture slam-dunker -- no to me anyway, for reasons stated above and before.

Not Going Away<< previous | next >>Really?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on December 25, 2008 at 7:10 AM

comment #1

knightrider76 says ...

It's funny, the whole "it's easy to admire it but not easy to love" comments on Button are exactly how I felt about Zodiac. I still can't bring myself to watch Zodiac in one sitting.

Posted by knightrider76 at December 25, 2008 8:04 AM

comment #2

Thrudvangar says ...

I was surprised to see the Zodiac DVD selling for $5 at Wally World the other day along with some other movies that I have no desire to watch. I can't remember the crappy films though.

Posted by Thrudvangar at December 25, 2008 8:47 AM

comment #3

Chase Kahn says ...

Saw it today -- I think it's brilliant. Not as brilliant as it thinks it is, and certainly not as good as ZODIAC, but brilliant none-the-less.

I find complaints about length and coldness baffling, quite honestly -- I was under its spell for 3 hours, and it ended right when it was supposed to.

Posted by Chase Kahn at December 25, 2008 12:45 PM

comment #4

Al-Aurens says ...

I thought that it was beautiful, and I loved every second of it, other than a few seconds when the view across the harbor was obviously a matte painting. Why couldn't they have tossed a few effects dollars at making the smoke move?

I could have watched it for another 3 hours. I have to say that I enjoyed it much more than Zodiac. Blanchett was luminous, and Pitt was very good. All around, a great film.
Roger Ebert has lost it.

Posted by Al-Aurens at December 25, 2008 1:24 PM

comment #5

Devin Faraci says ...

Is BEN BUTTON this year's naked emperor? I've seen it twice and it's slighter on round 2. It gets slighter the more I think about it and the missed opportunities - why make a movie about a guy who ages backwards if you don't tackle any of the real implications of that? - become more obvious.

Posted by Devin Faraci at December 25, 2008 3:25 PM

comment #6

byanyother says ...

Devin, you just need to go out there and live a little before a movie like Button could, in any way, impact you the way it did me.

Posted by byanyother at December 25, 2008 3:56 PM

comment #7

Devin Faraci says ...

hahahaaha

Posted by Devin Faraci at December 25, 2008 4:53 PM

comment #8

YourBoss says ...

You know what I've realized recently? That Devin is kind of a dick.

Posted by YourBoss at December 25, 2008 5:03 PM

comment #9

Chase Kahn says ...

I respectfully disagree with someone who feels PUNISHER: WAR ZONE is a better film than BUTTON -- obviously our tastes are wired differently...

Posted by Chase Kahn at December 25, 2008 5:07 PM

comment #10

fredderf says ...

Devin is not a dick, and there is no need for name calling now. it is just an opinion, and i actually agree with him. with an enormous budget, A list actors, writer and director, button should be earth shattering. Or at least moving. it is definitely lacking, a very beautiful film missing a soul. and it is not fair to criticize people who didn't love the film with a: "well, if you didn't like it, then you haven't lived". while it is true that certain things one cannot connect to or empathize with until one has personally experienced them, it is still a film. As in, it is still supposed to do it's job, to transport the viewer and Make them empathize, Make you react, Grab you by the heart...etc

for me, it didn't.

Posted by fredderf at December 25, 2008 5:31 PM

comment #11

fredderf says ...

AND MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!

Posted by fredderf at December 25, 2008 5:35 PM

comment #12

lazarus says ...

Well if some people are connecting with it, and are moved by it, then who the hell are you to say the film is "missing a soul".

Just as bad as calling Devin a dick (which he is), if you want to talk about name-calling.

Posted by lazarus at December 25, 2008 5:45 PM

comment #13

Devin Faraci says ...

How is critiquing the lack of emotional resonance in a movie akin to personal attacks on someone for their opinion?

And how is me laughing at a guy for using the inane, condescending 'I guess yew ain't got enuff life experreunse, boy' line on me being a dick?

Posted by Devin Faraci at December 25, 2008 6:19 PM

comment #14

The Winchester says ...

I was fascinated with certain scenes in the movie, but the whole "life/death" issue grew a little repetitive. (Although the scene with Button and his father on the pier I found hypnotic).

I agree with Wells' assessment of the film, and I'll be very surprised if this movie takes the gold, but it's understandable. At least it wasn't nearly as shamelessly sentimental as Gump, which I was afraid it would veer into. But this is the first Fincher film I felt could have been told by someone else, and it wouldn't lose all that much.

Posted by The Winchester at December 25, 2008 6:50 PM

comment #15

buckzollo says ...

I think Button is Art. Like a beautiful painting you interpret what you see. The movie emulates life even the imperfections.

Posted by buckzollo at December 25, 2008 9:30 PM

comment #16

theultimatebiu says ...

Well it now seems to be a box office hit. It made $11 OD just behind Marey and Me

Posted by theultimatebiu at December 26, 2008 1:04 AM

comment #17

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

I'm in the "respect but not admire or even love it" camp.

To put it in crass terms, it continues the Fincher tradition of his better films being the even numbered ones. At least this means Ness should be fantastic.

Posted by Deathtongue_Groupie at December 26, 2008 10:43 AM

comment #18

themathnerd says ...

Button for me, was like trying to fit the story of The Sopranos or Lost into a feature-length movie. I think Button would've worked better spread out as a mini-series or serialized drama since it's ultimately a collection of stories about loss. Each of the smaller stories would've been further developed in each episode while the over-arching Benjamin and Daisy story would frame the series as a whole. But this is just my opinion.

Posted by themathnerd at December 26, 2008 3:33 PM

comment #19

MathewM says ...

Ebert's review nailed it. The film for me felt lethargic and straight laced. Fincher's style is borderline stiff. You can feel the weight of the sand bags on the camera tripod. I enjoyed the first half (mostly because of the wonderful CGI) but the magic veiled was lifted as soon as Pitt showed up un-CGI'd. The second half of the film was a drag for me. I didn't care for any of the secondary characters. I would of rather have seen Benjamin remain an enigma instead of giving him a back story which didn't explain anything about who he really was. The father character was basically tacked on. The "mama" character came off cartoonish. Honestly it was like Forrest Gump but without the whimsy. The final act with Benjamin coming full circle and turning back into a baby was manipulative and took a lot of dramatic license. It didn't make any sense even from a fantasy stand point. There were a lot of problems with this movie. I think if someone like David Lynch were have been given this as a project we would of gotten something far more interesting. There were a few great scenes in it but man if it wins best picture....well it wouldn't be a tragedy since it appears to be a lackluster year in general.

Posted by MathewM at December 27, 2008 12:00 AM

comment #20

mehughes124 says ...

Thank you for reminding us all everything that is wrong with Hollywood and the Oscars.

" it doesn't feel like a Best Picture slam-dunker"

That's a shallow, empty statement that has nothing to do with the film and everything to do with your inability to divorce yourself from the masturbatory gala that is the Oscars which the Hollywood establishment has made into just one more part of the big, ugly apparatus that artists like Mr. Fincher have to play along with to make their films.

Posted by mehughes124 at December 27, 2008 12:23 AM

comment #21

swordandpen says ...

I'm really surprised this movie is getting such a pass because it's an exquisitely produced pile of nothingness. A collection of Hallmark cards adapted to film. The acting is fine. The technical achievements are flawless. The script is complete bullshit.

They basically started with an interesting premise and really did little with it but plug the main character into a cliched love story that seems dictated by screenwriting conventions and not any genuine human emotion. This movie reminds me of Spielberg at his manipulative worst. The symbolism (a hummingbird, really?) was beyond labored.

I realize I'm going to be in the minority about this, but it's going to be sad to watch one of Fincher's most conventional movies get more recognition than a masterpiece like "Zodiac". If someone like Zemeckis directed this movie, it would have been more honest about being Hollywood horseshit and it would have been deservedly labeled that by all the Gump-bashers.

Posted by swordandpen at December 27, 2008 8:01 AM