There’s been seemingly tens of reviews and thoughts on “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” so the same from us shouldn’t ruffle any one’s feathers (but thanks for the screening, sincerely).
We have to admit that we were sorely disappointed in David Fincher’s ‘Benjamin Button’ for many reasons. A long-winded, inconsistent and not entirely convincing generation-spanning fairy tale romance, the story, its effects, and its characters weren’t something we were completely sold on. And yes, it is “Forrest Gump”-esque but fortunately not as pronounced as we’d thought (which was a big concern).
There are fine qualities to it to be sure. The film’s aesthetics are unimpeachable; it’s exquisitely adorned and crafted. It’s mise en scene is wonderful. It looks gorgeous as you’ve heard. The sepia-tinted cinematography is sumptuous, the art direction is Oscar-worthy and the nuanced make-up is extremely convincing… sometimes.
‘Benjamin Button’ has been tagged with being “emotionally cold,” and we think that’s slightly off the mark. It also suggests that Fincher is aloof and lacks the heart to tell an emotional story. This would be incorrect, the story aims to be as weepy, tear-jerky and emotional as any deep love story, filled with the sad resignation that all things don’t last because of death. It’s a universal, humanistic tail, but because of all the tangential stories, the molasses pacing and the fact that the true love story doesn’t being until around the two hours and 10 minute-mark into the film ( it’s 167 minutes total), by the time people have passed, you’re never quite as sucked into the moment as you should be. Essentially, you’re emotionally distracted throughout.
And their are thousands of little factors that assist that disruption. The vacillating digital effects are sometimes stunning and sometimes a visual disturbance. Spoutblog complained about some of the distracting effects last month and they’re perhaps a bit harsh, but mostly on-the-mark. Remember those purposely airbrushed photos of Radiohead a few years back in SPIN magazine? Or the way the androids looked in Spielberg’s “A.I.”? This is exactly how the young version of Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt look… at times. In the right light, it’s entirely persuasive, in the wrong light they’re enough to make you wince.
Tackling an story that spans 80-something years is always difficult and potentially problematic. Either you’re throwing your actors in makeup and you know these actors aren’t septuagenarians, or you’re casting older or younger versions of themselves and hoping the audience buys it. It’s always a gamble and it seldom pays off. The even slightly, off-putting nature of aging an actor can take you out of the emotional moment and while ‘Ben Button’ will probably earn itself an Academy Award for make up achievement. Again, like the effects, they’re incongruent and unpredictable. Taraji P. Henson, incidentally the best character and actor in the film, aged look is fantastic. Cate Blanchett’s look? Hmm, not so much. Not bad in the beginning when she’s on her deathbed, unconvincing in spots as she ages. Brad Pitt’s make-up and digital effects (as sometimes there’s obviously a combination of both) are again spotty and sometimes very plausible.
Eric Roth obviously wrote, “Forrest Gump,” but fortunately his script is dialed down and ‘Button’ is nowhere near as sappy, treacly, cornball and tediously rambling as it could have been. But all of those elements are there in some capacity. The tangents that follow characters who have nothing to add to the plot are minimized, but are still there. The silly, receptive and cliched, “rule of-threes” motifs are present, but thankfully, lessened. But the subplot with Tilda Swinton and Benjamin discovering who he is at sea is unnecessarily long, laborious and easily could have been cut in half. Swinton’s early romance with Pitt is almost an exercises in drawn-out foreplay, that almost sets off blueballs and does almost nothing to drive the plot. Many of the mechanics of the story similarly detour instead of drive which adds to its leisurely and sometimes comatose pace. Sure, it’s an elegant, ballet-like rhythm, but even dance needs forward propulsion.
Brad Pitt’s performance is quietly expressive, vaguely soulful and kind, but the character is so passive, so inert and submissive, it’s hard for one to really care for him. We assume they were aiming for tender and gentle, but it’s so subtle it doesn’t really register. He’s however better than Cate Blanchett who can’t really pull of the New Orleans accent, and is a little shrill and off-putting in her selfish twenty-something years. She sort of sounds like she’s honking a horn every time she talks.
When Pitt and Blanchett’s ages start to match up, their essentially playing themselves and the love story finally starts to flourish after what seems like hours of false starts and obstacles, the movie starts to finally gel and come alive, but this is the two hour mark! This is filet mignon of the Fincher meal and it’s incredibly tasteful and enjoyable. A house-painting montage to the Beatles “Twist & Shout” while they’re on TV on the Ed Sullivan show (in of itself a Gump-ian moment), is incredibly endearing and charming and its probably the first time we outwardly beamed or smiled throughout. You start to truly buy the long-standing affections these two have had for themselves since the beginning of their lives. However, it too doesn’t last and further minor problems arise. Pitt seems to not age for 30 minutes, while Blanchett’s character is getting slightly older. By the time he wants to leave their household for fear of slowly growing too young to raise a child, we don’t really believe that he’s that young yet. It’s little blemish after little blemish that repeatedly distract and take off marks from the total score and your overall feelings.
Alexandre Desplat’s twinkling score is beautiful, but really doesn’t have anything to do with the New Orleans setting and doesn’t entirely swell under each scene. We’d almost rather listen to it on its own. Will the film see Oscar? Certainly. Much like the Golden Globes, ‘Ben Button’ will nab up the majority of Oscar nominations, but if it takes any major awards remains to be seen and seems doubtful.
Given the too-sentimental script that was problematic to begin with (hello, editing!), we’re not sure if this film could ever have been the amazing and wondrous achievement some were hoping for, but perhaps with real economic purpose and a forceful rewrite, one would have been truly engaged and dazzled by the wondrous and magical qualities inherent in this doomed and bittersweet love story. As it stands though, “The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button” is ambitious piece of work that’s to be admired for its grace, artistry and craftsmanship, but as a meditation of the frailty of life it misses the mark emotionally and suffers from a problematic story engine which cannot be reconciled with its lofty aims. [B-, and we’re feeling this grade is somewhat generous considering our review].
