Serious film goers generally fall into one of two categories: those who focus on directors and those who focus on actors. J, for example, is of the latter group and I'm always amazed at her name/face recognition. Sure, I know who Brad Pitt is but I'm usually at a loss when it comes to "oh, that guy, the one who always shows up playing the tough dude." J can usually be counted on to not only name the person but also identify other films that said person might have appeared in. I, on the other hand, am a fan of directors. I generally won't see a film because of who is in it. Instead, I see a film because of who made it. Conversely, I also generally avoid films because of the director (yeah, I'm talking about you, McG and Michael Bay). All this isn't to say that I can't appreciate a good performance by an actor just as J is more than capable of appreciating good direction. It's all a matter of where we put our priorities.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was one of those films that satiated both our needs: it has a big-name cast and it's directed by a big-name director (David Fincher). I've always like Fincher although I would put him on a second-tier (which is still a pretty exclusive group). I don't think of Fincher in the same way I look at Anderson, Soderbergh, or the Coen brothers. Rather, I see him along the same lines as Danny Boyle and Bryan Singer. With that said, I think the one thing that Fincher does just about better than anyone else is create exciting visuals. Fincher first made his name as a music video director but unlike a hack like McG, Fincher made good music videos (most notably, those Nine Inch Nails videos). While Button doesn't have the same visual flair as early Fincher films like Seven and Fight Club (two other Pitt collaborations), Fincher does show a great deal of growth and film-making maturity.
The movie, based on a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald, falls into that rare category of "movies that are much better than the original material." Both works focus on Benjamin Button and his reverse aging. Born with the appearance of an old man, as he ages he becomes younger. Fitzgerald's story tends to exploit the more comic elements of this premise while Fincher transforms the story into a much more dramatic narrative that very little resembles the original short story. Time, place, etc. are all changed as are the circumstances of Button's life. For example, in Fitzgerald's version, Button is born in the 1860s and raised by a disdainful father who feels embarassed by his son's appearance. Fincher shifts the time so that Button is born right after World War I. Also, Button is abandoned by his father and raised by a black woman who runs a retirement home.
Both J and I felt the movie to be remarkably entertaining; however, when we thought about what awards the film might merit, we were hard pressed to think of any except technical ones (such as best visual effects). While the performances were all very solid, neither Pitt nor Blanchett were particularly remarkable although Taraji Henson gave a very good supporting performance (she's probably best known as Shug from Hustle and Flow). Fincher once again created a great visual experience but I just didn't see anything remarkable about the way the film was put together (and definitely not as interesting as his last film, Zodiac).
Don't get me wrong. I think Button is a fine film and I wouldn't mind seeing it again but I don't feel compelled by it. Of course, there hasn't been much that I've felt particularly compelled by this year. Perhaps it's all a big let down from the big whammie of last year (really, when was the last time you had two amazing films like No Country for Old Men and There WIll Be Blood coming out the same year?)
0 Comments
|
Archives
January 2016
|