
Personally, I fall somewhere between these two extremes. I admired the skill of Brad Pitt in portraying the character across the age spectrum (sort of Welles’ Charles Foster Kane in reverse). I admired Cate Blanchett as Pitt’s lover-under-strange-circumstances. I admired the creativity and skill it took to execute such an eccentric visual concept (making a 45-year-old actor “age backwards” for three hours). A few of the film’s many scenes struck an emotional chord with me in exploring the bizarre implications of a life such as Button’s. For example, Blanchett’s predicament of having to “raise” both her young daughter and the backwards-aging Button simultaneously provides a unique take on the nature of familial love. Overall, however, I didn’t feel that the film is nearly as profound as it makes itself out to be. Does viewing life backwards really help us understand what real life is like? What new insights does such a story add?
I’m also not completely enamored with the film’s central storytelling device. Button’s life is told as a “frame story.” An old and dying Blanchett has her daughter read Button’s journal in a New Orleans hospital bed. The presence of an approaching Hurricane Katrina seems to have little relevance to the central story, even though the film seems to harp on this particular plot point.
I have loved David Fincher’s work in the past, especially his dual masterpieces Fight Club and Zodiac. While Benjamin Button is not a total failure, it does not live up to the artistic successes of his previous work. The film does, however, show great range and creativity. I’m confident that Fincher still has many good films ahead of him. I’m just thankful that he doesn’t age backwards.
No comments:
Post a Comment