Can't sleep until I lay this down:"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" is absolutely, positively, inarguably and most-reassuringly WONDERFUL.
I really can't begin to comment on the myriad ways in which this film has secured David Fincher as one of the great filmmakers of his time. But I also know how many people it takes to create a film of this caliber, and they all performed.
Not once did I ever notice the length of the film, but that it was followed by a sigh of relief. What a pleasure to be deeply engrossed—entertained even—in the soft, slow and deftly handled pacing of the film.
Maybe more later. MUST see. It has all the originality and charm of an Indie with the mechanical perfection of a Studio release.
Win-Win (Win).
wes.
(PS—Cate Blanchett is the Meryl Streep of this generation)
4 comments:
I just recently saw Benjamin Button myself on Christmas day. I have mixed feelings about it. I think both Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett were phenomenal. I also think that the concept was interesting and smart, and that it was filmed beautifully. I think the problems that I had with it were that it was slightly slow and long for me, and the slow and long film "The Assassination of Jesse James" is one of my favorites. But mostly I was wondering if you noticed and if it bothered you-and I will keep this somewhat ambiguous so as not to spoil anything for others-that when Daisy was in Paris and Benjamin was describing that chain of events in the lives of all those other people that led to "the incident" (trying to be vague), that Benjamin Button suddenly became omniscient as the narrator? How could he know that all those things happened before "that thing" occurred? Maybe I am just being really picky or maybe I missed something. Anyway, maybe you could ease my mind about it somewhat. It bothered me more than anyone else I viewed it with, so maybe it is just my problem. Aside from those things though, I would have to agree it was a good film.
Anyway, I hope your holidays went well. And I hope that your family, especially Finn, is doing well.
Very good insight, Ryan my friend. I like the way you think.
I didn't see it as "omniscience" on Benjamin's part--though he clearly narrated it.
For me, there are a certain number of creative liberties that can be taken wen narration is involved. First, Second and Third person can all be utilized. I think that's why narration works so incredibly well for film. Just ask the French. Man, do they love to narrate.
It wasn't the only time in the film when Benjamin stepped out of First person and into Third. Rather than omniscience, I like to think of it as just taking one step back and seeing the picture a bit bigger.
Lastly, you can also think of it as Benjamin acting as the proxy for someone who IS omniscient: the god of storytelling, or the Writer.
I also loved that segment because it shows how our lives are absolutely defined by seemingly meaningless and disconnected events. There's this film called "11:14" that's really not good at all, but it follows 4 or 5 plots that all intersect on that very minute. I really love that concept.
Ah. Well, that is helpful. I definitely understood that the aim was to show how those small things can have a big impact, but it just seemed to break rules of constancy. I see what you mean though, and I do feel better about it. Thanks, man.
you have done a great job of convincing me that this movie was good and original (i wasn't quite in the mood for this type for film at that moment, so i didn't enjoy it right then).
one thing i'm confused about, and maybe you can help me with, was the concept of the clock that went backwards. it helps the movement, but the man who lost his son had nothing to do with benjamin's family and it seemed so separate from the story, especially at the end when the clock stopped, i was totally thrown off.
i thought you might be the only one who could explain this to me. also, thanks for an awesome birthday party! you always know how to throw 'em. :)
Post a Comment