Well you could argue the only reason anyone is posting on here is because Benjamin Button is a contemporary film. There are two threads about the Datk Knight both going into three pages, two about Slumdog Millionaire one going three pages and one going four pages, and I wouldn’t consider any of those really important contemporary films. Your idea that Weekend at Bernies 2 wouldn’t be as popular is a non-argument: the film is over fifteen years old, and was considered almost universally to be terrible at the time of it’s release. This film, however, has a large number of people who think it was good, and a large number who really don’t.
(There’s also a thread about Bicycle Thieves that is only one page, are we to summise that Benjamin Button is a more important film than Bicycle Thieves?)
I second the Forrest Gump analogy. Armageddon was a cash cow and this is surely no different.
I watched half of this film and stopped. I think Milk with the 80’s doc would be a much more tasteful choice. However when times of gift giving come around, they will make a larger profit from this DVD.
I’d argue that both Slumdog and Dark Knight are extremely important contemporary films, culturally speaking. In fact, I’d love to see anyone mount a convincing argument that they’re not. And your counter-arguments (15 years old, universally reviled at the time of it’s release) regarding Bernie’s only serve to strengthen my point. Since when was the greatness of art judged by age or initial critical reception?
And incidentally, Dax, we shouldn’t assume anything.
Wrote this in another thread about a week ago.
I don’t believe that, from a director with such control and a star with so much power, one can take this film for its visual effects apart from the story to make the case that it belongs. The history of film is littered with “technical masterpieces” that had little to no story to carry them. If that’s the (pun intended) criteria, than this company should go after every Sci-Fi film that came in the wake of 2001: A Space Odyssey, like Silent Running and Logan’s Run (and those are the best ones that followed before Star Wars). The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was a terrible film. I have no agenda against the filmmakers, nor am I critically qualified to cut into these people because I’m a paying customer; Benjamin Button was just a collision of poor intentions and worse execution. The special effects, I feel, have received too much notice. I was somewhat awed by the young-er-old Button character, but after awhile I felt like I was watching a cinematic bait and switch, in which the special effects are perfected to the point at which the story is irrelevant; this has and will never work. Thank you, Pixar, for making my point.
As for Button’s inclusion in the Criterion Collection, it surprised me only initially; the filmmakers demanded that this movie be taken seriously as some timeless fable (how many times did we hear “Forrest Gump” when the film came out?), and their target audience, the demographic they aspired to was that which is prone to purchasing a Criterion film now and again, if not owning most of the set.
The movie itself really is bad. The actors swam in moribund, self-referential dialog and forced the emotion from every scene, signifying nothing. If you take the “timeline” of the film, than the climax just happens to fall when Brad Pitt is at his most graciously engineered; the most handsome man in the world looking exactly the part, and then moreso, and then moreso….
I nearly feel bad in not liking the picture because it wasn’t some fruit-of-the-month horror or car flick. In a way though, this is so much worse: it’s a movie that aspires to be seen as art, but not aspiring to be art. It felt made by committee of faux-moral relativists; no one is good or self-aware, but all carry just one more piece to create a moral world for our main character. I felt the worst scene was with Cate Blanchette as a young girl at the fountain, begging for Pitt’s attention with these awkward tales of smoking and being with boys and all that; she had no place to take the scene and it’s the one time I concur with Pitt in being absolutely dumbfounded. For all the film, I felt like the story was more calculated than the graphics themselves. If the whole tale wasn’t bad enough, it ends with that that curtain call of reiterated nonsense from one cast member after another. The whole film was frivolous, vacuous, and worst of all, I didn’t find a trace of effort made for the film except when it came to the marketing. The “for your consideration” aspect of this film campaigned from the first blip in Variety and then on; landing a slot in the Criterion catalog was their finest coup yet.
For that, I can only laugh and stand in ovation. I’m sure they calculated that reaction, too.
Now Matt (or Shirley), I would wager that you have never written that much about any other movie you so despised. Certainly not on this site, anyway.
I think the film affected you in ways that you don’t fully comprehend at this time.
The fact still remains Samuryan: your argument is hinged on the fact that many people talking about something makes it important, so, by that logic Slumdog Millionaire, Dark Knight, and Benjamin Button are all much more important than Bicycle Thieves because there are many more posts about them.
Greatness of art is always, at some point, judged by its age and intial reaction. Whenever I hear about Umberto D., or The Rules of the Game I always hear about how they were intially either panned, or censored. In thirty years, and you can quote me, Benjamin Button will be looked upon in the same way The Lord of the Rings will be looked upon. Decent acting, directing, cinematography, a completely vapid story, and masterful use of CGI.
Deal. Let’s both agree to re-convene in this thread exactly 30 years from now.
Mark your calendar, Dax, because on April 20th, 2039… you’re goin’ down.
We shall see, friend. The future can be a harsh mistress to such vapidity (unless it’s something like Star Wars, but this film is no Star Wars)…
Yes Benjamin Button was a beautiful movie but that is all. There was no substance at all and the acting/characterization was about as bland as the story.
zzzz…
David Fincher is a fantastic director. He has built a universe of his own throughout his career, and isn’t that what Criterion tries to underline? Artists that create their own vision of the world and express it through their films? David Fincher is also someone incredibly savant about technical aspects of filmmaking, and in terms of preserving and presenting the best transfer, Criterion is impeccable. This seems like a perfect marriage. As for the quality of the film itself, I did enjoy it. It may not be the best effort that this director has presented thus far, but it has vision, scope and artistry, something that many of the Oscar films of this year didn’t.
What people seem to forget is that Criteron is not a collection of “the greatest films of all time”, but simply decent to brilliant films they happen to get the rights to first. Or they are able to buy the rights. Whichever. I’m sure if Criterion had their way, they’d release the bulk of Fincher’s catalogue themselves, but that’s not how the movie distribution business works. Not all fantastic films will end up on Criterion, and not all films on Criterion are fantastic. It’s not something to lose sleep over, people.
What people seem to forget is that Criteron is not a collection of “the greatest films of all time”, but simply decent to brilliant films they happen to get the rights to first. Or they are able to buy the rights. Whichever. I’m sure if Criterion had their way, they’d release the bulk of Fincher’s catalogue themselves, but that’s not how the movie distribution business works. Not all fantastic films will end up on Criterion, and not all films on Criterion are fantastic. It’s not something to lose sleep over, people.
Totally agree with Caroline Palma
hell yes
Well, I attempted to watch it very late at night, and fell asleep in the middle of it, so I’m not really entitled to give an opinion on it. I didn’t fall asleep because I was bored to death. I’ve fallen asleep watching plenty of really good movies, like the first time I watched Brand Upon the Brain.
Bravo Caroline and Pedro- I do not have any form of cable/satellite (only a DVD player hooked to a TV), so I was completely immune last year to any commercial/advertising (or Oscar) hype for ‘Benjamin Button’. But I did just rent the CC double-disc version yesterday, and watched the whole movie, along w/ (later) the excellent documentary on the 3 trimesters of pre-production, production, and post-production. I don’t understand why people are trashing this movie so nastily! I like almost all of Fincher’s work (as many readers here surely do,) and it took nearly 20 years for this film to be made! Along w/ the fact that it was filmed in New Orleans just after Katrina (which the docu. does a good job of revealing the physical and psychological damage of.) The ‘CC treatment’ was IDEAL for this film, which will help fans/repeat viewers understand more of what went into making it, and the themes that the writers/director/producers intended. I think it was a very well (and carefully) conceived AND produced film, the acting is great, the story is probably more interesting thatn Fitz’s throw-off short-story (from what the comments of those involved have said.) And the film is special/unique in that deals w/ the darker realms of love, esp. parting and death (not being able to BE w/ the ones we love,) and all of the stages of life that we normally take for granted, or that Hollywood films don’t usually address. I know, let the ‘flames’ begin, but I am one supporter of this film (despite its huge studio budget!), and of it’s CC 2 DVD release! (But yes, I’d also like to see ‘Slumdog’, along w/ a few other recent films, also released soon by CC.) Peace!
Hunter, you forgot to tag this one too. lol.
Ok- so I couldn’t really stand ‘Forrest Gump’, and I really haven’t seen it in over 10 years. But now that I’ve watched ‘Ben Button’ a couple times, I can see why people gave the film (and its makers) such a hard time. And yes, the effects don’t quite suspend disbelief that convincingly- I kept thinking ‘yea, that’s about what Brad Pitt would look like at that age…’ So I can understand people’s reaction to those points. But I still didn’t think it was THAT bad. The ‘flatness’ of the characters, btw, is part of the point of the film- according to Fincher’s audio commentary. I.e. the ‘boring’ aspects of the dialogue and characterizations were apparently intentional. That said, thake it or leave it, or let’s try to make/write a better film ourselves!
Benjamin Button is a brilliant contribution to the collection… and I believe we’ll only know why in ten or fifteen years time when Fincher is seen as the closest thing to Kubrick’s successor. It may not be his best film, but in terms of technical achievement it is… It’s also a grand artistic achievement… one that can probably be appreciated more fully by those who are in fact, in their old age. It refrains from sentimentality, and is filled with nuance… give it another chance… it is indeed a film that can be studied and admired… frame by frame.. and isn’t that what the collection is about?
I can’t belive that people are actually disscusing this. What a hell? I mean every time new Fincher movie release people are bitching about it. Alien 3, Fight Club, Game, Panic Room, Zodiac. Everytime tons of people looking for something else and that’s why they putting just tons of crap on every movie. But when time passes by everybody just starting to realise how important that movie was. And even if you didn’t like the story (for what you can hate a book, not a motion picture specially here where people suppose to understand the essentials of cinema) it dosn’t mean that the movie wasn’t significant. You can hate Brad Pitt, or studio system or whatever else, but you can’t at least deny that this picture is a step ahead in movie making. At least think about that. Yea Dark Knight is tecnological breathrough and this is not just because you didn’t get the story? Common! Watch it couple of times if you are all so slow. And it’s really best of all Fincher films – just because he never pull anything like it, anything so huge and multilayered.
I liked the film. I admit, it had its weaknesses, but I thought it was an overall well-made film. Should Criterion have released it? I don’t know and I really don’t care. The fact is, they did. I wouldn’t dare compare it to CC’s release of Armageddon or the Rock (eww…).
“But when time passes by everybody just starting to realise how important that movie was.”
I doubt it. In ten years this film will have been completely forgotten. The films from this decade that are going to make a lasting impression on foreign, and art films for the next generation are numerous, but I doubt Hollywood has released more than one (There Will be Blood ).
It’s true, I promise I am not exagerating. Me and my boyfriend felt so sick in the theather we almost had to leave it to go to the toilet to PUKE. The ticket was too expensive, though, we had to go through the whole movie in an attempt to make it worth the price. Probably one of the most overrated movies of all times. What was that health insurance advertisement – like final scene??? Blaaaargh.
samuryan
Me neither. Insomnia, I guess. I’ll probably read this in the morning and re-think my stance, but for now, I’m sticking to my guns. Try and start a thread on Weekend at Bernies 2 and see how many pages it goes. If it gets past 6, I’ll recede my theory.
If not, Benjamin Button = Important Contemporary Film.
(And you’re taking a few liberties with the context of my equation. 50,000 Elvis fans CAN be wrong.)