I think it’s a contractual agreement with David Fincher and The Criterion Collection, which released David Fincher’s ‘Seven’ and ‘The Game’ on laserdisc sometime back. I don’t care for ‘Benjamin Button’ in David Fincher’s canon despite the superb filmmaking and storytelling, but when I heard it was Criterion, I wasn’t that suprised. I think ‘Zodiac’ would’ve been a better title for Criterion, but the special edition rights to that title were already owned by Paramount, so Criterion couldn’t do that one. It’s the only Fincher title to be nominated for Best Picture, even though it’s his weakest auteurist effort since ‘Panic Room’. The problem lies within the writing by Eric Roth: ‘Forrest Gump’ from the director of ‘Fight Club’. It’s a shame that the scale of Fincher’s vision and the technical wizardly is undermined by a weak and, frankly, cliched story. The sailor might as well be Lieutenant Dan, and Cate Blanchett is Jenny Gump. There’s even a hummingbird that skirts about the characters here and there, echoing the feather that opens ‘Forrest Gump’ by landing on his shoe.
David Fincher is a great filmmaker, and ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’ is most certainly an example of filmmaking at it’s finest techincal quality and invention. But the story itself is so weak that by the end of it’s 2 1/2 hour running time, we don’t feel it’s intended transcendance but instead feel indifference and disappointment. My two cents.
What will happen in the new millenia of film? Technology will advance as it has, and European influences on American film will continue to increase and take precedence over traditional storytelling styles. But what people seem to forget is that the more things change, the more they tend to stay the same. Each decade has it’s share of B-movie fodder, Hollywood popcorn, and independent quality pictures that shine through the haze of interactivity. The only changes have been in technology and a step further away from the Hayes Code of Censorship. Other than that, nothing drastic has happened in recent years that film buffs haven’t expected. Maybe Mike Leigh’s technique of brainstorming a film with actors could be seen as new, or David Lynch’s ‘Inland Empire’ (although it follows the same rhetoric as Luis Bunuel’s ‘Un Chien Andalou), where every sequence feels spontaneous. Otherwise, the greatest films have already been made and what’s said now is no doubt influenced by the past. I just hope that the future generations of filmgoers don’t watch movies on their (to quote David Lynch) ‘f***ing telephone’.
Criterion must do a Bluray of this, retain the rights to ‘Crimes of the Future’ from their laserdisc set, grab both the Cronenberg commentary from the previous Criterion release and the new commentary from the Warner Brothers release. Overall, as it is on home video it’s not as it should be.
On a different note, why is David Cronenberg veering away from surrealism and body horror to mainstream crime-drama? It’s not to say ‘A History of Violence’ wasn’t a great entry into his canon, but he followed it up with part-deux, ‘Eastern Promises’, and it’s said his new picture will have Denzel Washington and be even more mainstream. There’s no doubting Cronenberg’s brilliance and uncompromising approach to his content, but am I the only one who feels like he is…softening with age? The grotesquerie that was germane to his work seems to be eroding away as well. The intelligence is still there, but what people knew to be ‘Cronenbergian’ is being jettisoned either in favor of greater public consumption, or he simply doesn’t care to survey body horror any longer. So much for long-live the new flesh.
Expensive superhero films based on graphic novels or franchises based on bestselling books that are impervious to criticism because of the dollars they take in. Whenever I speak to anyone about my dislike for Peter Jackson’s pseudo-Tarkovskian ‘Lord of the Rings’ doldrum, the (hate to say it) nerds with their pewter dragons and D&D books vehemently defend it’s worth by telling me how great the books are. “Great books” don’t necessarily make for “great films”, and the two shouldn’t be inseperable. Film is a completely separate medium from literature and film should be judged as an art unto itself, not because a book is really popular. The same can be said for the comic book fans who herald the greatness of superhero films or graphic novels, irrespective of whether the film works or not.
I am tired of the slew of Disney pictures such as ‘National Treasure’ or ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, which aspire to be pre-80s Spielberg popcorn excitement but have less life inside them than a dead insect. And of course, remakes of foreign films. It’s not so much that the efforts aren’t well produced or that people shouldn’t see them if they want. It’s that they make people docile and averse to watching foreign language films that are infinitely better and original. It’s Hollywood deliberately dulling the mind to think for itself.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - Why? about 3 years ago
I think it’s a contractual agreement with David Fincher and The Criterion Collection, which released David Fincher’s ‘Seven’ and ‘The Game’ on laserdisc sometime back. I don’t care for ‘Benjamin Button’ in David Fincher’s canon despite the superb filmmaking and storytelling, but when I heard it was Criterion, I wasn’t that suprised. I think ‘Zodiac’ would’ve been a better title for Criterion, but the special edition rights to that title were already owned by Paramount, so Criterion couldn’t do that one. It’s the only Fincher title to be nominated for Best Picture, even though it’s his weakest auteurist effort since ‘Panic Room’. The problem lies within the writing by Eric Roth: ‘Forrest Gump’ from the director of ‘Fight Club’. It’s a shame that the scale of Fincher’s vision and the technical wizardly is undermined by a weak and, frankly, cliched story. The sailor might as well be Lieutenant Dan, and Cate Blanchett is Jenny Gump. There’s even a hummingbird that skirts about the characters here and there, echoing the feather that opens ‘Forrest Gump’ by landing on his shoe.
David Fincher is a great filmmaker, and ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’ is most certainly an example of filmmaking at it’s finest techincal quality and invention. But the story itself is so weak that by the end of it’s 2 1/2 hour running time, we don’t feel it’s intended transcendance but instead feel indifference and disappointment. My two cents.
Go to Comment
The 2010's: What Will Happen in Film? about 3 years ago
What will happen in the new millenia of film? Technology will advance as it has, and European influences on American film will continue to increase and take precedence over traditional storytelling styles. But what people seem to forget is that the more things change, the more they tend to stay the same. Each decade has it’s share of B-movie fodder, Hollywood popcorn, and independent quality pictures that shine through the haze of interactivity. The only changes have been in technology and a step further away from the Hayes Code of Censorship. Other than that, nothing drastic has happened in recent years that film buffs haven’t expected. Maybe Mike Leigh’s technique of brainstorming a film with actors could be seen as new, or David Lynch’s ‘Inland Empire’ (although it follows the same rhetoric as Luis Bunuel’s ‘Un Chien Andalou), where every sequence feels spontaneous. Otherwise, the greatest films have already been made and what’s said now is no doubt influenced by the past. I just hope that the future generations of filmgoers don’t watch movies on their (to quote David Lynch) ‘f***ing telephone’.
Go to Comment
David Cronenberg's Dead Ringers about 3 years ago
Criterion must do a Bluray of this, retain the rights to ‘Crimes of the Future’ from their laserdisc set, grab both the Cronenberg commentary from the previous Criterion release and the new commentary from the Warner Brothers release. Overall, as it is on home video it’s not as it should be.
On a different note, why is David Cronenberg veering away from surrealism and body horror to mainstream crime-drama? It’s not to say ‘A History of Violence’ wasn’t a great entry into his canon, but he followed it up with part-deux, ‘Eastern Promises’, and it’s said his new picture will have Denzel Washington and be even more mainstream. There’s no doubting Cronenberg’s brilliance and uncompromising approach to his content, but am I the only one who feels like he is…softening with age? The grotesquerie that was germane to his work seems to be eroding away as well. The intelligence is still there, but what people knew to be ‘Cronenbergian’ is being jettisoned either in favor of greater public consumption, or he simply doesn’t care to survey body horror any longer. So much for long-live the new flesh.
Go to Comment
Things your're really sick of about 3 years ago
Expensive superhero films based on graphic novels or franchises based on bestselling books that are impervious to criticism because of the dollars they take in. Whenever I speak to anyone about my dislike for Peter Jackson’s pseudo-Tarkovskian ‘Lord of the Rings’ doldrum, the (hate to say it) nerds with their pewter dragons and D&D books vehemently defend it’s worth by telling me how great the books are. “Great books” don’t necessarily make for “great films”, and the two shouldn’t be inseperable. Film is a completely separate medium from literature and film should be judged as an art unto itself, not because a book is really popular. The same can be said for the comic book fans who herald the greatness of superhero films or graphic novels, irrespective of whether the film works or not.
I am tired of the slew of Disney pictures such as ‘National Treasure’ or ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’, which aspire to be pre-80s Spielberg popcorn excitement but have less life inside them than a dead insect. And of course, remakes of foreign films. It’s not so much that the efforts aren’t well produced or that people shouldn’t see them if they want. It’s that they make people docile and averse to watching foreign language films that are infinitely better and original. It’s Hollywood deliberately dulling the mind to think for itself.
Go to Comment