Showing posts with label forrest gump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label forrest gump. Show all posts

Thursday, January 22, 2009

Much ado about button

Is it me, or did The Curious Case of Benjamin Button completely suck? (Of course, it's probably going to clean up at the Oscars next month. Sigh)

I, for one, really wanted to like it.

First off, the movie is directed by David Fincher, who directed one of the best movies from the last 10 years, Fight Club.

Fincher has had a somewhat speckled record. I thought The Game was terrific (and might have even been the best role of Michael Douglas' career). And I didn't think Se7en was horrible. But Panic Room was a pretty crappy effort. And while Zodiac had a few things to recommend it, it also suffered from long stretches of boredom. (I guess that's the problem when you're sticking with a real life story that has no resolution.) But when a guy directs a movie as good as Fight Club, you figure he can do anything.

Second, it has Brad Pitt, who is probably my favorite among the mega stars. He isn't deranged like Tom Cruise. He isn't self congratulating like Will Smith. He's a decent actor. And there's a kind of lusty dreaminess in his eyes that has a lot of back story one can contemplate.

And, finally, it is from a truly wonderful short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

What could be bad?

Well, if Fincher and his writer (Eric Roth) had made the decision to stick with Fitzgerald's basic outline, it might have been a lot better.

The tale was one of Fitzgerald's more wispy, fairy stories -- like "The Diamond as Big as the Ritz". It was a magical realist idea, about a man who ages in reverse. And the story is a quiet gem. It's extremely funny and poignant. Benjamin meets a woman whom he falls in (and out of) love with; he tries to go to college and is turned away (he looks too old); he goes to war as an officer, even though he's a teenager. And so on.

Roth decided to use pretty much nothing from the story except for the basic idea of a man aging in reverse.

He moves the action from the late-19th century to the middle of the 20th century. He decides to make Button a foundling who is taken care of by an infertile black woman. (Huh?) He changes Baltimore to New Orleans. (And there's a really unfortunate decision to factor Hurricane Katrina into this mess.) The unhappy marriage is turned into a tormented romance filled with true love. (Barf.)

But the thing that was mostly missing was the joy of the Fitzgerald story. It was a tall tale; lighter than air. Seeing things through the eyes of someone so fundamentally different than he appears is an idea so ripe with possibilities. All the torments of aging are turned on their head.

But everything is heavy in the movie. They went for an epic rather than a tall tale. Huge mistake.

My mother, when watching it, turned to me and said, "It's like Forrest Gump for 2008." (And she didn't even know that Roth was, in fact, the screenwriter for Forrest Gump.) That strikes me as a pretty fair assessment. Pitt glides through the big events of history much like Gump -- whereas Benjamin Button glided through the vicissitudes of daily life. The tormented romance with Cate Blanchett became the central focus of the film. Is that really all Fincher and Roth thought would keep our attention? Sex between two hot bodies? (And, let's face it, Blanchett isn't even all that hot.)

Don't get me wrong -- there was a lot of room for interpretation of the Fitzgerald story which wasn't very long and could be read in less than an hour. Having some scientists come and try to figure Benjamin's condition out might have been interesting. And even though the story, which started in antebellum Baltimore, fit nicely with its time and place it wasn't essentially a southern story. Moving it up slightly in time wasn't a fatal idea.

But the changes they came up with were so cliched. So silly. So unnecessary.

I'm hoping Slumdog Millionaire kicks Benjamin Button's ass.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Dump Gump

I was startled to read on Defamer this morning that apparently Robert Zemeckis, Tom Hanks and Eric Roth were contemplating a Forest Gump sequel shortly before 9/11. But after the terrorist attacks, the powers that be decided that a post-9/11 world had no place in it for Gump.

It's funny, Forrest Gump (a movie I've always hated) has been playing round the clock on HBO lately. And the other day I rewatched a big stretch of it.

It was pretty much as bad as I remember. But I was a little surprised at one thing: It might have been a much better movie if not for Tom Hanks' narration. The narration was good for a few jokes -- but it spelled out Forrest Gump's idiocy too starkly. It might have been a more interesting movie (and less intellectually insulting) if Hanks was a bit of a mystery. If you didn't quite know whether he was as big a fool as everyone thought he was, or if there was a mind working behind those vacant eyes.

While there have been plenty of idiots cropping up throughout literature (and while this might come off as extremely snobby) I'm still not sure I approve of the idea of making a virtue out of being unable to think for oneself. And the fact that every moment of American history from the 1960s through the 1980s was glided over in a flip, uninteresting, and cliched way, did not improve matters any. It just felt like it was pulling the necessary heartstrings at the right particular moment -- complete with the pop rock nostalgia.

A far more successful movie on a lot of the same themes (a portrait of an era through an insignificant man tramping through history, etc.) is Woody Allen's Zelig -- which is a minor masterpiece. (And which has some of the best narration in any movie ever made.)

In short, I don't think the world will be any poorer if we lose the sequel to Forrest Gump.