MCN Columnists
Douglas Pratt

By Douglas Pratt

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

His consciousness advances and matures in the normal manner, so it is only the body of the hero that ages in reverse in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, an extended romantic story with what can readily be considered a fresh perspective. David Fincher directed the 2007 production, with Brad Pittundergoing innovative makeup effects for the central role and Cate Blanchett portraying his lifelong love. The narrative also tracks through much of the Twentieth Century, but not in any sort of gimmicky way. With the exception of World War II and a couple of other incidents, the characters are, for the most part, oblivious to current events. The film is based upon a short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald (who also once wrote a fantasy about a family that owned a diamond as large as a hotel building), but the tale’s one make-believe element justifies its 165-minute running time, turning a typical story about a career-obsessed woman and an unanchored man into a genuinely touching experience, rich with oblique symbolism about the phases of spiritual growth. The hero beats on, in his boat with the current, ceaselessly into the future to be born, or something like that. It is apparent that even without the fantasy, Fincher’s direction is so good at creating a sense of place (a good deal of the film is set in New Orleans), communicating atmosphere, overseeing performances and modulating pace that just a normal love story in his hands would be mesmerizing, but the fantasy creates a special viewpoint. It is not displaying the arcs of life and loving for the first time, but it is showing them with some standard filters removed and some unusual ones added, stimulating new ideas and responses in every beholder.

Paramount has released the film on DVD, but they have also turned the title over to The Criterion Collection for a two-platter collector’s edition. On both, the picture is presented in letterboxed format only, with an aspect ratio of about 2.35:1 and an accommodation for enhanced 16:9 playback. The picture transfer is crisp and, when appropriate, glossy. The 5.1-channel Dolby Digital sound has a compelling dimensionality and clear details. There are alternate French and Spanish tracks in 5.1 Dolby and optional English, French and Spanish subtitles. The standard DVD has no other features. Criterion’s presentation is accompanied by a commentary from Fincher, who shares his experiences in making the film, explains what he likes about it and talks about other aspects of the filmmaking process. “It’s an interesting thing, shooting a movie with septua and octogenarians as extras because, you know, extras, normally, from the standpoint of the production team, do not engender a lot of sympathy. In fact, a lot of times they’re sort of considered to be the most problematic department. It gave me a whole new take on how difficult and confusing the process of making movies is, to people who have never read the script and have no idea what it is you’re trying to do. These are people who are very frail. It’s like you don’t kind of realize how frail somebody who’s seventy-eight is until they have to stand up and hold a glass of lemonade for 13 hours and be in continuity. So, I have a newfound respect for extras.”

The second platter on Criterion’s release presents one of the great production documentaries (how tempting it must have been to start with post-production and conclude with pre-production, but fortunately they didn’t), which not only chronicles the development of the film’s innovative special effects, but also records Fincher coaxing his cast through various scenes, places the creation of the film within its own historical context in regards to the destruction and revitalization of New Orleans (they were scouting the city for the film before Hurricane Katrina hit), and conveys a comprehensive and accurate sense of how the daunting task of creating the film was broken down into its manageable units and then gradually brought together again as a whole. The program runs 175 minutes. Also featured on the platter are two trailers and extensive still-frame presentations of storyboards, production and costume designs, and photos.

– by Douglas Pratt

Douglas Pratt’s DVD-Laser Disc Newsletter is published monthly.
For a free sample, call (516)594-9304 or go to his website at

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

The Ultimate DVD Geek

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon