Benjamin Button -- kind of a jerk?

This week we began a discussion of "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It takes about an hour to read and can be found online here at Project Gutenberg (with the rest of "Tales of the Jazz Age") and here on its own. Our discussion turns from the story itself to the film adaptation, which opened Dec. 25. Carolyn Kellogg says:

I agree with Shaft's comment -- Benjamin Button in the story is not all that likable. In fact, as he goes from 50 to 30, he's kind of a jerk.

He's absolutely smitten by Hildegarde's beauty, and she falls for him for being different from her other suitors -- more stable and mature. And like so many relationships, these initial assumptions don't turn out so well.

There was only one thing that worried Benjamin Button; his wife had ceased to attract him. At that time Hildegarde was a woman of thirty-five.... In the early days of their marriage Benjamin had worshipped her. But, as the years passed, her honey-colored hair became an unexciting brown, the blue enamel of her eyes assumed the aspect of cheap crockery....

Certainly an unrelenting look at someone you're supposed to love, but it shows how Button is pretty oblivious about how his backwards life connects to the people around him. He goes off to fight in the Spanish-American war, and is further dismayed upon his return. "Hildegarde, waving a large silk flag, greeted him on the porch, and even as he kissed her he felt with a sinking of the heart that these three years had taken their toll. She was a woman of forty now, with a faint skirmish line of gray hairs in her head. The sight depressed him." He checks himself in the mirror and finds he's still getting younger. "His destiny seemed to him awful, incredible." Hildegarde is "annoyed," she regards him with "scorn," and she sniffs repeatedly as they talk. Where he's clueless, she's intolerant.

The relationship between Benjamin and Hildegarde seems -- from the endless ads for the movie we're seeing in L.A. -- to be the biggest departure from the story. The filmmakers have taken the cold, amusing misunderstandings of these two and turned them into a tragic love story of people who are destined to be pulled apart.

Is this an acceptable form of adaptation? Some thoughts after the jump.

I think this is an acceptable form of adaptation -- when the kernel of an idea from the source material is developed in a new and different way from the screen. I don't mind that the time frame has moved up by several decades, or that Benjamin becomes a foundling. But this will change his character -- instead of a demanding upper-class man/boy, he'll be someone searching for his identity. And Hildegarde and Benjamin will be very different people on the screen than they were on the page.

But I think I'm sanguine about these changes because it was a short story, one that whips along on premise rather than character. To make such grand changes when adapting a novel is disturbing because character is one of the satisfying elements of a good read -- and nobody who loves, say, "Harry Potter" or "The English Patient" would be happy if the protagonists had been significantly changed for the screen.

-- Carolyn Kellogg

Photo credit: Paramount Pictures

Comments

[Amy Shearn]

Carolyn, I'm with you — for some reason I don't feel that troubled about what I'm sure is a mangled adaptation. And I think you're right that it's probably because I don't feel all that attached to BB as a character, so it doesn't feel like a personal affront to have him altered. Unlike my utter rage at, say, Keira Knightly playing Elizabeth Bennett (so wrong!!) or the deeply bizarre Demi Moore adaptation of The Scarlet Letter (does anyone remember that movie? It was so incredibly strange).

[Dave Williams]

The fact that you're all nitpicking the movie proves its worth.

Any movie -- excuse me, FILM, that keeps you thinking and discussing long after you've seen it is worth its weight in gold.

I had problems with it, too. But I didn't pay $19.00 to think about them. I loved it.

[Teresa Binstock]

Since I hadn't read the Fitzgerald story, I wasn't beset with comparisons as I watched the movie. The director, producer, and actors made an aesthetic work that can stand alone, with comparisons to the book not needed. More generally, a work of cinematic art can be judged of its own accord without bending to the often sophomorically academic exercise of drudgingly comparing the movie to the novel or story which inspired the movie's initial conception. Twilight is similarly fated for analytic endeavors even as the movie seemed remarkably like the book.

[John Fox]

I wouldn't call it a sophomoric exercise to compare the original to the adaptation. In fact, every time I see a movie based on a short story or a novel, I learn a great deal about screenwriting. Why did they change this scene/character and not something else? I try to figure it out. It's a way of teaching me the benefits and limitations of the medium of film.

It's only sophomoric if rapid fans offer kneejerk criticism of any deviations from the original. That I'm against.

But as Amy pointed out above, this isn't the type of story that will have that many devoted fans railing against the "mangled" story.

[Kate C]

The film and the story really have nothing at all in common other than their titles and the central premise -- both are about men who age backwards. But while the story is an ironic tale about human foolishness (we value youth and not the wisdom that comes from living), the film is a morose tragedy about a very normal (and even ordinary) man trapped in a BODY that ages backwards. Fitzgerald's Benjamin is born able to talk and read and think and reason. As he ages, he gradually loses the things we learn as we live our lives -- in college, for example, he actually "unlearns" as he moves from freshman to senior (and he decides he needs to go to high school after he graduates!). He's a "bit of a jerk" in his relationship with Hildegarde because his younger self can't even remember the things he loved about her when he was older -- he has no memories at all! The film's Benjamin, on the other hand, remembers everything. He only APPEARS to be growing younger -- his mind ages like all of ours do. This completely alters the point of the piece. Instead of commenting on human foolishness and our inability to value what's really important, the film gives us a Forrest Gumpian message about the randomness of life and how tragic it is that circumstances get in the way of true love. There is nothing particularly interesting about the film's Benjamin -- other than the cool CGI effects used as Brad Pitt's character "youthens." Had the screenwriter (who apparently also wrote Forrest Gump) used as his source Andrew Sean Greer's novel The Confessions of Max Tivoli (also an adaptation of Fitzgerald's story), it might have been a better film. Greer's concept is much closer to the film's. As it is, the film and story seem to take the same concept in completely different directions.

[Boanerges Rubalcava]

The plain truth? the movie is toooooo long. The whole sequence in Russia could be cut (maybe half hour) and then the movie would be better. These comments are what I heard from those who went to see it.

[j. m.]

Thank goodness the film doesn't try to stick to the original depressing story. There is no story to speak of, the structure is hardly narrative at all. Fincher keeps the worst aspects of the screenplay at arms length. The pleasure is in small moments that refer to nothing but Hollywood romantic tradition. It is manipulative and sentimental, but flawlessly executed. Somehow, it never insults the intelligence. It reminded me of Kubricks' Barry Lyndon. It's long and episodic, you don't much care what happens to anyone, but there are beautiful moments all along the way.

[sandra]

My family and I absolutely loved this movie. I have the utmost respect for David Fincher and his storytelling ability. It is very entertaining and has been the source of our conversations for the past two days. I have not read the short story; however, this version is thoughtful, emotional and meaningful. The characters are colorful, yet simple and perfectly cast.

Go see this movie, you won't regret it!

[Pam Ward]

Some of these comments are obvious attempts to force-fed self absorbed beliefs down other people's throat. Read the story. Fitzgerald's tale is an exploration of age and how it affects people in different ways. Button is not a "jerk" for reacting that way to his aging wife. Let's just call a spade a spade. Button's feelings are the plain truth in all its ugly glory. Great characters should not be judged on their righteousness or how high they leap toward some societal bar wiggling out of reach. I say let the gory of real life ring. The reaction to Button's age, young or old, is Fitzgerald's attempt to convey how preoccuppied we are with appearances and more importantly how we think people should behave. The real fantasy is when we try to camouflage Fitzgerald's gruesome yet beautiful truth by forcing it to fit some fairy tale version of reality. As far as adaptation are concerned, short stories are like coloring books and films are the rainbow that can go in or out the lines. Whether you like the final picture is up to you.