The adaptations of Benjamin Button

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. John Fox looks forward to the film version, which opened Dec. 25.

What gives me hope that the movie will have reviewers hanging superlatives all over it?

Well, at least B.B. has a good history of adaptation. Faulkner wanted to turn it into a stage play or screenplay back in the ’40s. Gabriel Brownstein gave a literary makeover to the short story in 2002, focusing on certain episodes in Button’s life. And here in 2008 Nunzio DeFillippis and Christina Weir put out the graphic novel version (with a great cover image!). Still haven’t seen any ads for "Benjamin Button: The Musical," but I wouldn’t bet against it. But maybe the adaptability of the story’s premise is also what makes it prone to radical changes –- the concept is so strong that people want to offer their own take on things inside Fitzgerald’s framework.

Shaft, as far as your worry that the movie bears little resemblance to the original story, I guess that brings up the problem of adaptation. Should we judge the film on its relationship to the original? It depends on whether you think fidelity to the source material is a necessity or whether it’s only one option among many. In Hollywood, it doesn’t seem anyone would take a principled stand on either position: they’ll stick close to the material if it appeals to the broadest demographic, and alter the entire thing except the name ("Cheaper by the Dozen" -- what an insult to the excellent book) if it will rake in more cash.

I usually prefer if the movie hews close to the book, but that’s often because I’ve read the book beforehand. It’s also because when the film deviates from the book, sometimes it’s just to pacify the god of ticket sales. (I still haven’t seen "Blindness" because I loved Jose Saramago’s novel so much I’m scared the film will ruin it). But in principle, I recognize that film is a different beast and that changes are necessary for the story to thrive in the visual medium.

After the jump: some concerns.

Many of us mentioned the humor of the original story -– I wonder how much humor will remain in the film, and if it’s been erased, how that will change the nature of the story. But if they cut it, well, drama always scores more Oscars than comedy, anyway.

At least it has a solid pedigree, with David Fincher directing and Eric Roth writing, as well as positive earlier indicators, with the Golden Globes nominations.

But here are some worries:

I’m worried that the film had a pre-pre-production longer than the lifespan of some of the audience that will see it (the project might have begun as early as 1994? Originally starring John Travolta?)

I’m also worried that it’s two hours and forty-seven minutes. That’s "Titanic" length. It’s also "Waterworld" length. Takes a lot of audience stamina to make it through a movie that long. Or maybe I’m just revealing my bladder weakness and lack of patience.

-- John Fox

Photo: F. Scott Fitzgerald. Credit: Cornell University

Comments

[james deezolio]

Having read this short story and most of Fitzgerald's other works in the past, I was curious to see how this movie would play out per say... After having seen it, I can truly say that it captures the spirit of F. Scott's prose and narrative. Witty, humorous, and a pinch of darkness / mystery is exactly what that this film delivered.

I found the nearly three hour experience to be all the worth while, never feeling like I had to look at my watch for cues on length. Let alone the usual nods I endure with far shorter flicks.

All in all, a definite must-see, if not for the wonderful story for the grand imagery.

[James]

The movie is very strong. Not the astounding film some are making it out to be, but very, very good. Haven't read the short story, but there is some lively humor in the film. It's more of a side note to break tension, since the overall theme and feel is SO heavy.

The adaptation of Blindness, on the other hand, was laughably awful. An absolute travesty.

[John Fox]

Good to hear about the length and humor of the Button film, and now I'm glad I didn't see Blindness.

[Shaft]

It may be that the film adaptation added so much to the story to make the main character more likeable and sympathetic (in addition to building it out sufficiently to make a feature-length film); i.e., maybe they wanted Benjamin to seem more like a good guy (because I don't find him particularly endearing in the book). My gripe, though, is that it appears that this adaptation changes some of the few fundamental elements of the original story -- his father abandons him and he's adopted by a woman? That's not an embellishment, that's a new story.

[John Fox]

Having just seen it, yes Shaft, you're right, it's a completely new story. Adaptation in name only. But I understand why they made some of the changes: they needed the story-within-a-story technique to accommodate for the fabulist elements, and of course they had to make Benjamin more three-dimensional and sympathetic than in the short story to win over the audience.

What got the most laughs in my theater was the "I was hit seven times by lightning" man.

[Stacy]

This movie was an utter and complete waste of time. I suppose if no one has ever seen Magnolia or Run Lola Run, the whole "how Daisey almost didn't break her leg" bit would wow you - as it did most everyone in my theatre. But I have seen those films, and many others. This nothing more than a modern Forest Gump. I ask you, what is this movie about? A man getting younger. That's it. Give me a logline in one sentence that's compelling such as "a day in the life of three women in different time periods in which they all decide whether they will live or die" That would be The Hours, and that's compelling filmmaking. I haven't read Fitzgerald's story, and shouldn't have to. This is a film, pure and simple, and it failed miserably on those terms. Poor Cate Blanchett and Tilda Swinton!

[Ian]

I am a huge Fitzgerald fan, and have read this short story. I was so excited to hear it was being made into a movie. A short story seemed to me to offer such a unique oppurtunity to take creative liberties.
They failed in my opinion to rise to the oppurtunity they had. It's not say it was an awful film, but it literally is only the same as the short story because he ages in reverse and has the same name. I completely agree some things need to be toyed with for a story to become a succesful film, but everything?
They went for cheap laughs, and while doing it completely lost the message of the story. Loved how the director even managed to get some Hurrican Katrina references in there. I take my previous statement back this movie was awful, and awfully long.

[Happy]

I loved the movie, and I read the short story prior to watching it. On the trailers, they do mention that it's based on a character from a Fitzgerald short story.
I got a different sense of the story. Who cares if he didn't do anything "important" like run across the country multiple times or anything? Life is brief, momentary, and random. His was just a bit more random than any of ours. His allotment of time ran contrary to ours, but it's all the same. All we can expect out of life is what we put into it. He could have traveled the country, telling everybody his story, and becoming a world-reknowned freak show of sorts, but that's not what the point was. He lived a simple life. And had sex a lot, but you know what? That's okay with me. Sex is part of life. He wanted to experience life, and he did. He's based on a character in a short story, not the short story itself, which I find pretty satirical, meant to turn the whole "Youth is wasted on the young" mantra on its head. Because when you're young, life is at its most innocent beauty, with all its colors, first experiences, and smells. Personally, I think it's a nice introduction to the world. Gets you pumped for the big ring.