By Frederic Germay
I recall watching a recent episode of “Talkshow with Spike Feresten,” where Spike declared “Benjamin Button” to be a re-imagining of “Forest Gump.” He then proceeded to list the various similarities between the two movies, including the linguistic style, several somewhat cinematographically symmetrical scenes, and particular romantic elements of both storylines. Although Feresten’s skit was probably intended as a mere comedic observation rather than a critical interpretation of the film, I felt that some potential viewers might be dissuaded from pursuing the film based on its alleged lack of originality.
So I felt that I should set the record straight. Although there are certain undeniable similarities between “Benjamin Button” and other classic films, the story of Benjamin Button in full is a strictly different masterpiece told in a truly unique style. In general, similarities between films doesn’t necessarily constitute theft of ideas or lack of originality, but one has to consider that writers often come to akin conceptions through entirely diverse pathways. Also, writers can find inspiration from other authors’ creations. For example, who honestly will call J.K. Rowlings a plagiarist for her Dementors in “Harry Potter” which remarkably resemble the Ringwraiths from the “Lord of the Rings?”
As for the story of “Benjamin Button,” seldom is there a fairytale romance told on such epic and intimate proportions. That is the specific magic of this film – to unflinchingly display a masterpiece in all of its grandeur, while still managing to capture all the intricate details. For the select few individuals who aren’t already familiar with the strange plot, Benjamin is born as an old man who, as the years progress, gets physically younger. Another heartbreaking gem of the plot is the young girl, Daisy, who ages normally and falls in love with Button, but due to their distinct age differences can only be together for a brief intertwining period in their lives until they fall apart.
The acting performances in this film are to die for. This is undoubtedly Brad Pitt’s greatest achievement, and it is an astounding performance. Cate Blanchett was well cast in the role of Daisy, and her contributions to the film, while very good, do not quite measure up to the pure enthrallment that Pitt delivers. Taraji P. Henson as Queenie is extraordinarily heartwarming, yet Mahershalalhashbaz Ali’s performance feels a tad wooden and forced as Tizzy.
Yet another winning aspect of this film is the smartly written script by Eric Roth. This is an engaging script that never slows down, despite the film’s rather long runtime of near three hours. Many filmgoers often whine about films with long runtimes, but I’m a sincere believer that if the film is well done – then the longer, the merrier. For example, “The Return of the King” and “Titantic” were both three hour long movies that were labeled classics, and also received a record 11 Academy Awards each.
Another complaint that several critics have voiced is that the film has a slow start. I believe that first third of the film would be perceived to some as slower due to the introductory aspects of it. Much of the film time during the first third is spent establishing the storyline and characters. I actually felt it moved along smoothly during the film and the story only slowed down during the last part, only to have the plot rushed by too quickly during the last 10 minutes.
Overall, I think this is one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. I can’t imagine a reason for not recommending this film, except for its long runtime. Then again, I hardly feel as though that particular aspect can be seen as a defect for a film that never wasted a minute. After all, according to the film, “Life isn’t measured in minutes, but in moments.” I give this film a 10/10
