Visual Effects and Rotoscoping

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is really something. To view this film is to see just how far the craft of filmmaking has come in the twenty-first century, thanks to its digital effects and advanced use of rotoscoping technology. For years I’ve felt that CGI, if done poorly and without inspiration, can really handicap a film; as I’ve previously noted, there’s nothing like the real thing. So many directors throw in digital creatures and explosions, and for what purpose? I suppose they find it easier and more cost efficient to do things this way (or so they hope), although, at the end of the day, what’s up on the screen isn’t three dimensional but rather hollow and lifeless. Sure, there have been instances where technology and art have combined to make cinematic events palpable (Peter Jackson’s) King Kong and Gary Sinise’s legs, or lack thereof, in Forrest Gump, come to mind), but by and large, computerized effects are consistently abused and robbed of their value. Luckily, director David Fincher attempts to change this with Benjamin Button, and he rarely makes a misstep.

Filming a story about a man who ages backwards may have been deemed impossible thirty years ago — or at the very least, improbable — without the substitution of different actors of various ages. A sixty year old actor could do one scene, while a forty year old steps in to do another. The reason we believe in Brad Pitt’s ransformation as Benjamin is because Fincher has allowed the actor to retain a thespian’s all important window to the soul: his eyes. Pitt’s eyes have either been placed onto the CGI version of himself, or his eyes have been digitally duplicated onto the effect. While I do not know how they did it, I am positive that it is those eyes that allow us to become fully invested in this character. The frequent narration by Pitt also help (a nice touch by screenwriter Eric Roth).

As Benjamin gets younger in appearance, Fincher does come across a dilemma that I’m not sure he, nor the film, can fully overcome. A younger actor replaces Pitt to finish out the story, and with him comes a new voice, face, and pair of eyes. Suddenly, our suspension of disbelief has been somewhat broken, and the final moments of his life do not have as much of an impact as the emotionally involving material requires. We are now just seeing an elderly Cate Blanchett in large framed spectacles (resembling Katharine Hepburn in a way), caressing a child actor who probably had to get back to his tutor once Fincher yelled cut. I suppose rotoscoping can make you appear older (and it does so brilliantly here), but when it comes to youth…well, that’s another story.

I’ve gotten ahead of myself, however, and haven’t mentioned how Fincher and his effects team create such an encompassing and beautiful environment in New Orleans and abroad. Developing a mis en scene that would have left Arthur C. Clarke impressed, Fincher’s team colors in every backdrop with impeccable attention to detail, in effect creating a mosaic of vivid color and texture. The many sequences at sea are so fully realized that you may find yourself second guessing what’s real and what isn’t; eventually you’ll give up and just allow yourself to be enthralled. When Fincher shows us 1950s Times Square, we accept the green screens that were probably used to help create the effect. The amount of care and and preparation needed to reproduce cities, oceans, and more only adds to thrill you get watching it all unfold. When Fincher shows us a startling sunset, we’ve stopped thinking about digital effects and would rather revel in the magic that films like this are all about.

Fincher doesn’t stop there, however. When one recurring character describes his frequent encounters with lightning, Fincher uses a faded out, deteriorating film stock (or digitally gives off this impression) to depict the brief flashback. The old footage seems authentic enough to be confused with old Lumiere outtakes. The director also allows a nice moment where, upon the introduction of a clock that rotates backwards, dead soldiers are shown rising up from the ground. The footage is simply being reversed. It’s an effective choice which furthers the message of a grieving father wanting to bring back his fallen son. Also, in several key scenes, a ticking clock can be heard under character’s dialogue, and Fincher never allows the viewer to forget that the concept of diminishing time is so crucial to the story.

Much has already been written about the similarities the film has to Robert Zemeckis’ Forrest Gump (also penned by Roth). While they are certainly there, the similar traits aren’t very distracting. In Forrest Gump, we had a love interest named Jenny, and in Benjamin Button, it’s Daisy. Forrest doesn’t want his child to grow up “like him” (mentally retarded), while Benjamin doesn’t want his disorder to be passed on to his kin. Some have even compared the shrimp boat scenes in Gump to the tugboat scenes in Benjamin Button. The difference is that each protagonist’s journey to these moments (or plot points) are extremely diverse. Roth may write about characters on the same road, but they are most definitely not driving the same car. Still, the comparisons are worth noting.

Since I’m writing this review about a month after the film has been released to American audiences (there are so many films out now, some unfortunately get lost in the shuffle), I have been able to hear many people’s complaints with the piece, besides the usual Forrest Gump comparisons. This allows me to craft my review as somewhat of a rebuttal, or counterpoint to other moviegoers’ sour reactions. Some have said that in the hospital scenes that shape the film (which I’ll admit, there are too many of), Cate Blanchett is unable to be heard or understood. She is not only old and sickly but must maintain that thick, New Orleans accent that she possesses throughout. While at times a little difficult to comprehend, it is not unbearable nor inaudible. I listened closely to her and, for the most part, understood.

Others have said that the film is simply too long. While this is debatable, personally, I never felt bored or noticed my attention waning. Knowing that the film follows the man’s entire life cycle, I was ready to keep watching and observing, seeing how he would subtly age from one scene to the next. Are the scenes with English actress Tilda Swinton really necessary? I enjoyed them, and it only added to the idea of people passing this unique man by. Their scenes together are sincere, sweetly performed, and modestly staged.

While not perfect, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is an important film that uses all the techniques and skills of filmmaking to birth an advanced display of storytelling. The film uses expensive, groundbreaking technology that for once actually appears groundbreaking. The performances are all strong (especially Brad Pitt and Jason Flemyng as his father), the makeup first rate, and the direction is fresh and inventive. Yes, one late plot point involving Hurricane Katrina seems somewhat forced, but it isn’t enough to detract from the overall film. Ultimately, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button shows just how far and technical motion pictures have really come, and the film is as special as an ever observant hummingbird.

Source: http://www.411mania.com/movies/film_reviews/95079