Design Observer

About
Books
Job Board
Newsletters
Archive
Contact



Observatory

About
Resources
Submissions
Contact


Featured Writers

Michael Bierut
William Drenttel
John Foster
Jessica Helfand
Alexandra Lange
Mark Lamster
Paul Polak
Rick Poynor
John Thackara
Rob Walker


Departments

Advertisement
Audio
Books
Collections
Dear Bonnie
Dialogues
Essays
Events
Foster Column
From Our Archive
Gallery
Interviews
Miscellaneous
New Ideas
Opinions
Partner News
Photos
Poetry
Primary Sources
Projects
Report
Reviews
Slideshows
The Academy
Today Column
Unusual Suspects
Video


Topics

Advertising
Architecture
Art
Books
Branding
Business
Cities / Places
Community
Craft
Culture
Design History
Design Practice
Development
Disaster Relief
Ecology
Economy
Education
Energy
Environment
Fashion
Film / Video
Food/Agriculture
Geography
Global / Local
Graphic Design
Health / Safety
History
Housing
Ideas
Illustration
India
Industry
Info Design
Infrastructure
Interaction Design
Internet / Blogs
Journalism
Landscape
Literature
Magazines
Media
Museums
Music
Nature
Obituary
Other
Peace
Philanthropy
Photography
Planning
Poetry
Politics / Policy
Popular Culture
Poverty
Preservation
Product Design
Public / Private
Public Art
Religion
Reputations
Science
Shelter
Social Enterprise
Sports
Sustainability
Technology
Theory/Criticism
Transportation
TV / Radio
Typography
Urbanism
Water


Comments (13) Posted 01.16.09 | PERMALINK | PRINT

Kerry Saretsky

Curious Case of the Better Adaptation



Tales of the Jazz Age, the collection of stories in which The Curious Case of Benjamin Button first appeared in 1922. Illustration by John Held, Jr.

Now that I am comfortably “well-read” in my twenties with a Master’s in modern English Literature tucked into my back pocket, I can’t help but notice that every movie I have seen lately — and every movie that I want to see — has independently stood as a work of print before being reincarnated into movie form. Twilight. The Tale of Despereaux. Marley and Me. Julie and Julia. He’s Just Not That into You. Modern bestsellers are easy to recognize, but I wonder whether a general audience, gazing up at the colossal figures of Kate and Leo during the previews, realizes that Revolutionary Road is a book by Richard Yates nominated for the National Book Award in 1962?

Just as it has become so fashionable to recycle, be it energy or movie plots, somewhere along the line it’s also became fashionable to be hypercritical of “book movies.” And in truth, until recently, I was one of those hypercritical people. So how do I dare to swear on my master’s degree, earned with theses and dissertations on F. Scott Fitzgerald, that I think The Curious Case of Benjamin Button — the movie — was better than “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” the book? Because in this brilliant, albeit curious, case, the movie had absolutely nothing to do with the book. Here, Hollywood backed away from its own green campaign, throwing away the plot, the characters, the setting, everything that made Benjamin Button what it is — with the exception of two things: one, the name of the protagonist (and the film’s title) and two, the notion of aging backwards — an idea which was lifted from Mark Twain, buttressed by Samuel Butler, and immortalized by Shakespeare. An idea which, one could argue, wasn’t actually Fitzgerald’s at all.




Don't get me wrong. I love movies; I just love books more. To be fair, my disappointment in book movies doesn’t stem from feigned cinematic erudition or literary snobbishness. The book comes first — it is the familiar against which we must compare the new, the film which bears the burden of garishness compared to the staid elevation of literature. To me, no marathon could be as breathless, as invigorating, as a marathon read, when you can’t wait to get home in the evening and bury yourself against the cold world, slipping into bed, your body between cotton sheets, your nose between paper ones. And then the utter exhaustion, the let-down, when there’s not one more step to run, not one more page to read — at the end of a truly great book or series or author. The rush is over, the excitement fades, and the world goes back to turning.

It is our desire to repeat, to relive, to recapture that damns the “book movie.” What can a movie recreate when the plot, the characters, the climax and denouement have all already been tasted, chewed, swallowed, digested? All without the lyricism of the author’s chattering voice, the thrill of images constructed from a trill of words? It is just a picture book, an old album of places you’ve already visited, that you may reflect on fondly, indulging in resurrected shadows, but one that rarely reproduces a state of rapture.

The problem with the book movie lies not only with the recreation of what we already know, but in the simultaneous denial of film identity. It is like the Wolf lying in bed in Grandma’s clothing: it just doesn’t fit, and anybody beside Little Red herself would be able to tell something was wrong with this picture. Cinema is a different medium — it is not simply a more efficient way to get the information you need to write a book report. What makes The Curious Case of Benjamin Button different is that it uses all the power of the art of film in its current state not to recreate Fitzgerald’s story, but to invoke the spirit and mood of the writing, thereby transcending the original form into something unique and real and beautiful.

An excerpt of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button the screen play by Eric Roth

Fitzgerald’s story is 22 pages long, begins in 1860, and takes place in Baltimore. The movie is three hours long, begins in 1918, and takes place in New Orleans. In the story, Mr. Button never makes buttons, Benjamin’s mother never dies, and his love interest is named Hildegarde — a girl who transforms from jailbait to cougar to matron before her increasingly uninterested husband’s eyes. There is no Second World War, no motorcycles, no Beatles, no television, no Katrina. After all, Fitzgerald wasn’t alive to witness any of these.

And yet, for a scholar of Fitzgerald, this is somehow not betrayal. For, reading between the lines of the script is like reading a love letter to the author. Everywhere, there are marks of reverence — from the heroine’s name (Daisy, lifted from the pages of The Great Gatsby) to her obsession with dance, an obsession which plagued Fitzgerald’s beloved Zelda. Fitzgerald set his tale in the antebellum South, a time and place which — for an early-20th-Century white Northerner like Fitzgerald — held a great deal of wistful romance, much like Fitzgerald’s own roaring era and the magical city of New Orleans does for us now.

But beyond these superficial dedications to the author, the script mimics Fitzgerald’s style to a T. And no — the story of Benjamin Button does not begin with a great clock that ticks backwards, but it certainly could have, for Fitzgerald’s entire opus is peppered with clocks. It is as though his heroes and heroines dance the Maxixe, not to the tangled tune of the horns but to the relentless, merciless tick-tock of the clock. From Mr. Gateaux’s memorial clock; to the clock on the hall table when Daisy spends the night; to the travel clock that Benjamin packs away the days he leaves the house; to the alarm clock that he unpacks from Daisy’s bag as a five-year-old and accidentally sets off — these are the scions of the clock that Jay Gatsby tumbles from Nick Carraway’s mantle when he first finds Daisy again, as he attempts to physically reverse time. It is that essence of reversing the clock, of tumbling away time, that pervades Fitzgerald’s writing, that Eric Roth recreates stunningly in his magical backward masterpiece. If Fitzgerald saw himself in Gatsby at all, which he surely did, then this movie is more like an answer, an admonishment to be careful what you wish for. While Fitzgerald’s early story is more about personal difference and solitude, the movie captures themes familiar in most of Fitzgerald’s work — wistfulness, nostalgia, regret, longing and inevitability — while affirming that even reversing the clock does not resurrect the dead, nor recapture lost chances. In our youth-obsessed world, this movie delivers a definitive slap on the wrist. “Nothing lasts,” says Benjamin. “Nothing lasts,” echoes Daisy.

The producers of Benjamin Button had nearly a century of world experience and technological innovation beyond Fitzgerald, and they used it. There is no attempt to stay true to the original and it is this choice that’s saved the film. Starting in Fitzgerald’s time evokes his signature ambience, but also allows contemporary viewers to fall down the rabbit hole into a cinematic wonderland, nostalgically reliving one decade after another as they are brought vividly to life on screen. Aging the film’s stars is itself astonishing: it’s as if the movie isn’t ashamed to be just that — a movie — and it ultimately rejoices in the power of its transcendent visual effects, its unquestionable grandeur, its flip-book imagery. Benefiting from the subtlety of its fundamental form (film is, after all, a time-based medium), the movie shows with wrenching clarity the implications of age, from the humiliation of an old man playing a secluded game with a little girl, to the humiliation of an old woman dressing herself before a young man.

Curiously, for a writer whose main preoccupation was stopping the clock, Fitzgerald failed to reach the poignancy in “Benjamin Button” that the film so gracefully captures, leaving us with the realization that aging backward strips us not only of love and comfort and company, but of experiences and achievements and respect. Perhaps youth is not, as Twain would say, “the best part of one’s life,” but is, instead, the part most encumbered by emptiness. The movie refutes Fitzgerald, establishing that there is something serene and beautiful about growing old, and something oddly melancholy about growing young.

Such things are hard to capture in written form, but understood in an instant when expressed visually— an instant in which, it is true, a picture is worth a thousand words. In disregarding the place, the time, the characters, the everything of the written version, the movie is able to project the heart of the story and the universal truth of Fitzgerald’s work: that holding onto time is like waves clutching desperately at the sand. Both are liquid and the more one tries to harness them, the more they impossibly dissolve and slip past each other, beyond our mortal comprehension, beyond our fallible and deeply human reach.
Share This Story

RELATED POSTS


What Does H. P. Lovecraft Look Like?


On the Trail of The Eater of Darkness


On My Shelf: André Breton's Nadja


True Stories: A Film about People Like Us


On My Shelf: Jean-Luc Godard Anthologized



RSS Subscribe to Comment Feed

Comments (13)   |   JUMP TO MOST RECENT >>

When I first saw the trailer for Benjamin Buttons, I thought it was a movie adaptation of Andrew Sean Greer's book THE CONFESSIONS OF MAX TIVOLI.
Henry Sene Yee
01.25.09 at 10:29

Don't you mean T.H.White and not Mark Twain? White's Merlin ages backwards in THE ONCE & FUTURE KING.

--jane yolen
janeyolen
01.26.09 at 06:17

Nice post.

The complications of telling the "same" story in different media is at the crux of much of the blablabalbla about the "End of Print" and the "Collapse of Newspapers." The hard part for journalists and publishers is they don't understand how different media are optimized for different things, but all of them can be used to "tell the story" or "make the argument."

Industry is starting to figure it out, but lots of ink, electricity and time are being wasted until they do.
MichaelJ
01.26.09 at 07:43

Interestingly, the film was supposed to take place in Baltimore as well, if IMBD is correct: "The original setting for the film was to be Baltimore. David Fincher and Eric Roth changed the location to New Orleans when the studio requested they film there to take advantage of the state's filming discount."

It would have been interesting to see how different the film would have been had it taken place in the original setting.

Either way, it was a great film!
Austin
01.26.09 at 10:43

The work of Fitzgerald is best read when one is a teenager, before having had gone to college, or for one who is nostalgic about the twenties in some shape or form but expects no great literature. To read it nowadays (the Great Gatsby included in this measure) without laughing at its triteness is a questionable matter at best.
Laurence Corbin
01.26.09 at 10:53

When I first saw the trailer for the movie Benjamin Button, I thought it was a remake of Forrest Gump.

The screenwriter Eric Roth should not be commended for making a smart adaptation of an F. Scott Fitzgerald story, but rather for so blatantly ripping off the Oscar-winning film he wrote over 15 years ago. The parallels between Forrest Gump and Benjamin Button are rather disturbing.

I love your argument, Kerry, but this is the wrong film to make the case for it. Benjamin Button is a Lifetime movie with a once-over by David Fincher's buddies at Digital Domain; there's not a single original thought in it. I'll take a Fitzgerald story any day. Or even Forrest Gump.
Alissa Walker
01.26.09 at 10:56

I am not a big fan of Brad Pitt so I haven't seen Benjamin Button am I missing out?

David
Dodos Design
www.dodosdesign.com
David - Dodos Design
01.26.09 at 02:20

You make a passionate case but i personally found the film heavyhanded and emotionally devoid. There are some good, even great bits, but the thing is uneven at best. And the screenwriter does steal from his own Forrest Gump script enough to be annoying.


I think a better case for a truly great film based very loosely on a book is last year's There Will Be Blood, adapted from Upton Sinclair's Oil!
uciel
01.26.09 at 05:35

This was wonderful to read and well written. You're education has certainly proved its self.

In regards to:
"What makes The Curious Case of Benjamin Button different is that it uses all the power of the art of film in its current state not to recreate Fitzgerald’s story, but to invoke the spirit and mood of the writing, thereby transcending the original form into something unique and real and beautiful. "

I feel that this conclusion has parallels contemporary graphic design.

There are some in the design community who believe that "Modern Design" (circa 1900?-1980?) is old and outdated and deserves to stay out of the way of "Post-Modernism". Also, that people who are doing similar design today are just copying the same ideas and styles.

This can be paralleled to telling film studio's to leave those older books alone. They belong in the past, and you're just copying them and their ideas.

What I would like to see is the overall ideas, concepts, and feelings--maybe even styles-- of the "Modern" period (which are great and still powerful today) be combined with more "Post-Modern" or contemporary technological advances and approaches.
I think this would be an ideal scenario.

Similar to your "Benjamin Button Movie". With its re-interpretation of the idea and essence without using the same elements as the first.

There are some designers I believe are doing this today but not enough.

I just thought I would share.

great post.
mat
01.27.09 at 05:34

The author omits another and perhaps the best known example of this well worn plot. Although it seems that it may not be that well known to twenty-somethings with a degree in modern Engligh literature.

In the last season of the sitcom Mork & Mindy, Mork lays an egg and the comedian Jonathan Winters hatches from it as Mearth, the couple's small child. We subsequently learn that life forms from the planet Ork age backwards.

Take that Benjamin Button!





Amos Klausner
01.27.09 at 08:14

Well said my sweet, well done...
Kim Snyder
01.30.09 at 06:54

"Cinema is a different medium". To me that says it all. As long as people go to see movies based on literary works and expect to relive the experience of reading the book, they will walk away with disappointed.

Thanks for the nice post.
KChini
01.30.09 at 11:17

Ms. Yolen: In Matthew Bruccoli's introduction to "Benjamin Button" in his anthology of FSF's short stories, he notes that Fitzgerald found the idea of aging backwards in Twain's notebooks. I wasn't aware of Merlin's aging backwards, but I will check out that book. Thanks for your comment, and sorry for my delayed response.

Mr. Klausner: I may be a twentysomething, but I spent my childhood watching Mork and Mindy reruns! I loved it. But I never saw that episode--will now have to look for it.
Kerry Saretsky
03.06.09 at 06:04



LOG IN TO POST A COMMENT
Don't have an account? Create an account. Forgot your password? Click here.

Email


Password




|
Share This Story



Kerry Saretsky graduated from Princeton and is a writer who divides her time between New York City and Oxford, England. She contributes to numerous publications, is writing a children's novel, and maintains a French food blog.
More >>

DESIGN OBSERVER JOBS









MORE BY Kerry Saretsky

01.05.09: Movable Feast
More by Kerry Saretsky >>