The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Last week, I screened 20 minutes of clips of scenes from David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. In our first impression article, I expressed my concern and disappointment over the footage shown, partly because I felt some of the short scenes dragged. Note: I haven’t seen the entire film - I want to be clear on this…, I only screened 20 minutes of selected scenes. It was good but not great. I wasn’t alone, FirstShowing and Jeff Wells also posted articles about the disappointing buzz the footage received at the festival.

In my blog posting, I told you about the rumors of Paramount’s vicious fight with Fincher behind the scenes over the running time of the film. We also tried to connect the dots between the departure of Fincher’s planned adaption of Heavy Metal and the rumored fight. Now The Playlist has found an interview with Kevin Eastman, creator of the Ninja Turtles and publisher of Heavy Metal, where he finally confirms the rumors:

“We developed it for Paramount in January… And it was time for them to make a decision [about going forward with the project] and they were at odds with Fincher over another project, ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,’ [because] they wanted him to reduce the running time… and so they said, ‘Until you step up to do what we want you to do with Benjamin, we’re not going to greenlight any other of [your] movies.’ And David said, ‘Fine, fuck you, I’m going to set up [Heavy Metal] somewhere else,’ so we jumped over to Sony and set it up there.”

Yes, Fincher is a bad ass who won’t take crap from anyone - including the studio who has supposedly spent over $150 million on a film aiming for award consideration. I’ve been told that this is his best and worst quality as a filmmaker.

But what if Paramount is right? I loved Fincher’s Zodiac, but I think the theatrical cut could have benefited by losing 20-30 minutes on the back end. (Hey, there will always be a director’s cut on DVD) It seems to me that Paramount might believe they are in the same situation with Button. It is worth noting that around the time of the Heavy Metal departure, the film was supposedly just under three hours long. An AICN reader saw a screening of that cut and admitted that “By an hour and a half/forty five, the audience was getting restless.”

Anne Thompson’s sources claim the film has since been cut to around two and a half hours, which probably meets with Fincher’s studio obligations. But is that still too long? Another website reports that the latest cut is around two hours and fourty minutes. I havent seen the film, but the scenes Paramount and Fincher decided to screen at Telluride dragged in parts. I’m hoping the pacing issues will be resolved in the finished movie / in the context of the finished movie, because this film has the potential to be really magical.

  • Peter Chen
    Long, boring movies = doesn't get my money.

    Peter Chen has spoken.
  • Wall•E Plays Pong
    I went to a local bookstore and perused around a little bit but happened to notice some F. Scott Fitzgerald titles, and the Curious Case of Benjamin Button was there as a title book containing some of his other short stories. I was surprised to already see one of those printed-on stickers noting it was the inspiration for the film.

    Point being that publishers have already started this connection between film and book which I tend to associate after a film is released or near the release. But we're about 4 solid months away from Christmas and it's already begun. I know publishers always make the connection to the film to sell books (Matt Damon now appears on many of the Bourne paperbacks), but maybe the early arrival of that "inspired by" sticker shows the high expectations for this film.
  • Captain Awesome
    Zodiac was great as is, it never felt slow or dragging. I did want someone to be caught, which was probably the only problem I did have.

    I'm still not feeling peoples half-baked reviews of what they saw. Since i'm reading more and more how these were all just snippets. I think a lot of you guys are jumping way ahead of yourselves.
  • orange cinema
    i got my ADD in check, i enjoy long films. the only reason to cut running time is if it drags the narrative.
  • Christopher Edwards
    I think that this film is going to be brillant, but I think that between the studio and Fincher are acting like kids.
  • Dark Donnie
    What was better Zodiac(theatrical) or Zodiac(Director's Cut)?
  • Captain Awesome: Some of those so called "snipits" lasted two plus minutes. Sure, some of the more story point orientated clips were as little as 30 seconds, but most were one minute plus. The romantic sequence many people I spoke with had a problem with was over 2 minutes long.
  • B33
    I thought Zodiac was fine as I never saw it as dragging at any particular point...

    Though some of the things mentioned in the Benjamin Button first impressions have me concerned... Such as the overly long dance sequence...
  • John
    Do I sense that Sciretta wants Fincher to fail with Benjamin Button?
  • Captain Awesome
    Peter,

    Even for 2 minute plus clip. In the realm of a 2 hour movie. I still consider that a snippet. A lot can happen in the realm of 5-10 minutes in a film.
  • Josh
    Are you advocating or absolving a director giving up final theatrical cut if he gets a director's cut on DVD?
  • andy
    I almost consider it a bad sign if the studio ISN'T getting pissy with the director.
  • Go Fincher!

    Hey, the studio cut of Zodiac still topped my list for movies in 2007, so I'm sure if Fincher oversees the cuts it'll turn out as well as it can.
  • orange cinema
    has anyone thought that there's is a reason fincher is fighting for the footage?i'm with cap here, i'm gonna wait & see for myself. i'd take a director like fincher's vision over anyone elses, anyday.
  • mikle
    im worried they will go crazy with cutting the movie up. i hope they settle on a perfect run time
  • John: I was amazed at the theatrical trailer, and am a big fan of the filmmmaker. I hope that the film turns out great, because it has the potential to be really magical.

    Captain:Yes, have you ever been able to tell if a movie wont work by a one and a half minute trailer? How about flipping channels and watching the first 2 minutes of a movie on HBO. Now imagine, we saw 20 minutes of footage from throughout the film. To give you a perspective, earlier on in the Fincher tribute they played 5 or 8 minute segments from all of Fincher's earlier career. I was on the edge of my seat even during the Panic Room clip. I agree that context could change everything, but if you read Robert Mcgee, an acclaimed screenwriting expert, each scene should work on their own, while also elevating the next scene within the context of the film.

    Now dont get me wrong, the defense of my opinion on the Button footage has resulted in me coming off like I hated it, which is not true. It still looks like a good movie, just not up to the level that everyone, including myself, has been expecting.

    And remember, my first impressions of the footage is just that. It's not a review of the film as a whole, only a review of what I was able to screen.
  • Also, I'm not advocating the studio over the director's vision, but when there is $150 million plus investment at stake, so there is also the responsibility of creating a film that will appeal to large audiences and not just the art house crowd. Now I know that sounds bad, and I'm not saying they need to dumb down the film. But at this level of budget there is a responsibility to make a film that 40 million people (the estimated amount to recoop costs) could enjoy.
  • Chromey
    Peter, why did you delete my post about your proposed Zodiac cuts? It was an honest question.

    If I offended you I apologize, but I'd still like to know.
  • nick
    give me 3 hours for the price im paying to see a movie.
  • Chromey: Didn't delete any comment, so please repost.
  • Wall•E Plays Pong
    The case surrounding Benjamin Button is sure getting more curious.
  • Chromey
    Peter

    I'd like to know specifically what you thought should have been cut in the back end, I'm guessing you mean last 45 minutes of the movie. The connective tissue of the film seems so delicate and interlinked I can't really think of anything that could have been cut that wouldn't damage the framework of the movie. Some movies just need to be a bit longer and imho this is one of them. There's a difference to me between tightening the pace and losing 30 minutes.

    Cutting 30 minutes just seems like kind of an arbitrary thing to say, y'know.
  • Chromey
    Also, my post was deleted. Don't know if it was a board error or another admin. It was a tad ornery but nowhere near delete worthy in my opinion.
  • Chromey: To be completely honest... I love longer movie. I prefer the directors cut of Zodiac to the theatrical, and would have preferred Fincher release the real first cut of the film which was something like 30 minutes longer than the theatrical. That said, a common complaint from most non film geeks friends who saw Zodiac in the theaters was that it was too long and ragged in the last 45 minutes badly. I wouldn't know where to suggest cuts, but little things here and there could easily be cut without affecting the overall plot. For instance, Ruffallo's like of animal crackers. Its a great nod to the real life person, but unneeded. As for whole scenes, I don't know. A lot of the things that immediately come to mind are sequences I personally loved. Like Fincher didn't need to show the first Zodiac letter go through the newspaper's mail system, or the overview sequence following the cab. Both moments don't add story or suspense, but I love them.
  • Indiefilm
    I loved Zodiac beginning to end. The director's cut is great too.

    And about dumbing down. There's a reason why filmmakers shouldn't strive to become Spielberg. Make the small movies. More creativity!
  • Chromey
    Fair enough. But what I just can't seem to get past though is your stance that because *some* people didn't like something, it should be cut. Some of those things you mention are among my favorites too so who gives a damn if your friends didn't like it. Would you honestly rather have those things gone just for the sake of more people liking the movie? And at what cost to the integrity of the film? If they dislike those aspects I doubt wether they could get with the movie at any length... If movies are constantly compromised for the theatrical version it makes them little more than warm ups for their video release which is sad. Why defend that as a standard. While we're at it lets lose the tiger scene in Apocalypse Now, it certainly doesn't forward the plot in any way and I heard some guy thought it was slow. Or the trash compactor scene in Star Wars stops the movie dead in it's tracks and for what? A puppet eye. Lose it. Don't worry it'll be in the directors cut. If you love something why continuously make a hypothetical argument that it would have been more popular if it had been different? Anyways, sorry for the rant and thanks for responding before.
  • Chromey: I come from a filmmaking background so I side with the artistic integrity. I probably shouldn't have mentioned Zodiac, but others have. The fact of the matter is, I could watch Zodiac three times in a row and not be bored. I saw 20 minutes of scene-lets from Ben Button and found my patience tested in a couple of them. On the other hand, you have to remember that Paramount is spending an estimated $150+ million on this film. When you have that kind of investment, you have a responsibility to create a film which will not just play for a a couple hundred thousand people.
  • I will rarely, rarely, rarely, rarely, rarely side with the studio over a director and this is no different. Fincher is the MAN.
  • Captain Awesome
    Peter,

    I have been in that situation before and it's been 50/50 for me. I've seen a film in small clips at one point and thought it would suck, and ended up liking. And I've seen clips I really liked and the film turned out horrible.

    But I still gotta leave this up to a final cut. I just hope they don't cut around with what Fincher wants to really do. Because Hollywood is fucking notorious for it. (see: Ridley Scott)
  • Roberto
    Zodiac was perfect the way it is, as I am sure Benjamin Button will be. The studios are wrong 99.9% of the time. Not every movie is, or should strive to be, a blockbuster. That is the reason 90% of movies released suck terribly. The soul is focus-grouped right out them by the damn studios to appeal to as many schmucks on the street as possible. and it ruins them every time. They are never better for it.
  • Nick
    I don’t know when the fuck people started thinking that film is a democratic art form. It’s not. It is (at it’s purest) a singular expression. Zodiac wasn’t too long, and even if you thought it was, making editing suggestions is a bit ridiculous. I, for one, would much rather see Fincher’s film (imperfect thought it may very well be) than a compromised film that neither Fincher nor the studio is happy with. I understand they invest a shitload of money in it, but I think they sort of give up a lot of their ability to complain when they hire David Fincher. If they wanted a studio lap-dog, they could have hired someone else, but since they wanted a great movie, they hired a great, very strong-willed directer, and they should accept what he gives them.
  • Anonymous
    I couldn't, for the life of me, imagine cutting out 20 to 30 minutes from the back end of Zodiac without doing a tremendous disservice to the movie.
  • Zodiac was the perfect length, couldn't remove anything from it.

    I hope they get back together (Par and Fincher) I want his other projects to be started (the many comics he had optioned) with Pitt to star and/or produce...
  • Michael
    You all loved the Dark Knight. Shut the fuck up about any movie being too long. Idiots.
blog comments powered by Disqus