The Curious Case of turning a Dark Comedy into a Romantic Flick

I finally saw The Curious Case of Benjamin Button this weekend. I’m no film critic but here’s what I could say about it, if you’re interested, hehehe…

The first time I encountered Benjamin Button was during my American Lit class in UP Diliman more than 10 years ago. We were required to read The Great Gatsby and some of his short stories but we unfortunately skipped Button. I don’t know why. I knew the central plot but that’s as far as I know about the short story. However, I’ve read enough material by F. Scott Fitzgerald to know fairly well about his writing style and subjects.

He certainly wrote pieces that were ahead of his time. Ernest Hemingway even “idolized” him. Short stories written that time were kind of dark, not dramatic, but really dark. I don’t even think his stories were trying to be funny. The outrageousness of the plots would just easily squeeze out a hesitant laugh out of you. You would laugh because it was far-out weird. It was that kind of jaw-dropping prose that naturally suspends your disbelief. I liked these short stories (that of Fitzgerald’s, Hemingway’s and the like) because sarcastic, exaggerated and shocking as they were, they always provided a picture of the social milieu of that era, some even still relevant to our present time.

Anyway, so I went to watch the movie without any expectations regarding any book-film disparity or faithfulness. However movie trailers do sometimes spoil things for you. Even without reading the story in its entirety, I already knew that Benjamin in the short story version was born as an adult-sized old man. So seeing from the trailer that Benjamin in the movie was born as an infant with octogenarian features already signaled the film’s departure from the original prose.

After the movie, I thought this was one good example that it was fortunate that most people have not read the book. But personally, I think even if one has read the short story prior to watching the film, it wouldn’t stir up a revolt. This isn't the type of story that will have that many devoted fans railing against the "mangled" story. In fact, in this case I think the film’s extensive departure from the prose was obviously done for cinematic purposes, and it worked.

Every time I go see a movie that’s based on a short story or a novel, I always try to look beyond what’s presented to me on screen and study the inner details… Questions like why the director used, changed, and totally erased some elements of the prose. There’s a lot to learn about screenwriting with this exercise. Probing into these details give me a better picture on the benefits and limitations of the medium of film.

First of all, I like it that David Fincher (the director) and Eric Roth (the screenwriter) depicted Benjamin’s birth in the most realistic way possible. The fact that a baby was born with an ailing octogenarian’s features was already a big stretch. They had to make the premise at least “acceptable.” The short story version, where Benjamin was born as a full-sized adult, was just too preposterous to portray on screen. It worked perfectly in the short story but I guess that’s where we learn that our mind is more capable of handling deplorable, outrageous and über-fantastic imagination than the silver screen could.

But of course let us not forget that F. Scott Fitzgerald had a different intention with his short story. He didn’t write it for box office success. Fincher and Roth on the other hand were eyeing that and of course maybe a couple of Globes and a handful of Oscars. They had to turn the story “lovable”. Fitzgerald’s Benjamin was far from being a romance novel. It was kinda like a satire. Fitzgerald didn’t write it thinking that 80 years later some guys from Hollywood would turn it into a movie, with Brad Pitt in the starring role! ‘Cos let me tell you this, the Benjamin Button in the short story had zero romance in him. Certainly, Brad would be the last person you would imagine playing the role if you read the original prose.

I read the short story immediately after watching the film just to make a checklist of the things that were altered for cinematic realism. First of all, the film and the story really have nothing at all in common other than their titles and the central premise – both are about men who age backwards. But while the short story is an ironic tale about human foolishness (we value youth and not the wisdom that comes from living), the film is a morose tragedy about a very normal (and even ordinary) man trapped in a body that ages backwards. The short story was clearly a Dark Comedy not meant for public consumption and only readable and understandable in Literature classes; while the movie was a Romantic Flick all set to make audiences leave the theater teary-eyed and swooning over Brad/Benjamin.

And now I personally think that’s where the movie version hit a tripwire. While the plot, the scenarios, and even the other characters were so colorful, Benjamin’s personality seemed a bit deadpan. Brad’s Benjamin reminded me so much of his Joe Black character in “Meet Joe Black.” There were times, especially during the sequences where Benjamin has “youthen” into a 60 year-old trapped in a 20-30 something hunk of a body, when I could not see Benjamin anymore and all I could see was BRAD. Darn, Brad was so (beautifully) distracting. And I know the producers knew that so everything was intentional. After all, they wanted to make a sappy love story (specific target market: women and gay)

And that was indeed the huge and definitive departure from the short story. It was so surprising to read that the short story Benjamin wasn’t eternally in love with his wife, Hildegard. In fact he was annoyed that while he was growing younger and younger, his wife turned more wrinkly and flabby. Where was the beautiful young woman he fell in love with? He constantly asked. Interestingly, even if Benjamin didn’t have that curious case; if he was just an ordinary man that line was actually very realistic and could even transcend time. In any era, husbands have been complaining about their ageing wives, right?

Now the movie producers were smart enough to know that this kind of story development would not fit well in a Hollywood love story, especially one which has Brad Pitt in it. They had to turn the protagonist Benjamin into a great lover – sweet, loyal, and just head over heels in love with Daisy (Hildegard) played by Cate Blanchett.

The short story version focused more on Benjamin’s relationship with his father and later on with his son, and even much later on with his grandson. We clearly see now that the movie has become a new and different story altogether. In the film, the complete opposite happened. Benjamin’s father Mr. Button abandoned him, and later on in the film, Benjamin abandoned his own child; a daughter and not a son. There was no African-American caregiver named Queenie in the story. The short story was set in Baltimore and not in New Orleans. And there was no backward-turning clock in the prose version.

And that’s exactly where the line between film and literature is drawn. In movies, you have to put in visual cues to set up a circumstance, either to make it acceptable (albeit far-fetched) or set up a big plot twist in the end. Short stories don’t need to convince you that it’s real. That’s beside the point. Movies, especially in this day and age have to be rational, even if the premise is way beyond logic. In this case, the clock’s metaphorical existence was placed there to put reason behind Benjamin’s reverse ageing. How? Don’t even ask. That’s what you call “suspension of disbelief.” Case in point is, the producers, director and writer would be able defend that at least they were responsible enough to give viewers a tangible (albeit fairy tale like) reason behind the phenomenon.

Most blogs have said the screenplay is so reminiscent of Forrest Gump. In case you still don’t know, Roth also wrote the award-winning Gump. Okay, as a writer myself and a former student of Literature, I know that writers have their signature styles and favorite subjects. In this case, it was just too manufactured. It was like Roth had taken out his template and just filled in the blanks; replacing the key elements of the story. Voila… what used to be Forrest Gump is now Benjamin Button.

If I had to applaud the movie it would be for its successful attempt to make Benjamin’s curious case “realistic” enough in this medical science-obsessed world. In the movie, Benjamin was born with an infant mind, in an infant physiological size but with octogenarian features and ailments. It was fair enough. That depiction could be easily explained by saying his case was probably an unknown hormonal disease or syndrome. So basically, while he was growing in height and mentally/emotionally like any normal person, the only problem was his features were that of an old man’s.

In the short story, Benjamin was already a full-sized adult when he was born and had the manners of any grouchy old man. As he was “youthening”, his mental state also reversed. While Movie Benjamin was a playful kid at heart when he looked 70, Short Story Benjamin was purely 70 inside and out. In fact when he was born he didn’t want milk and even demanded a walking cane from his father. Ladies and gentlemen, that’s what you call Dark Comedy. If you even started to ask how it happened, then clearly you have not understood the genre. The plot’s impossibility does not make for the pitfall of the short story. Its impossibility was THE story.

Honestly despite the poignant storytelling, there are quite a number of things to nitpick about the movie, especially the fact that the memoir reading had to be set during the eve of Hurricane Katrina. Okay, Brad we get it that you are paying homage to your so-called second home. But I really think it was unnecessary. It was plainly buying into the emotions of its American viewers. I admit New Orleans was a good choice for the story’s setting but then again it kind of failed to give a more overt effect to its characters. The story could have happened elsewhere and it wouldn’t affect their lives at all. The essence of New Orleans didn’t rub off on Benjamin’s character and the story as much as it should, if they intentionally wrote it that way.

But over-all, the movie version was adorable. I’m a sucker for love stories and the movie version basically toyed with the age-old idea of two star-crossed lovers who are against all odds. Simply put, Benjamin & Daisy could very well sing Barry Manilow’s “We had the right love at the wrong time…” Hahaha. I loved the idea that their curious case was a metaphor and simile for many things in a relationship. First Love never dies... It’s all about meeting in the middle… We are all strangers coming from opposite poles, traveling halfway towards LOVE. *sigh*


To choose which one suit me better: the prose or the film, would be like comparing apples to oranges. The movie’s story stood well on its own. In fact, I think they could have gotten away with changing the title altogether. I don’t think they had to make it known that it was an adaptation of the short story, especially when they changed 98% of it, leaving only the title and basic premise. That alone wasn’t even really precise. So let me change that to 99%.