Scott Fairley

This review contains some minor spoilers.  Proceed with caution

I’ve been a big fan of David Fincher for a while.  I even liked his (long disowned) chapter in the Alien franchise, Alien 3.  I certainly liked it more than Alien Resurrection, despite Joss Whedon’s participation.  I’ve yet to see Fincher’s The Game, but Fight Club, Panic Room, and Zodiac rank among my favourite films.  In fact, I was bewildered that Zodiac received little to no attention when 2007’s awards were being handed out.  Zodiac, aside from being masterfully shot, acted, and paced, was able to make lengthy scenes about the mechanics of handwriting interesting.  It’s his best movie.

And after seeing Benjamin Button, I still feel that way, but Benjamin Button is a more than worthy follow-up.

The story of Benjamin Button is fairly simple, and based (very loosely) on a short story by F. Scott Fitgerald.  Benjamin Button ages in reverse.  He was born a wrinkled, arthtitic, near-blind and deaf, and given mere weeks to live in 1918.  He spends his childhood in a nursing home in New Orleans, growing younger while those around him grow older.  The old adage “Youth is wasted on the young” is oddly inverted, as Benjamin not only goes through his elder years with a child’s curiosity, but he winds up retaining that curiosity until 1985, when he ceases writing letters to his one true love, Daisy (Cate Blanchett); letters that serve as the primary narrative device.

In the hands of a lesser Director and lesser actors, this would come across as painfully sentimental and heavy-handed.  But Fincher didn’t earn his reputation by making epic love stories or melodrama.  He earned it by making gritty thrillers and challenging narratives.  He takes both that aesthetic style (there’s no shortage of both gorgeous and complex shots to be found in Benjamin Button) and the confidence of having tackled works like Fight Club and Zodiac and applies them to a love story that’s less about the couple being together and more about how they got there.

Curiously, Benjamin is by no means the most interesting character.  Obviously, his condition has a built-in depth, but Pitt underplays that if anything.  His dialogue is only slightly less sparse than his narration.  He’s given no big scenes of cursing the heavens for his affliction.  Not even quiet moments of breakdown.  It’s an incredibly understated performance, and wisely so; aside from Blanchett (who’s fantastic as Daisy), the characters Pitt encounters during the movie are nothing short of, well, characters.  The movie is more about the journey than the destination.

The fact that the audience can’t really connect to Brad Pitt (who bears an uncanny resemblence to Robert Redford in many shots, intentionally or otherwise) but can to Cate Blanchett or Julia Ormond appears to undermine the movie at times, but by the end it becomes clear that while it is a journey movie, it’s also a location movie.  While there are scenes in Moscow, the Pacific Ocean, and New York, the movie plays out as if it was all a grand elegy for New Orleans; a subtle tribute to what Hurricane Katrina took away.  Fincher and Roth never overplay this, but the final scene makes this clear.

The movie works because of what it doesn’t do more often that what it does.  The CGI used to age Benjamin as a child is used sparingly, and as impressive as it is, it’s still not 100% seamless.  Similarly, it avoids scenes that are heavy on stated emotion.  Julia Ormond has the most emotionally-charged performance, and it’s appropriately subdued.  She’s not battling grief; she’s been defeated by grief.  But how disconnecting this is may vary from viewer to viewer.  All the same, Fincher deserves credit for making a choice that goes against the grain.  Removing big emotional scenes maintains the film’s consistency, but goes against audience expectations.

Fincher might finally get a Best Director nod for his work in Benjamin Button, and he deserves it.  It’s beautifully shot, incredibly paced, and well acted.  It’s an award-worthy movie as made by a filmmaker who has no real interest in winning awards.  While it doesn’t emotionally connect as strongly as it perhaps should have, it’s still one of the best movies of 2008.

Verdict: B+

I’m not really a fan of Jay Leno.  No sir.  While I recognize that he effectively needs fresh material 300 or so days per year, and I certainly respect his work ethic, he’s still my least favourite of the late-night hosts.  So when word spread that Conan O’Brien (my favourite of the late-night hosts) would be taking over The Tonight Show, I was most pleased.  But Leno didn’t go quietly into that good night.

Jay Leno has signed a deal with NBC that adds a fourth (yes, fourth) late-night talk show to their lineup, in the 10-11pm slot.  This was, as many have pointed out, the longtime home of the prodecural drama.  ER has spent 15 years in that timeslot on NBC, but that’s largely been all.  And with ER slowly circling the drain for one last season, and NBC struggling commercially, it makes sense on a number of levels.

For one thing, the budget of a talk show is exponentially lower than a prime-time drama.  Build one set.  Hire a band.  Done.  No expensive effects shots (like CSI), no expensive locations (like Lost) and no actors demanding seven figures per episode (like… well, nearly every show with a well-known cast).  While a talk show in that hour might not significantly increase ratings, it definitely offers more ratings for NBC’s money.

But does it really mark the end of the prime-time drama like many are saying?  Perhaps.  The elimination of the 10pm slot is relatively inconsequential.  Fox, who produce almost exclusively 1-hour dramas these days, have never had a 10pm slot, and they have some of the most expensive (and best rated) shows on TV.  House pretty much rules the ratings, and Bones has a good sized following in it’s own right.  24 is returning after a strike-induced hiatus.  When Fox shows fail, it’s generally spectacular, but when they get it right, their big shows are generally driven well past the point of shark-jumping as long as they draw ratings.

CBS have most of their biggest shows in the 10pm slot though, and they’ll probably see a big jump because of NBC’s move.  Two CSI spin-offs are in that time slot, and only one of them has serious competition, and it was never from NBC.  ABC is in an interesting position, however; Lost is really their only big drama, and due to it’s direction and structure, it’s incredibly unlikely to gain new viewers, but it’s proven very likely to lose them.  Not to mention that after 2010, Lost is finished.  ABC might heavily consider either moving Jimmy Kimmel to 10pm or adding a 10pm talk show, or they’ll take a chance on a new drama, but losing Lost really expands their options, and they may very well follow NBC’s lead.

But what NBC’s doing is much more interesting than “killing the prime-time drama”.  They’re merging it with the prime-time comedy, if anything.  Take a look at The Office.  Since Paul Feig started writing and directing the show more frequently, it’s taken a noticably darker turn.  Episodes like The Dinner Party and Moroccan Christmas are generally lighter on laughs and have some legitimately heavy drama.  And Chuck often resembles an hour-long single camera sitcom with bursts of action and (from time to time) legitimate drama.  Having seen the majority of their high-concept dramas fail, NBC aren’t simply cutting their losses.  They’re actually trying something new.  The great irony is that NBC gave the prototypical TV dramedy Freaks and Geeks the shaft in 2000, and Scrubs was straddling the line between comedy and drama a great deal in it’s earlier seasons (with a large dose of surrealism), but as it became more of a straight comedy, NBC became less interested in it.

So kudos to NBC.  Frankly, I’d rather they do more shows that go for quality storytelling with no regard to maintaining genre forms and be consistent within the rules of the show.  The hour-long drama and the half-hour sitcoms couldn’t maintain separate lives forever, and I for one welcome our new hybrid overlords.

Among the grim economic news these days, there’s one that’s of particular relevance to me.  I’ve heard numerous times that the entertainment industry is effectively recession-proof.  I’m not sure I fully agree with that, but then again, a $70 million opening for Twilight (and over $150 million to date) makes a compelling argument.  But there’s one area of the entertainment industry that’s failing:  Blu-ray.

This neither bothers nor surprises me, but it’s thrown a lot of people for a loop.  But regardless, I’d like to take a look at why DVD isn’t going anywhere anytime soon.

In theory, Blu-ray should be selling like hotcakes.  Blu-ray players can be easily found for under $300.  HDTV’s are pretty much all that you can buy now, and they’re getting cheaper.  But even though the average new release Blu-ray is within $10 of new-release DVD’s, nobody’s really buying them.  Including myself.

There’s a few reasons why this is the case, and not all of them financial.  But financially, Blu-ray lacks the appeal of DVD.  For starters, if you want to upgrade from a CRT TV and DVD player to a Blu-ray and HDTV setup, that’s at least $600 right there.  And to make the higher resolution of the Blu-ray disc worthwhile, you’ll need to get a fairly large HDTV.  So now you’re looking at $1100 or more to make it worthwhile.  And even then, you’ll need to get some new movies that really benefit from the increased resolution, and those are $30 a pop new.  And since they now sell up-converting DVD players, existing DVD’s look better on an HDTV, with no added costs for movies.

So from a financial perspective, sticking with DVD, even with an upgraded TV, means more movies for less money and no significant upgrade in picture.  When VHS gave way to DVD, the upgrades were immediately noticable even on a smaller TV.  You really do need a home theatre to get the full effect of upgrading to Blu-ray, and the form factor (small discs vs. big bulky tapes) remains unchanged.

But I’m not an economist and I’m not interested in numbers.  The main thing keeping me from going Blu-ray is that there’s only a handful of movies I’d consider worth upgrading for, and as much as I loved The Dark Knight, I don’t feel that it’s worth a four-figure upgrade of my current entertainment system.  And I think it goes without saying at this point:  If you want to see the movie how it was intended, see it in a theatre.

I’ll get a Blu-ray player to match my HDTV someday, especially since there’s been a sharp rise in the number of movies shot digitally at the same resolution.  But even then, I doubt I’ll stop buying DVD’s, since a Blu-ray player can still play DVD’s, and only the most epic of movies really demand the high-definition treatment.  You see where I’m going with this?  Blu-ray just doesn’t seem like a practical upgrade across the board.  Yes, it’s got a higher resolution and clearer picture.  But does a movie like Garden State really need it?  Not really.