Old to young: metamorphosis of Brad Pitt

It is adapted from the F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic short story about a man who is born in his 80’s ageing backwards.

As a story idea, it is novel and interesting but as a film, the concept just doesn’t have the compelling resonance that Fitzgerald captured in his story. This is a story that asks for the best in cinematic technology and David Fincher manages to bring it all together. The three Oscar awards are a testament to the technical wizardry that is intrinsic to the telling of this unique story. But technology alone cannot make good cinema. There has to be depth of characterisation and enough drama for a film to captivate. That is what’s missing from this film.

The original Fitzgerald story had Benjamin born in Baltimore, 1860, looking wrinkled and aged as a 70-year-old, raised by his father, married and having a son, playing football for Harvard and ending his life while attending kindergarten with his grandson. But Fincher’s film, scripted by Eric Roth, just uses the central theme as a take-off point to tell a less inspired and enervating tale. Roth’s version tells Benjamin’s story through a diary read by his daughter (Julia Ormond) at the bedside of her dying mother (Cate Blanchett). The story moves from World War I and extends upto the beginning of the 21st century and is set mainly in New Orleans.

Fincher’s narrative is tediously long-drawn and the pace is far too studied and entrenched in un-enhancing detail. In fact the mood and tone of the film gets elevated only when Cate Blanchett (as Daisy) enters the frame with a grace and poignancy that’s so very winning and unique to her.

The screenplay attempts to provide reason for the reverse ageing but it’s just not convincing enough. The film is hung on detail — be it production design or costumes. Even cinematographer Claudio Miranda uses a sharp focus to magnify every minute detail but it all appears in vain because there’s very little emotional strength in the unfolding of the epic tale.