Scripting tricks

Rating: 6/10 (9 February 2009)

I'm concerned about all the hype and favoritism and nods this movie has received, as it is clearly a case of an immature script full of clichés and bad-writing traps. This film shows a lot of gimmicks, that wrap a really-really poor script: in the end, Button's case has no soul (just a visual appeal) and as it has been stated (and as I recalled while watching it), it seems a re-version of 'Forrest Gump' (by the same screenwriter).
I'm totally disappointed by David Fincher, as I've always considered his films really interesting: all were visually appealing 'but' also coherent storytelling pieces (an always difficult equilibrium). Maybe none of them could be considered absolute masterpieces, although his dazzling, mature, enormous in scope 'Zodiac' could be called that.
The traps I was talking about, which are script patches to make the film artificially engaging for the masses, can be spotted based on this formula:
Nothing deep or remotely interesting happens (apart from the Fitzgerald's starting point), so to break this, one of these can occur: 1) A person dies. 2) Flash-forward/back to present/past. 3) A catchy phrase is spoken ("You never know what's coming for you", "Goodnight Benjamin..."). 4) A tale is told (the clock, the car accident). 5) A funny occurrence is told (lightnings). 6) An event/thing/animal is shown as predicted (the hummingbird). 7) Someone comes back from a long absence (Button, Daisy,...). 8) An extraordinary (deus ex machina) event occurs (ship VS submarine).
These events are 'tricks' because they are totally gratuitous, as they do not add anything to the whole, they are put artificially in the script to cause instant but forgettable awe. Also, in a proof of Roth's sophistication, the tricks seem to feedback each other.
For instance, the ship battle (8) leads to some phrases (3) and deaths (1) and a comeback(7). Button, anyway, doesn't seem to evolve as a character, nor the mood of the film is changed accordingly.
These tricks can be easily traced in the 'cousin' film frequently mentioned ('Forrest Gump') and also in Burton's visual bubble 'Big Fish'. Anyhow, just Zemecki's film is laudable as it shows some interest in Gump's character (in contrast of Button's nothingness: furthermore, Button is not psychically impaired as to be so numb) and can be said to be more 'original'.
What follows is that all seems artificial and undramatic: there's no cohesion, there's no plausibility, there's no main character's arch, there are no goals, there is no opposition, there's no conflict. As a result, there's no drama and, of course, there is no narrative quality whatsoever.
Anyway, it has to be said that the cinematography, the make-up and the mini-tales that are shown are totally outstanding, as are compelling the performances of Blanchet and Swinton. Pitt's performance is somehow remarkable, given the poor character he's been offered.