Like Christie, I often have the same problem when there is a movie based on a book and I haven’t yet seen the movie or read the book. Where do I start? If I read the book first will it ruin the surprise of the movie? If I watch the movie first will it spoil the opportunity for me to create my own pictures in my mind? I usually end up reading the book first, because I feel like most of the time it gives me a little extra level of understanding and enjoyment (and often disappointment too, I must admit) when I see the film version.
With The Curious Case of Benjamin Button I experienced all three of these things. I approached the story from the opposite side as Christie and read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s story before I saw the movie. But I found myself with the same problem as her, as I found it hard to shake the images of Benjamin Button as I had experienced them first-in my case, in print.
As I watched the movie, I thought it was enjoyable enough, definitely moving and entertaining (and visually stunning) for most of its 2 and ½ hour running time. But pretty much from the opening scenes I was left wondering: what happened to the Benjamin Button I know? Aside from the basic backwards premise and the title, almost nothing remains the same in the transition from page to screen. Granted, Fitzgerald’s story was pretty slim (just about 50 pages or so) and left lots of room for the filmmakers to fill in the large gaps in Benjamin’s life, but I was still surprised by how little of the original story I could see in the film.
Whereas Christie couldn’t shake the image of Benjamin as a withered and aged little baby, I was left quite disappointed that the filmmakers chose not to have Benjamin emerge from birth as an adult sized old man with a long white beard as he does in the book. From the first time I read the description I found it horrifying and grotesque and at the same time couldn’t help feel a bit excited wondering how they’d pull off such a feat in the movie. So when I saw a slightly wrinkly Brad Pitt baby, I have to confess, I was let down. 
There were other disappointments with the plot and characters (some missing and some added), but mostly what I missed from the original story was the dry and darkly (almost cruelly) humorous tone, the notion that this story was at the same time sad and ridiculous. I felt like the movie took itself a little too seriously and as a result was a little mawkish and melodramatic, whereas the book earned its sentimentality by delivering it sparingly. But then, I guess F. Scott Fitzgerald wasn’t after an Oscar audience (at least not at that point).
I guess what I’m saying is that for the most part I’m alright with changes to things like plot and character and setting in the transition from book to film, as they are different mediums with different storytelling requirements. When you read a book, you enter into the creative process by making your own images and sounds in your head, but you understand that whoever else is interpreting the story has their own ideas as well-it’s expected that some of those things will get changed along the way. It’s always a gamble whether you choose to read the book or see the movie first, since your perceptions will inevitably be challenged. But what I really think gets lost a lot of the time is the intangible things that you love about a story. You might not be able to put your finger on exactly what they are, but you know when a filmmaker gets them wrong, and you can feel when they get them right. (Andy, Reader’s Services)
