And far as Kafka being funny, I remember a graduate seminar on Kafka at the Yale German Dept in the mid-90′s where a visiting professor from Berlin reduced an entire room full of graduate students (both native and non-native speakers of German) to fits of helpless laughter by reading the first page or two of the Metamorphosis aloud in a dry, dead-pan tone. At the time, it seemed like a revelation, as I’d never thought of Kafka as funny either. I attributed it in part to not being a native German speaker, hence missing the deadpan comedic nuance, and in part to not having ever heard the story read out loud.

Clearly there’s no refuting a feeling. Right now I’m listening to “The Night Circus” which is, I think, a good example of something working in the way you felt “Benjamin” worked, at least intermittently. (I haven’t gotten to the end yet, but there’s an awful lot of description of wonderful things for wonderfulnesses’ sake, and it’s working for me.) I guess I just didn’t get that from “Benjamin”. All I got was that old ‘look at me, I’m worth an Oscar!’ feeling.

But, I did find the film wonderful in the literal sense. And I think one aspect of that was the character’s strangely stoical acceptance of his very uncomfortable fate (strangely stoical being something Pitt can do). Further, it had one genuinely funny moment: when the young-old Benjamin is ‘cured’ by the faith healer.

So, great film? Nah. But sometimes odd is just enough.

And that was it. Benjamin Button did nothing with his extraordinary existence other than go to sea and get prettier, dully. Perhaps that could have been an interesting story. Ordinary person in extraordinary circumstances does nothing actually extraordinary. But that would have taken some acting chops beyond Brad Pitt alas.

No, but I’ve heard the book is funny.

there are some lovely humorous moments in work like Eastern Promises

Which?

The backwards aging Benjamin McGuffin casts a new and unfamiliar light on ordinary events. It’s not allegory, failed or otherwise, at all. It’s an optical trick, analogous perhaps to cross processing film. There is nothing hidden in the depths. It’s all right there on the shiny surface.

Now, there are parts of the film where the effect is much too maudlin (it’s Hollywood, after all, and Schmaltz sells). But there are others, as I recall, that seem to work quite well. My overall impression of the film (which I saw quite a long time ago) is that I felt, not thought, something quite wondrous was going on.

A film about the wonder that is life, and how easily we can fall into a Gradgrindian calculus of cause and effect? And about how art (in this case a simple little trick) can challenge, or at least refresh our view, of that same dull round of things?

That makes clear the distinction between the genres. Sci fi counts as having a flaw if it fails to fully explain things to the audience in a way that makes sense. MPMG doesn’t; just like a rom com is not counted as flawed because it fails to include a kick ass action set piece.

Which is why is why pure sci fi rarely works well on tv or film; there about 3 scientific ideas that can successfully explained to a typical audience, and so once you have seen those 3 films (2001, Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys) the genre is done.

There are also some gloriously funny bits in IJ. Setting out to make the most depressing music in the world by taking a Wings tape and editing out everything except Linda’s off-key back-up vocals and off-time tambourine banging…