.webp)
|
✍️ Introductory
Note to the Reader I first encountered The Curious Case
of Benjamin Button not through F. Scott Fitzgerald’s text, but rather
when I found my wife watching David Fincher’s film adaptation. The story, at
that point, was completely unfamiliar to me. Later, while browsing through my
Kindle tablet, I stumbled upon Fitzgerald’s original version and decided to
read it. Only after finishing the story did I begin to wonder, in literary
terms, whether there was an underlying morality or ethical dimension behind
its strange premise. Interestingly,
the film and the novella are quite different in narrative scope and
characterization. Yet, at their core, both seem to aim at the same effect: to
make the reader or viewer reflect on the meaning of life, the passage of
time, and the values that guide human existence. This paper, then, is the
result of personal curiosity transformed into a moral-humanistic exploration
of Fitzgerald’s text, with attention also given to Fincher’s interpretation. |
Time in Reverse: A Moral-Humanistic Reading of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
|
|
Abstract This paper offers a moral-humanistic literary analysis of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (1922), examining the ethical questions raised by its protagonist’s reverse aging. Through the lens of human dignity, moral agency, and the tragedy of disconnection, the study highlights how Fitzgerald critiques societal rigidity and the denial of authenticity to those who do not conform to conventional norms of age and identity. The analysis draws on scholars such as Wayne Booth, Martha Nussbaum, Viktor Frankl, and Paul Ricoeur to explore themes of meaning, temporality, and narrative closure. The paper also compares Fitzgerald’s satirical short story with David Fincher’s 2008 film adaptation, noting how the latter humanizes Benjamin’s character by granting him agency, love, and moral choice. The contrast reveals how literature and film offer distinct moral visions of human life, mortality, and dignity. Keywords: Benjamin Button,
moral-humanistic criticism, Fitzgerald, David Fincher, ethics, temporality,
human dignity |
|
|
|
Resumen Este
trabajo presenta un análisis literario humanista y moral de The Curious
Case of Benjamin Button (1922) de F. Scott Fitzgerald, explorando los
dilemas éticos que surgen a partir del envejecimiento inverso de su
protagonista. A través de los ejes de la dignidad humana, la agencia moral y
la desconexión afectiva, se muestra cómo Fitzgerald critica la rigidez social
y la negación de autenticidad hacia quienes no se ajustan a las normas
convencionales de edad e identidad. El estudio se apoya en autores como Wayne
Booth, Martha Nussbaum, Viktor Frankl y Paul Ricoeur para abordar los temas
del sentido, la temporalidad y el cierre narrativo. Asimismo, se compara el
relato satírico de Fitzgerald con la adaptación cinematográfica dirigida por
David Fincher en 2008, subrayando cómo esta última humaniza al personaje al
otorgarle agencia, amor y capacidad de decisión moral. El contraste revela
cómo la literatura y el cine ofrecen visiones morales distintas sobre la
vida, la mortalidad y la dignidad. |
|
|
|
Resumo Este
artigo propõe uma leitura literária humanista e moral de The Curious Case
of Benjamin Button (1922), de F. Scott Fitzgerald, analisando os dilemas
éticos gerados pelo envelhecimento reverso do protagonista. A partir das
noções de dignidade humana, agência moral e desconexão afetiva, argumenta-se
que Fitzgerald critica a rigidez social e a negação da autenticidade diante
daqueles que não se enquadram nas normas convencionais de idade e identidade.
O estudo dialoga com autores como Wayne Booth, Martha Nussbaum, Viktor Frankl
e Paul Ricoeur para discutir sentido existencial, temporalidade e fechamento
narrativo. Além disso, compara-se o conto satírico de Fitzgerald com a
adaptação cinematográfica dirigida por David Fincher em 2008, que humaniza o
protagonista ao lhe conferir agência, amor e escolha moral. O contraste
evidencia como literatura e cinema constroem visões éticas diferentes sobre a
vida, a mortalidade e a dignidade. |
|
Introduction
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (1922) presents a bizarre
premise: a man born old who grows younger with time. While this reversal of
aging is scientifically implausible, its literary value lies in the rich moral
and humanistic questions it raises about identity, love, family, dignity, and
what it means to live a “normal” human life. Through a moral-humanistic lens,
an approach that explores literature for its ethical values and its portrayal
of human potential, this story becomes a vehicle for reflection on societal
expectations and the dignity of human experience, regardless of chronological
order. As Abrams (1971) notes, humanistic criticism seeks to evaluate
literature based on “the relevance of its vision to our moral and spiritual
life” (p. 24), a standard that Fitzgerald’s tale both fulfills and complicates.
Human
Dignity and the Right to Difference
From the moment Benjamin is born, society reacts
with discomfort and rejection. His father, Roger Button, initially cannot
accept his son’s appearance: “You’re my son!” he cried. “You’re my son!” and he
looked with eyes that were frightened rather than loving (Fitzgerald, 1922).
This moment in the plot of the story reveals a deep moral issue: the denial of
dignity to those who are different and who do not fit social standards. As
Nussbaum (2001) asserts, a core element of humanistic ethics is “the capacity to
recognize each human being as an end” (p. 74). However, Roger Button fails this
test, prioritizing social conformity over his son’s humanity.
In this novella, Benjamin’s ostracization
reflects a broader cultural rigidity and social conventions. Scholars like
Bryer (1996) emphasize that Fitzgerald’s neglected stories often critique “the
tyranny of convention and social expectation” (p. 19) in the early 20th Century
society in the United States. Benjamin, as the central character in this story,
embodies this social tension: his unique condition (growing “younger” after
being born old) exposes society’s discomfort with nonconformity.
A
Life Without Moral Agency?
The humanistic tradition values the development
of moral agency, our ability to choose and act responsibly. But does Benjamin
truly develop such an agency? His life seems passive, as he is continually
acted upon by others. He enlists in the war not out of patriotic fervor but
because his appearance matches the role of a soldier: “The officers were so
delighted with Benjamin's appearance that they made him a lieutenant within
three days” (Fitzgerald, 1922). And then he marries Hildegarde not out of deep connection,
but because their apparent ages align and her delight in much older men.
Benjamin thus appears morally neutered, unable
to act authentically due to external perceptions, which he is not able to fully
understand because of his “young” age. Yet, as Booth (1988) reminds us, moral growth often emerges through conflict
between the inner self and the outer world. Benjamin’s increasing
frustration and vexation with roles imposed on him suggests a slow moral
awakening. Here, Erikson’s (1959) model of psychosocial development is useful:
each life stage is meant to cultivate identity and responsibility. Benjamin’s
reverse life distorts this “natural” sequence, creating a poignant commentary
on how social categories (child, adult, elder) dictate moral expectations even
when they no longer fit.
The
Tragedy of Disconnection
Benjamin’s reverse trajectory denies him the
opportunity to build lasting relationships, one of the most profound moral
concerns in the story. His disconnection from wife and son signals an erosion
of his place in the moral fabric of family and tapestry of society: “His son
Roscoe, now eighteen, began to be ashamed of him” (Fitzgerald, 1922) because
Benjamin looked much younger than him. For Fitzgerald biographer Bruccoli
(2002), this detachment reflects the author’s recurring concern with “the
impermanence of bonds in a world ruled by appearances” (p. 311). Benjamin in
trapped in a “world of appearances” eroding his few bonds with people whom we
normally feel attached to wife, children, parents, etc.
Humanistic criticism emphasizes the value of
intergenerational understanding and continuity, which Benjamin’s life disrupts.
Butler’s (1963) classic study of “life review” underscores that aging normally
involves reflecting on one’s past to achieve a sense of integrity. Benjamin’s
regression into infancy tragically denies him this moral closure. As he gets
younger and younger, Benjamin starts losing dexterity achieved by age and world
understanding acquired through social interactions. His persistent forgetfulness
of the kind of person he used to be does not allow him to reflect on his past
that as he is getting much younger becomes effaced from his memories.
Mortality
and the Search for Meaning
In moral-humanistic terms, the awareness of
death often defines the intensity and integrity of human life. However,
Benjamin’s trajectory subverts the usual arc of gaining wisdom with age. As he
becomes an defenseless infant, he loses his ability to use language, his
long-term memory, and ultimately his consciousness: “Then it was all dark, and
his white crib and the dim faces that moved above him, and the warm sweet aroma
of the milk, faded out altogether from his mind” (Fitzgerald, 1922). And this
was the end of Benjamin’s existence, when the light went off.
This quiet fade is tragic because it denies the
usual moral culmination of life, a moment of reflection, of legacy to others.
According to Frankl (1959), meaning is forged in how we confront limitations.
Benjamin’s life denies him this final humanizing act. As Ricoeur (1984) argues
in Time and Narrative, our lives gain
coherence through temporal emplotment, telling a story of beginnings, middles,
and ends. Benjamin’s inverted temporality erases narrative closure, leaving
only fragmentation, isolated events that can make up a life if placed
chronologically.
Comparison
with David Fincher’s Film Adaptation
David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) expands and reinterprets
Fitzgerald’s story with greater emotional depth and humanistic richness. While
the short story is satirical and ironic, the film is romantic and existential.
Brad Pitt’s Benjamin is a gentle soul who reflects deeply on love, loss, and
the fragility of time. The addition of Daisy provides a moral center, enabling
Benjamin to experience authentic connections with other individuals.
Film theorists have noted how cinema uniquely
portrays time. Mulvey (2006) argues that film’s treatment of mortality often
captures the “tension between stillness and becoming” (p. 39), a principle
Fincher exploits by showing Benjamin aging backward through digitally
manipulated imagery. Elsaesser (2009) highlights that temporality in film often
conveys existential themes; in Benjamin
Button, time’s reversal becomes a metaphor for the impossibility of
permanence in love.
In contrast to Fitzgerald’s Benjamin, Fincher’s
protagonist actively seeks meaning. His moral agency is highlighted by
decisions like leaving Daisy when he realizes he cannot father a child
responsibly. As Kearney (2003) notes, the ethics
of imagination allow us to envision alternative futures and take
responsibility even in non-normative lives. Fincher’s adaptation embraces this
moral potential.
Conclusion
Viewed through a moral-humanistic lens, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
challenges the reader to consider what makes a life worth living. Fitzgerald’s
story critiques society’s treatment of the “other,” questions our reliance on
chronological identity, and warns against the moral dangers of conformity.
While the short story’s Benjamin is denied full moral development, Fincher’s
adaptation restores human depth, portraying a life lived with dignity despite
its unconventional course. Ultimately, both versions remind us that the essence
of morality lies not in our age, but in our ability to love, choose, and remain
true to our humanity.
📚 References
Abrams, M.
H. (1971). The mirror and the lamp:
Romantic theory and the critical tradition. Oxford University Press.
Booth, W.
C. (1988). The company we keep: An ethics
of fiction. University of California Press.
Bruccoli,
M. J. (2002). Some sort of epic grandeur:
The life of F. Scott Fitzgerald. University of South Carolina Press.
Bryer, J.
R. (1996). New essays on F. Scott
Fitzgerald’s neglected stories. University of Missouri Press.
Butler, R.
N. (1963). The life review: An interpretation of reminiscence in the aged. Psychiatry, 26(1), 65–76.
Elsaesser,
T. (2009). Film theory: An introduction
through the senses. Routledge.
Fincher,
D. (Director). (2008). The curious case
of Benjamin Button [Film]. Paramount Pictures.
Fitzgerald,
F. S. (1922). The curious case of
Benjamin Button. In Tales of the Jazz
Age. Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Frankl, V.
E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning.
Beacon Press.
Kearney,
R. (2003). Strangers, gods and monsters:
Interpreting otherness. Routledge.
Mulvey, L.
(2006). Death 24x a second: Stillness and
the moving image. Reaktion Books.
Nussbaum,
M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The
intelligence of emotions. Cambridge University Press.
Ricoeur,
P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol.
1). University of Chicago Press.
Character Chart: Moral-Humanistic Dimensions in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Moral-Humanistic Dimensions in the Curious Case of Benjamin Button by Jonathan Acuña
Moral-Humanistic Dimensions in Fincher’s Benjamin Button
No comments:
Post a Comment