Birth (2004) Reviews

• Response to Ingard: One Important Line

  beauregardgrant2005-07-15

  Hmmm... Actually, I think that when little Sean said "Don't tell Anna".. he actually meant: "Don't tell Anna that I took the letters you buried." Remember that Clara was showing little Sean her dirty hands in the bathroom, meaning she wanted to tell him she tried digging up the letters and found, of course, that they weren't there anymore. SHE knew it was the only way Little Sean could have known all those details about Anna. And Little Sean realized it when he saw her dirty hands... Little Sean was there in the early scene to show that he was in a position to dig up those letters, and later he recognized Clara as the one who buried them. Hence: "Don't tell Anna" is just another clever diversion to make us think that he is the reincarnation of Anna's husband.

  More

• Lovely character study

  jnm19812004-12-09

  I can understand why people react so aversely to this film, but, in Birth's defence, it's quite a demanding a piece for it to suit everyone's tastes. Granted, the plot is slightly unpalatable, and yes, there are instances when the film appears to veer into senslessness, but, unless you want a clear-cut resolution, this cannot quite be written off as shoddy work on the part of anyone involved. Most of the complaints made about Birth have come from people who cannot get past the plot elements of the film, namely, the flirtation with pedophilia. It is uncomfortable, quite so, but that precisely is the point... Moreover, it's worth noting that the characters themselves find it repelling, and that there is nary a sexual undercurrent between Sean and Anna. I believe one could argue, very strongly, that this plot device is merely a catalyst to throw Anna's psyche into relief. In the end, whether the boy is Sean or not proves irrelevant; the film is less about a bizarre happening than about the extreme psychological test it brings about. It's intense analysis of love, grief, need and the leaps of faith... Given this set-up, the execution is flawless. What the screenplay does, quite beautifully, is convey silent emotions; it understands, better than most films, that communication is often non-verbal, and in this situation, when the very thing at stake is reason, it is logical that the characters would be at a loss for words. If any given person were to be in Anna's situation...what would they do? How would you react if someone close to you were living through this? Jonathan Glazer's direction is splendid, building up a somber, airless mood and coaxing superlative performances out of the entire cast. Kidman's performance is somewhat mannered, yet she completely, effortlessly inhabits a difficult role; it is a brave, piercing, bravura performance. She captures Anna's desperation and fragility, but also her privileged lifestyle and upbringing, and the mad undercurrents grief has brought about. The so-called opera scene will be, years from now, considered a seminal moment in her career. Bright is chillingly effective, registering an intensity that is somewhat unsettling, and the supporting turns--which, with limited material flesh out characters, build histories and express emotions that the screenplay only implies--are sterling, especially in the case of Bacall and Howard. Technically, the film is a marvel. Two things are worth noting: Harris Savides' wonderful cinematography (there are at least three iconic sequences in the film), which creates a look and a mood that is at once foreboding and exquisitely beautiful, and Alexandre Desplat's splendid score, which underscores the drama without becoming obtrusive and blends symphonic melodies with a hi-lo undercurrent that creates an odd womb-like effect. Lovely, heartbreaking, unforgettable.

  More

• Coitus Interruptus

  abelardo642005-05-15

  There is much to admire in this frustrating classy, pretty film. Nicole Kidman's performance for starters, an intriguing premise and a beautiful score. But this is a partial birth. Nothing is taking to completion. Scenes seem to start and then we're left with nothing. Important plot points are merely hinted while unnecessary repetitions are inflicted upon us with infuriating monotony. I'm not going to enter into details but just let me say that I was worked up to a frenzy without allowing me a climax of any kind. Nicole Kidman however is sublime. She is a fearless, sensational actress. She has one of the longest close ups in recent history and that is one of the greatest moments in a film full of almost great moments. There is something about Sean that doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about young Sean but about the dead one. The Anne Heche's character is as absurd as Camilla Parker Bowles, with the difference that we know Prince Charles and the absurdity becomes him. We can't make head or tail of the dead Sean and as a consequence his life was merely a writer's excuse. Utterly unconvincing. In spite of all that I may see the film again and I've actually recommended it for Nicole Kidman's performance and a score that I've already bought and I've been playing incessantly.

  More

• A brilliant glance on death and the what-if

  e_robertg2005-04-23

  This movie was a masterpiece in every way. I initially left with a sour taste in my mouth after viewing the ending. I then watched the movie again and caught some of the more subtle cues, words and actions happening in this movie. The Kubrickian opening scene was beautifully shot and evoked this powerful sense of a journey about to unfold. There are several scenes where Nicole Kidman delivers quite possibly the most powerful performance she has ever delivered and without the use of her voice. She pulls this off so well and it gives a good sense of what the rest of her performance has in store. An unsung hero in this film is the young child actor Cameron Bright. His performance was equally as astonishing. He was able to convey the adult mind intermixed with the mental faculties of a child. This Mr. Reincarnation was accurate down to the smallest details of how his actions should be as an adult while also displaying how his vehicle was still that of a child's. He was conflicted and equally abound with thought as Anna, Nicole Kidman's character. The duality was shown towards the end specifically when they were both shown taking portraits. The musical score by Alexandre Desplat blends so extremely well with this movie and conveys even more powerfully those scenes where voice is not available to convey each of the actor's unheard emotions. The opening shot is one of the best examples of how well it completes the movie. I believe you'll have to have an observant eye and an open mind to fully appreciate this film. The ending may seem unfulfilling or open ended but in a sense it is quite conclusive. The ending does leave enough room to view it in different ways however. In short, I recommend this film to those who can fully appreciate films that make you think and which offer a beautiful composition of both music, images and story.

  More

• The Main Problem Was....

  lavatch2005-10-30

  The premise of the death of a prominent scientist coinciding with the birth of a child and the two "souls" merging ten years later was an intriguing one. But despite the effective cinematography, especially the exterior scenes in New York City, there was a central problem to this film. The major problem was in the characterization of the child. The main character Anna (Nicole Kidman) becomes attached to the 10-year-old boy who claims to be her deceased husband. Anna then develops an obsession with the child, throwing her engagement to Joseph (Danny Huston) into confusion. If only the child had some personality and had been able to convey some of the charm of the deceased husband, it might have been possible to become engaged in this film as a supernatural thriller. (When Anna and the boy meet privately in Central Park, the site is Sean's death scene. A more appropriate spot would have been a special part of the park where the couple met in life--not the place where Sean died.) Throughout the film, the boy only asserted ad nauseum that he was the husband "Sean" without giving Anna any hint of the "soul" of her former husband. If only the screenwriters could have developed sensitively and insightfully the characterization of the child, this film could have been stunning. The credibility gap was too wide for us to believe that Anna would actually begin to love the child as the reincarnation of her husband. It was also too difficult to believe that Joseph, Anna's family, and the child's parents would permit him to literally move into Anna's apartment. The most effective scene in the film was the moment when Anna's sister-in-law Clara (Anne Heche) confronts the child with her own secrets pertaining to Anna and Sean. The entire film might have resonated this level of energy if only the little boy had been given a personality! It is unfortunate that this little kid could not have been paired with Linda Blair's character in "The Exorcist." Now that would have been a perfect match!

  More