zBoneman.com -- Home Movie Reviews

Birth (2004)

Birth
"Birth"day Girl.

Starring:

Nicole Kidman
Anne Heche

Released By:

Fine Line Features

Released In:

2004

Rated:

R

Reviewed By:

Adam Mast

Grade:

B


Birth caused quite a stir at a couple of different film festivals earlier this year. Why all the hoopla? Your guess is as good as mine. There is one scene in the picture that is mostly responsible for the majority of the controversy and when I finally saw it, I was quite shocked. Not because I was disgusted. No, I was shocked because there wasn't anything in the least bit distasteful about the scene.

In Birth, Nicole Kidman plays Anna, a woman reeling from the untimely death of her loving husband, who is finally moving on with her life. When we pick up the action nearly ten years have passed, and Anna has found love again in the form of Joseph (Danny Huston), a man who's finally proven himself to her after a difficult courtship. Shortly before their wedding day however, a strange occurrence takes place as ten year old Sean (Cameron Bright) appears from out of nowhere and practically orders Anna not to marry Joseph. The order itself isn't nearly as odd as the reason. Sean professes to be Anna's dead husband reincarnate, and he has startling memories to back up his claim

Birth is tricky material to say the least. It would be extremely difficult for any film maker to approach this type of movie and keep it from becoming something completely absurd. Second time film maker Jonathan Glazer (he made the terrific Sexy Beast) does an admirable job delving into this story with a serious and delicate hand. For the most part, he's created a flawed but haunting picture that, during it's strongest moments reminded me a little of a Kubrick film.

Nicole Kidman is outstanding in the lead. Much of this performance is revealed through actions rather than dialogue. One of her most powerful moments is one in which she's merely listening to a classical music concert in a packed theater. While Kidman doesn't utter a single word, her face says it all, as the camera slowly dollies in on her. It's a risky move in terms of the rhythm of the movie but Kidman pulls it off and turns in another solid performance.

Young Cameron Bright (last seen in the silly thriller Godsend) plays Sean, and he's very effective in a turn that is both creepy and gentle. By the end of the picture (which is fair to say is quite ambiguous), Cameron's quiet performance leaves us unsure what to believe. For such a young kid he makes the most of some awfully tough scenes - including one in which he and Kidman engage in a frank sexual conversation. It isn't exactly "Kinsey" frank, but it makes for slightly uncomfortable viewing nonetheless.

Birth touches on everything from reincarnation to grief, and even though it includes elements that many of us might not believe in, it does so in a compelling way. Kidman's Anna certainly doesn't start out as a believer either, but by the end of the picture, events unfold that have her questioning her own beliefs.

And the fashion in which many of the characters react in Birth after hearing Sean's revelation, are interesting and unexpected, particularly Joseph who doesn't take to the news well at all. In fact, during one point in the film, he's so distraught and angry towards Sean, that he begins to act like a jealous (and immature) boyfriend.

The "big scene" in question features Sean taking a bath with Anna . And while this may sound incredibly taboo, the scene is extremely tasteful and hardly the unsettling piece of cinema trash that others would have you believe.

Birth is hardly flawless. It has moments that don't work. Toward the end of the picture, there's an emotional confrontation between Anna and Sean that feels overacted and over directed, but it doesn't take away from the overall provocative nature of this otherwise intimate, haunting and strangely touching film. If Birth tells us anything, it's that love conquers all.

:: zBoneman.com Reader Comments ::

jp

jp

I just watched the movie earlier and I could just say that I still have doubts on what I believed truly happened. It was dragging and only shows progress very slowly trying to make the audience believe that the 10 year old boy is really Shawn. Yet it was an effective film because it made me wonder in the end what really happened. The movie focuses on the boy's revelation and Kidman's character's battle to keep her sanity.Everything else was a waste of time and very redundant. I need help to really understand it though, because i don't intend to watch it again. Can you tell me exactly what the movie was all about. No offense. Anyway in other aspects i think the movie was good.

kaye

kaye

i rather enjoyed the movie until the final moments with the wedding pictures of anna and the school photos of sean overlapping. next anna was wandering lost out in the waves. i was more confused than she was i think. i watched that clip over and over trying to figure out what i missed, and i am still lost. please help me out. what was her issue? what did joseph tell her that gave her that wild eyed look? help! she looked like a freakin' zombie bride walking away on that beach. thanks, kaye

The Boneman

The Boneman

Birth started off as a very intriguing mystery and it remained compelling well into the second act. Unfortunately, the screenwriters ran out of ideas and used a pretty facile devise to sidestep the fascinating scenario they had created. If the child was merely misguided how do you explain all of the details he knew about the relationship with Anna? The fact that the entire story was derailed by such an absurd revelation sold the entire film out and left me feeling as though I'd been duped. That damned Anne Heche is always bunging things up.

Pippen

Pippen

I really enjoyed this film and really bought into it, but I must say that I think they kind of chickened out at the end. I was hoping for something a little more earth shattering and the ending was kind of chicken shit. Sorry

Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward

Thought the movie was quite compelling, but I thought they copped out and chickened out at the end

KC

KC

I just want to know was he Sean reincarnated or what?

Colleen

Colleen

I just watched the movie last night and I am so darn confused. Sean said that he wasn't really Anna'a late husband and what was that scene when he was over at that lady's house with a bookbag filled with letters. This movie had a good beginning but crappy ending. Movies like this irritate the crap out of me.

ccutie

ccutie

I watched the movie for the first time last night....i had always wanted to see it and i happened to see that it was playin on encore, and i caught it maybe 15 mins. into the movie....it was okay, but i didn't understand it...like everybody else said, was the little boy really sean? he knew a lot of things about their relationship, but who the heck was the lady that wanted the letters? what were those letters? she claimed that sean was her husband and that if he was really sean, he would know....maybe sean was in the little boy in the beginning, but after he saw that Anna was still gonna marry that guy, he left the little boy's body, so that's why he was confused as to who that woman really was....was sean married twice? i have to watch that again....

Boneman

Boneman

Dear Cutie, please watchout for deathcabs (which is good advise for us all) I think your decision to spin it again will definitley answer a few questions, particualrly if you missed the first 15 minutes. I really admired the film but always felt like they kind of chickened out with the ending, maybe you'll be the one who finds something that the rest of us have missed and help sort out this often inscrutable and frustrating films, and if not at least you've go that cutie thing going for you,

Jacinda

Jacinda

There seems to be a great deal of confusion regarding the conclusion of this film, so I thought I would offer my interpretation. (Spoiler!):

I have the feeling that the little boy really was Sean reincarnated. Reading the love letters that he found reminded him of his past life, but there was still some confusion for him about certain details of that life. I think that he doesn't fully remember the love affair he had with Clara until she confronts him about the letters. At this point he realizes that if what Clara is telling him is true (and his intuition tells him that it is) that perhaps he didn't really love Anna in his past life the way he thought he did. I think he becomes confused at this point and perhaps a bit disillusioned, which is why he tells Anna that he is not Sean "because I love you". Maybe in his first life Sean truly loved Anna but aspects of his personality got in the way and caused him to behave as he did. Maybe he even thought he did love Clara. But in his new incarnation (aquired through the process of birth) the slate of details is wiped clean and all that is left is the pure essence of his "soul", and with that, his inclination to love a person like Anna. He tells Anna "I'm not Sean because I love you". I think this means he is no longer the sean that cheated on Anna but he is the same soul or essence that inhabited that Sean. I think this is one of the major points of the film. That being reincarnated does not mean that you carry with you the same personality and worldly details that you had in your previous life. Those are swept clean and eradicated in the process of birth, hence the film's title. Anna realized this at the end of the film, which is why she ran onto the beach. At first she wades in the water. When Joseph comes for her, they walk off together down the shoreline. The beach is the edge dividing earth from water. This is symbolic. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

Boneman

Boneman

Jacinda, I must say that was an amazingly adroit and well-thought-out theory. If you're theory is correct then the contention that the film chickens out in the end isn't therefore correct - not being real well versed on reincarnation I'd never thought that angle through, but I should say it's definitely food for thought - thanks for your considered opinion.

Jacinda

Jacinda

Thank YOU for this informative and amusing site.

I just found out that one of the screenplay writers of this film (Jean Claude Carriere) did an interview with the Dalai Lama in '93 and published it in a book called "Violence and Compassion". A large portion of the book was devoted to the subject of reincarnation. Thought you and your readers might find that interesting...?

lolo

lolo

so predictable, but i loved the ending. Jacinda gave the most accurate description of the film and i wish more american films were as truly artisitc as this. i guess the inspiration came from jean claude's french artistic style :)

Add your own comment here and see it posted immediately!