Birth (2004)
Note: Spoilers.
I can see where some people will
snigger and jeer at this film. After all, to most
people it will seem to be totally stilted and ridiculous,
not to mention unrealistic as hell. But those people
are also film-goers who have probably never seen a
Bergman film and who have no idea about atmospherics,
pacing, and artistic intent in films. Those same people
probably also have no idea of how the wealthy really
act in their own homes.
By now, the plot of "Birth" is pretty
well discussed. Nicole Kidman plays a widow who has
spent ten years getting over the death of her husband
and is just about to end her mourning and remarry
when a 10 year-old boy appears and claims to be the
reincarnation of her late husband.
Now, the boy is eventually exposed
as a fraud (through a even more confusing subplot)
but this shouldn't lead one to believe that he truly
isn't the reincarnation of her late husband. After
all, he knows where his former incarnation died and
he also knows who told his wife there was no Santa.
This information would not be exposed to him in the
supposed manner in which he learns about the other
things in Kidman's life (her love letters). Also,
there is a very purposeful shot at the beginning of
the film that ties Sean, the husband's, death to Sean,
the boy's, birth.
The idea truly being expressed here
is that the boy really is the reincarnation of the
husband but, because of the nature of reincarnation,
he loses most of the information he needs to successfully
remember his former life. He feels like he is "under
a spell" (as does Kidman, a very important point)
because he knows things due to who he is/was. When
he recants his story at the end of the film, what
he is really recanting is his former life. He is ashamed
of his affair with the Anne Heche character (one in
which she is obviously the dominant partner - he gives
her Kidman's unopened love letters) and sorrowful
about the way he treated Kidman and the boy sort of
evolves into deciding to start a new life and leave
his past behind. It is here that the spell is broken.
"I thought I was Sean," the boy says, and what he
means by this is: I want to be the Sean that loved
his wife - not the one who had an affair. This is
an expression of sorrow and grief, of regret and shame.
The idea here is that (re)birth is a second chance
to correct the wrongs of former existence(s), a chance
to start again.
Some people who have seen this film
also think that the epilogue with the boy at the end
suggests that he has killed himself. This is a ridiculous
notion. The boy begins somewhat as a reincarnated
lover under a spell who is also partially a "psychotic
stalker in training." Something has snapped within
him and he is not the boy he was just a few days before.
("I'm not your stupid son anymore," he tells his mother).
He is now this combination of "entranced" reincarnated
boy who also perhaps has a bit of confused and obsessed
stalker. He is obviously lost in his newfound existence
as a part living ghost and part delusional person,
and he obviously needs some help.
At the end of the film, this spell
is broken, both the reincarnated soul part and the
obsessive lover part, and he is the new-born boy again.
He is getting help to get on with his life. And, with
the mistakes of his past life now beginning to be
understood, perhaps he will be a better person than
he was in his previous incarnation. In a way, I guess,
he does commit suicide, in that he "kills" his former
self. His letter to Kidman is to tell her (someone
he cares about, a sort of "angel") that he is going
to do better this time. He is going to be a better
person in this new life. In a way, the film is sort
of a sexy "Jonathan Livingston Seagull."
Much has been made about the sexual
scenes between the boy and Kidman and this is perhaps
the film's biggest statement. Many think Kidman is
playing a "dimwit" here but there are many things
about her character to consider when discussing her
actions here. For one thing, she is under a spell
created by actually meeting the reincarnated soul
of her former soul- mate and true love. For another,
she must obviously be somewhat naive as this former
husband to whom she is so devoted was also having
an affair that, we presume, she was completely unaware
of. Perhaps she isn't the brightest bulb in the bunch,
but she certainly isn't mentally challenged. And finally,
one must consider her position in her family. Her
mother, played perfectly by the stately Lauren Bacall,
is obviously the controlling person in the family.
Kidman is as subservient to her as we presume she
was to her former husband. Kidman's character is not
normally someone who thinks for herself. She is also
still in mourning. The final scene in the film shows
us she will never recover from her loss.
One must remember, when thinking
of Kidman's actions, that this is a family that lives
in a beautiful opulent home who are obviously quite
comfortable financially. Call me a socialist, but
wealthy people, particularly those of old money, who
lives in urban centers and are obviously quite sophisticated,
operate under morals and societal notions much different
from the rest of the world. In fact, it surprises
me that the sister and mother here voice some objections
to Kidman's behavior. The wealthy do as they please.
The wealthy have little regard for societal norms
or for laws. If anything, the mother and sisters reaction
here are false in their extreme objection. If this
family were real, I doubt they would care much at
all if Kidman dabbled in pedophilia. In real life
their only object would be that she is being so obvious
about it.
The film is perfect in many ways.
From its opening scene, scored in flawless beauty
by Alexandre Desplat, that goes on for many minutes,
the film and its score creates a mood and an intense
focus, one much like the spell that is we presume
its main characters are supposedly under. The music
in the film is always integral to what is happening
on the screen. In fact, this may very well be the
best score of the year. Desplat creates a Phillip
Glass-esque score that evokes Bernard Hermann and
draws us deeply and intensely into the film.
Writer/director Jonathan Glazer
("Sexy Beast") is fearless in his filming of the story.
There is a unflinching, ceaseless close-up on Kidman's
face while classical music plays in the background
that goes on for several minutes in the first third
of the film. This scene is perhaps the most bold and
devastating sequence in a film that I have seen this
year. It is so intense that one can barely stand to
look but, once again, there is this spell and even
though the tension is enormous, we simply cannot look
away from the protagonist's facade. Kidman enacts
this moment perfectly, almost motionless, as she looks
almost directly into the camera and we can see her
character's mind working. Without a word, without
an edit, and nearly without a motion, the themes of
the plot solidify at this instant. It is an amazing
moment in film.
"Birth" is the kind of film that
is easy to dismiss. Most people refuse to consider
the feelings of a young man in the awakening of pubescence.
Most people refuse to believe in the spell the love
of a soul-mate can place upon a person. Most people
will refuse to look past the surface of this film
to see its themes of redemption and spiritual rebirth.
This is a film that says much more about the person
watching it than it does the people who made it.
Notes:
Also with Cameron Bright, Arliss
Howard, Danny Huston, and Peter Storemare.
Viewed in Austin in November, 2004,
with my roomie Amanda and my friend Johnny Oh! Johnny
fidgeted and sniggered at the film any time there
was a sexual moment between Kidman and the boy and
this really annoyed me. I yelled at him during the
movie and when it was over we had a short argument
which he walked away from. I haven't spoken to him
since.
