Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

Message

Michael · #1 Post by **Michael** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:01 pm

Birth is like a fresh winter air blowing through the very stale American cinema of today. The local Blockbuster stocks at least 40 copies of Birth. Huh? I don't even remember if the film ever played at any of the 20+ cinemas in my area. Was its premiere really that dreadfully quiet?! Especially that it stars the consistently popular Nicole Kidman.

So anyway, I rented the DVD and fell in love with the film. It was truly shocking to experience a beautiful, odd film like Birth coming out of nowhere.

The acting by Nicole Kidman is flawless. Easily her best performance to date. The cinematography is so gorgeous...every mise-en-scene is to be savored like every drop of a vintage wine. The camera is so in love with Nicole's luminous face and also the brilliant wintry New York atmosphere. Who knew that Anne Heche could really be this magnificent? And now what can I say about the boy Cameron Bright? Oh never mind.. its just too mind boggling. Just go see the film

A masterpiece.

chaddoli · #2 Post by **chaddoli** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:05 pm

I agree with you Michael, and be thankful you didn't see this in the theater as I did and instead in the comfort of your home. My screening of Birth was among the worst theater experiences of my life. People laughed inappropriately, scoffed at powerful dialogue and called it the worst film they've ever seen on the way out. It was all sad to me because I loved the film so much.

#3 Post by **Matt** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:36 pm

This is a profoundly misunderstood movie, perhaps my favorite film from last year.

Great, great score too.

dx23 · #4 Post by **dx23** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:16 pm

This is a profoundly misunderstood movie, perhaps my favorite film from last year.

Completely agree. If I remember correctly, there was a little bit of fuzz before the movie because of the uncomfortable nature to some of Kidman bathing with the kid. I don't think that this film had the proper marketing and I was as surprised as Michael that this film was all over my local Blockbuster. Definitely one of last years top 10 films.

Oedipax · #5 Post by **Oedipax** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:57 pm

Great film - Harris Savides is pretty much my favorite cinematographer at the moment. This movie had some very Kubrickian elements: the use of the zoom in some scenes, the interiors (and taxicab-filled exteriors) that remind one of Eyes Wide Shut, Desplat's score, the overall tone, and some possible homage moments, like the scene where her fiancee finally loses it and attacks the boy (Barry Lyndon) or a subtle bit where the hotel desk clerk is seen idly bouncing a ball against the walls of the lobby (The Shining). The long take of Kidman at the opera really takes my breath away every time I see it, as does the opening tracking shot through central park.

I've been recommending this to friends who had written the movie off, and once I'd convinced them it was worthwhile, they've all really liked it. It wasn't really on my radar when it was in theaters, either, but boy am I glad I checked it out on video... Absolutely one of last year's best movies.

g30 · #6 Post by **g30** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 6:20 pm

I'm surprised that this is being discussed as an unknown film. I was eagerly awaiting it for a long time due to it being Jonathan Glazer's second feature after the magnificent Sexy Beast. If anyone is familiar with his commercials and music videos (check out the new directors' series from Palm) you would understand the excitement as well.

And I was definitely not disappointed.

Jem · #7 Post by **Jem** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:50 pm

Jonathan Glazer's second feature after the magnificent Sexy Beast. If anyone is familiar with his commercials and music videos (check out the new directors' series from Palm) you would understand the excitement as well.

(I posted this link a while back but it was removed in a nano second)
...try again?
Directors Label: Jonathan Glazer
http://www.directorslabel.com/

backstreetsbackalright · #8 Post by **backstreetsbackalright** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 9:04 pm

I never saw Sexy Beast, so I gave Birth little thought when it was in theaters. Once it hit video, friends starting giving it raves. When I finally caught up with it a month or so ago, I was extremely impressed. Here in Seattle it's developing a reputation as one of the most underrated films of the last few years.

neuro · #9 Post by **neuro** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:10 am

This movie had some very Kubrickian elements

I'd agree with this statement, but the most obvious influence, for me at least, was Dreyer. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Glazer had Kidman watch The Passion of Joan of Arc (I'm thinking specifically of the aforementioned scene in the opera house where the camera lingers over the latter's face - perhaps one of the most aesthetically perfect scenes I've seen in the past few years). As Michael observed, the film reminded me of the old John Ford adage: "the most interesting and exciting thing in the whole world: the human face."

For me, the film was very unexpected, daring in both content and in style, and was seemingly successful in creating a brooding, yet operatic tone.

ben d banana · #10 Post by **ben d banana** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 2:44 am

So am I going to have to believe all of this hype and break down and watch it? Sexy Beast was almost as infuriatingly shitty as Napoleon Dynamite, with its reek of lame-o "cutting edge" music video/commercial style even though I had no advance knowledge of Glazer's resume.

Lino · #11 Post by **Lino** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 3:56 am

chaddoli wrote:I agree with you Michael, and be thankful you didn't see this in the theater as I did and instead in the comfort of your home. My screening of Birth was among the worst theater experiences of my life. People laughed inappropriately, scoffed at powerful dialogue and called it the worst film they've ever seen on the way out. It was all sad to me because I loved the film so much.

Exactly what happened to me too. In fact, after the film me and my friends got into a heated discussion about the film because they hated it so much and I loved it as much. It was so hypnotic and beautifully executed that it got me by surprise. I must say that the trailer didn't help much in the way of conveying what the film was about so I guess that's why people were so mystified by it.

dvdane · #12 Post by **dvdane** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:18 am

Neuro wrote:In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Glazer had Kidman watch The Passion of Joan of Arc

No surprise at all, as Savides composed his shots of Kidman based on direct inspiration from Rudolph Maté's portrait of Falconetti's face in "a Passion de Jeanne d'Arc". And there is also an allusion to Kubricks medium compositions and tracking shots, especially those from "Eyes Wide Shut".

I saw it some six months ago for the first time and since then I've considered it one of the best films of the year. It is a very brave film and very sober, intelligently in its portrait of a most unsual lovestory, which allows us to watch a grown up woman kiss a ten year old boy as a lover as the most natural thing in the world.

Steven H · #13 Post by **Steven H** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:03 pm

ben d banana wrote:So am I going to have to believe all of this hype and break down and watch it?

I loved every minute of it, and had similar feelings about Sexy Beast that you did. Hype probably won't help the film though, it's got that sleeperish Bergman quality to it, where you're better off letting it sneak up on you.

I saw it when it was in theaters last year, and was blown away, however on my way out, it seemed like everyone else was giggling or laughing at it. Someone just picked the worst marketing strategy every for this one (even the DVD cover makes it out to be some kind of thriller.) It definitely polarizes people (in that way it *definitely* reminds me of Eyes Wide Shut.)

The most Kubrick like moment is the opening shot, I think. The rest seems much more warm and from a more human, less omniscient POV. There are so many small details you're given to get inside these character's lives. I can think of a number of remarkable scenes, especially the bathtub, the wedding rehearsal, when the child initially confronts Kidman, and when he tells his mother that he's not her son. Fantastic stuff, and they stand the test of repeat viewing as my wellworn DVD will attest.

I also wonder, since Carriere was involved, how much of the film might be a mockery of upper-middle class mores (along the lines of his Bunuel and Kaufmann work). A point is definitely made that the child is poor, and Kidman is rich. One of the *many* explanations that could creep up is that the kid is so envious of a higher economic strata, that he is literally possessed.

jorencain · #14 Post by **jorencain** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:34 pm

Thanks to Michael for starting this thread. I just picked up a copy at Blockbuster and watched it, and I can only echo the positive statements that everyone's making. The score IS pretty great, I must agree.

ben d banana · #15 Post by **ben d banana** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:33 pm

Okay, you've got me. Too many usually disparate voices agreeing and it sounds to be way up my alley. I hope it's still cheap used at the nearby Blockbuster when I return from vacation.

chaddoli · #16 Post by **chaddoli** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:56 pm

I agree with the influence of Dreyer and Kubrick, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned Rosemary's Baby. Kidman's hair and look, the apartment setting and the general feel of the film are very reminiscent of Polanski's masterpiece.

Steven H · #17 Post by **Steven H** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:43 pm

chaddoli wrote:I agree with the influence of Dreyer and Kubrick, but I'm surprised no one has mentioned Rosemary's Baby. Kidman's hair and look, the apartment setting and the general feel of the film are very reminiscent of Polanski's masterpiece.

I agree, and it also has that kind of subtle surrealism I usually identify in Polanski's films. I think the tone is incredibly different though. Less The Tenant and more La Notte or Breaking The Waves, I think (wonder how Von Trier would have handled the story).

All these comparisons are interesting, but it's also nice to see a relatively mainstream director, who is obviously inspired by some great filmmakers, but doesn't wear it on his sleeve (a la Tarantino.) This film incorporates a number of different styles (tracking, medium long takes, hand-held, I think I remember some distinctly POV shots, but I'll have to rewatch) , but all serve to present the story/characters, not distract from it. What dialogue there is is rich, but it certainly isn't heavy with it. Instead it seems quiet and reflective (I had similar praise for Unfaithful when it came out, though that one hasn't really stayed with me, and seems false in retrospect.) This film seems very easy to praise.

backstreetsbackalright · #18 Post by **backstreetsbackalright** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:52 pm

chaddoli wrote:I'm surprised no one has mentioned Rosemary's Baby. Kidman's hair and look, the apartment setting and the general feel of the film are very reminiscent of Polanski's masterpiece.

Say word!

DDillaman · #19 Post by **DDillaman** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:47 pm

Are there any releases of this with any features whatsoever, before I pull the trigger on the barebones R1?

jorencain · #20 Post by **jorencain** » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:14 pm

Coltrain wrote:Not even close to a masterpiece.

In the end, turns out it is just a Hollywood film afterall.

Care to elaborate? I don't know if I would use the term "masterpiece", but it was far from a typical Hollywood film. A Hollywood film would have left no ambiguity, for the characters or for the audience, nor would it have had that somber, restrained mood throughout, etc. Just curious what you didn't like about it...

franco · #21 Post by **franco** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:05 am

Coltrain wrote:The mood was tolerable, but I felt as the movie continued to progress that it got less ambiguous. To me, in the end there was nothing left in doubt and that seemed to be a hollywood way to handle it.

Aren't you in the least degree spellbound by the cinematography, Coltrain?

Michael · #22 Post by **Michael** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:15 am

To me, in the end there was nothing left in doubt and that seemed to be a hollywood way to handle it.

Hollywood way?! If that's the case, then I wouldn't be the only person in my family to like Birth a lot. The main question that the film seems to propose is: Is Sean a fake or not? Birth never answered that question, making the ending ambiguous at its best. The "Hollywood way" would have determined Sean as a total fake or even the real Sean but again the film never takes either path.

franco · #23 Post by **franco** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:35 am

I completely agree with Michael. This film is far from the mainstream Hollywood formula.

In some ways I preceive the story as a testimony on Anna's inabilty to reconcile herself to the loss of her husband. It could be more about Anna than Sean. Whether Sean is a fake or not hence becomes less important than the fact that

SpoilerShow

Anna is willing to throw eveything away in exchange for an illusion of the past.

Matt, your humor is priceless.

Lino · #24 Post by **Lino** » Thu Sep 15, 2005 11:43 am

I understand in part what Coltrain means. The film does feel a bit too safe at times but this is only part of its magic. And the amazing cinematography and big name actors can also add to that overall feeling of standard Hollywood fare.

However, at its heart this is not a safe film at all. Having recently watched The Innocents for the first time, I can draw some parallels between both films in that they both feature children that seem very naive and pure at first glance only for us to later realize that this is not true at all.

Birth raises some questions but leaves them somewhat unanswered and open to personal interpretation and this is indeed a great gift in these cinematic days we live in where we pretty much do not need to think or even give it a second thought as to what the film we have just seen is trying to say.

Again, I want to emphasize the fact that its muted though classy look is intentionally deceiving. The real fact of the matter is much too seriouser than it seems.

kieslowski_67 · #25 Post by **kieslowski_67** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 10:30 am

The film works to a certain degree because of Kidman's marvelous performance (that 3 min close up in the opera house should have garnered Kidman an academy award nomination) and great camera work. However, the stupid ending nearly ruined the whole picture and I felt cheated after the great built up in the first 70 min. What a let down.