1298 Birth

[crimlaw]

Curious whether Criterion’s very own staff are the ones actually objecting to the release of Last Tango in Paris or, for that matter, Annie Hall and Manhattan, and not some concern for the market or social media backlash.

[relaxok]

Having just finally seen this film, the 'controversial' bits seem fairly inconsequential to me and I can't believe so much ink was spilled about it even on this forum.

What I did not expect though, was to see one of the greatest films of all time. I may have to rewatch Sexy Beast, as I don't remember loving it. Under The Skin is one of my favorite films of the 21st century. And then Zone Of Interest disappointed me. This however? Absolutely glorious, and I cannot stop thinking about it. And what a score.

I have not even seen it a second time yet, but at this current moment it is probably in my top 10 films of all time.

I was going to start writing some small details about the film but I feel like it would go on for pages..

Many mysteries deep within this one..

[therewillbeblus]

I think this film is great in part for its lack of mysteries, in that Glazer lends us many tangible reveals about human experience that come from the exposure to mystery. I don't particularly care about the surface-level information others gripe about: This is a movie that exhibits the very concrete consequences of vulnerability in the face of faith, and how challenging that is to make 'work' with a faithless life on earth. And when I say that, I don't mean that these people aren't religious or practicing spiritual practices - they could all be very spiritual... but the western world has been constructed to reinforce action, so empowerment, justice, communication, coping.. all with fellow man and systems and without God. Whether you bring faith in or not matters to an extent, but the corporeal world disinvites too much attention on the mysteries and faith, because doing so would give up power and attention that are crucial to apply consciously and with confidence. Faith risks confidence, risks a vulnerability that might flood like an unrepairable dam.. and it's in the presence of 'belief' and convictions that are personal to you (a personalized Higher Power or version of God is often talked about even in religious communities who may broadly conceive of God in a similar way, even if specifically it's about an intimate, unexplainable relationship) that we become disconnected to our world, realize our limitations, and may begin to experience a greater satisfaction from that faith than the vehicles to make meaning we've put in place to distract from that greater mystery, to ground us to a milieu marginalizing faith's utility. Through doing this, Glazer invites us to wonder what we're all missing by refusing to entertain the willingness to be agnostic, and then simultaneously proves exactly why it's unsafe to engage in belief within a tactile space populated by other agents who won't support the exploration.

It's of apiece with The Zone of Interest even more than his other two, because it shows both the enormous value in this practice, as well as the futility of it; Glazer knows the birth of the idea in Kidman's mind led to a kind of pre-catharsis she needed to work through to get to the next stage of, but also details its fundamental suffering and objective superfluousness in the plot/character reveal. When you tackle a subject like grief and loss -which more than any other experience cannot and should not be compared (and clinicians are schooled to prepare for this, specifically), nor does it follow a linear or predictable path- you are essentially drawing a portrait of the most intense battle a human being has with their limitations, which reveals concrete vulnerabilities. I think it's bold and strong, but it doesn't give me the same kind of life-changing sobriety to what movies can do, and yet - It never surprises me why this film ranks so highly for so many people.

There's also a much more interesting idea embedded in this film related to these concepts: How seemingly-random, or intrinsically meaningless events often lead us to these profound experiences when we bring our own context. A lot of people in certain groups will define their Higher Power as the opportunities that come when one opens their mind to engage with the world on terms obstructed by our protective rigidities that limit scope of field. And so, all the gripes about the reveal don't really matter in that case, nor do claims of audience-manipulation, because if we felt manipulated it's because we weren't shedding our own protective barriers to engage with the film's deeper meaning -of the drive to locate unconditional subjective meaning- which keeps us safely engaging on the surface level, like Joseph. And like his most recent film, Glazer recognizes this has purpose and is valid under one's own personal context. But he won't allow for the larger context to go ignored in his films. In Sexy Beast, nobody's manners, actions, inactions, nothing can stop Don from getting what he wants, and nothing can stop Gal from taking the job, not even the most lethal intervention. In Birth, the loss becomes so consuming, and the attempts to override it futile in friction with organic processing, that it would've bubbled up under any offering strong enough to draw that part out - yet it also shows what absurd and unrealistic and fantastical interventions we rely on to have a 'spiritual experience' and unblend from our realities to consider faith. In Under the Skin, we're constantly moving between the drive for connection and comparing our context to an alien one, that still shares the same threats as we do, even if abiding by a logic of intervention we cannot fathom and that Glazer respectfully doesn't bother trying to.

[Finch]

Jonathan Glazer’s second feature is a haunting cinematic enigma that explores the mysteries of the heart. Nicole Kidman delivers a masterfully multilayered performance as Anna, a widow still mourning the death of her husband a decade earlier when she meets Sean (Cameron Bright), a ten-year-old boy who claims to be his reincarnation—leading her into a wrenching confrontation with her own unresolved grief and desires. Featuring painterly cinematography by Harris Savides and a hypnotic orchestral score by Alexandre Desplat, Birth plays its outré premise with unflinching sincerity, yielding a profound emotional reverie on the possibilities of love beyond the physical realm.

Film Info
United States
2004
100 minutes
Color
1.85:1
English
Spine #1298

DIRECTOR-APPROVED 4K UHD + BLU-RAY SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES
New 4K digital restoration, supervised and approved by director Jonathan Glazer, with 5.1 surround DTS-HD Master Audio soundtrack
One 4K UHD disc of the film presented in Dolby Vision HDR and one Blu-ray with the film and special features
Interview from 2004 with Glazer and actor Nicole Kidman on Charlie Rose
New documentary on the making of the film featuring behind-the-scenes footage and interviews with Glazer, producers, and members of the cast
New program on the film’s cinematography featuring interviews with camera operator Craig Haagensen and first assistant cameraman Eric Swanek
Trailer
English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing

New cover by Neil Kellerhouse

[ryannichols7]

is Kidman really against making extras?

[beamish14]

is Kidman really against making extras?

She likely is just far too busy to get a date locked with Criterion’s producers

[nicolas]

is Kidman really against making extras?

She did a new interview for the Studiocanal 4K of The Others.

[jazzo]

Back in 2004, when this masterpiece was released, I had cable and swear I watched a fascinating doc on Bravo (Canada), with Glazer and his co-writers, Jean-Claude Carrière and Milo Addicathe, delving deeply into their long creative process/story gestation on Birth.

I also could be loosing my marbles at this point, because I can find no evidence of its existence.

If it is out there, it would be a great addition. If it isn't, send help now.

[The Curious Sofa]

Well, finally! I think everyone of Glazer's movies is a masterpiece, but this is still my favourite.

[The Curious Sofa]

is Kidman really against making extras?

She did a new interview for the Studiocanal 4K of The Others.

The Others features one of her most iconic performances, for which she was nominated for several major acting awards. Birth received a mixed to negative reception on release (it sits at 41% on Rotten Tomatoes) and was accused of depicting scenes of paedophilia by British tabloids, which caused a minor scandal in the UK. It also underperformed, partly because it was promoted as a supernatural mystery in the style of The Sixth Sense, a promise The Others more than met.

Birth has since been reassessed, not least thanks to Glazer's subsequent career, but it remains more of a cult film among cinephiles than a modern classic (may the Criterion release lead the way). Unless it is a secret favourite of Kidman's, I'm wouldn't be surprised if she won't contribute to any extras now.

[The Narrator Returns]

Not even a secret favorite, she and Glazer gave an LA Times interview last year where she still seems very proud of it.

[domino harvey]

Some in depth discussion from the 2000s list project

Birth – I avoided this on release because I thought Sexy Beast was mediocre and obnoxiously self-satisfied, and I didn’t even particularly like Glazer’s overpraised music videos, which seemed to treat the medium with “but I’m really a filmmaker – these are just for my showreel” disdain. However, several people on here whose opinions I respect really liked the film, so I picked it up some time back when I was foraging in the bargain bins and tossed it into the kevyip at the back of my cave. It has now tumbled out.

The film has a stifling preciousness that would normally drive me up the walls, but I have to admit it worked rather well, at least for the first hour. Every shot is meticulously composed and the score is ridiculously lush (or ridiculously subliminal – but again, it works surprisingly well). The film’s flaw, in my opinion, is that it never solves the problem – through writing, acting or direction - of making its outlandish situation plausible. Glazer’s high style is persuasive enough to paper over the cracks while the film is still in mystery mode, and he even gets to indulge in some stylistic gimmicks that work, like a pointedly long close-up, but in the final stretch the wheels come off.

The denouement is particularly flimsy, but rather than plonking it down and getting out of there before the audience has the chance to think too hard about it, Glazer stretches it out, clinging to the same ponderous, finessed style. He seems to believe he’s making a film of timeless profundity and rich emotional resonance rather than a twisty little thriller, but once he’s unpacked all the hidden compartments of his exquisite Louis Vuitton case, there’s actually not much in there. Still, lovely luggage.

If you’re interested in seeing very similar material handled differently (-cough – better), see Raul Ruiz’s Comedy of Innocence, also written by Carriere, also eligible for this leg of the list. The cast alone makes it worth it (Huppert, Balibar, Scob), and the kid is much better than Glazer’s constipated brat.

This forum's affection for Birth is up there with its equally inexplicable Michael Mann fetish. Birth is admittedly a beautifully shot and scored film. And as apartment porn, it's second only to Woody Allen.

Spoiler

But the most interesting aspect of the film isn't the question of reincarnation (which is disproved for the audience in the first five minutes by the Heche-following scene but not answered in the film until the last 15 minutes or so) but Kidman's willing self-destruction for an unobtainable ideal: the past. Had the film been more honest and spent less time pandering the story into a paranormal structure to make it "acceptable," the subtext might have become text and this would have been a film worthy of all the accolades lobbed at it by this forum.

As it is, the film never had the bravery to explore the disturbing story of an adult woman using a child as a surrogate and had to coat it in paranormal hooey. The problem isn't that the characters acknowledge the question of reincarnation, it's that the film assumes the audience buys it also-- a leap I wasn't apt to make anyways and certainly not after having it ruined in the first five minutes. So the whole film becomes waiting for the inevitable revelation that he's not the husband. Reading the posts in the dedicated thread, I was shocked to see questions as to the boy's credibility as the dead husband. He's patently not, as the letters triggered some sort of psychological snap with the child upon being read. And the film ends with Kidman nevertheless still in love with the child regardless. Perhaps in love with the idea of regaining what was lost at all cost, perhaps actually in love with the ten-year-old. Young Sean is either a individual human being to her or he's a concept, but she's simply unable to tell the difference by the film's end and this deserved to be explored deeper.

That her fiance so willingly gives a virtually unrepentant Kidman another chance was outrageous-- that's a tremendously large gesture and needed more justification than the viewer was given. The story of the man whose fiancee fell in love with a child is more interesting than how that seduction took place. How these two deal with her actions and lingering emotional attachments separately and together in the aftermath of her willingness to believe-- these are mature, troubling, unique issues that I hadn't seen raised before and should have been considered more deeply than to be relegated to an afterthought. The last fifteen minutes were the first fifteen minutes of the film this should have been.

A very interesting post domino. I still really like Birth, though I understand that it might be one of those films where you have to 'go with the concept', yet at the same time treating the film as an 'is he or isn't he?' thriller is the least interesting aspect of the enterprise. The main theme would seem to be misguided belief, not just of getting Anna to the point where she will plan to run off with a kid but by the child actually believing in what he is saying - how someone can be sincere yet still completely misguided. And when you come to a realisation that you are misguided do you face up to this even if you have to face the consequences for your mistake (as Sean does in the second bathtub scene) or do you still chase after ghosts of 'perfect' partners (as Anna is still doing at the end of the film)? They are both the main characters of the story, counterpointing each other.

Everyone else is also just looking for confirmation of their own point of view as being the correct one - see Bacall's brief "I never liked him anyway" confession to the boy.

I have to say though that I wasn't particularly interested in the fiancee's side of the situation beyond being the cuckold who continues a sham relationship, and seemingly fine with that situation as long as it doesn't present itself in any socially awkward situations. In a way he is the counterpoint to the dead Sean - Sean was faithless and philandering but Anna never recognised it; Joseph is overly faithful in a situation where he should have left Anna long ago, even before her preference for past relationships get so bluntly literalised. And do both men do what they do to her because they don't see Anna as a real woman but as a status symbol - that as long as they have her they can get their kicks elsewhere or can overlook the lack of 'true love' in the relationship?

While I'd defend Birth as interesting, it was great to hear zedz recommending the Ruiz film. Sadly he is a filmmaker I have not yet even begun to explore so maybe I would feel the same way and find his a superior take on a similar subject. I'll try and track it down before the list is due in!

Nice obscured post, domino, and I pretty much agree.

Spoiler

That opening giveaway scene is emblematic of the problems I have with the film's plausibility at all levels. You bring an inappropriate gift to an engagement party and have second thoughts, so your first instinct is to - bury the gift in Central Park in the middle of the night? Huh?

Generally, the characters' motivations are way too artily fudged, and that's the easiest thing to fudge. The revelation of how the boy impersonated the dead husband is treated as if it solves the narrative problem, but the question of why he does so is left hanging. Kidman's behaviour is similarly vague. As domino notes, the disturbing aspects of her obsession are glossed over and it feels like they're there simply to make the film 'edgy' and the performance 'brave'. All the film does is substitute the 'paranormal hooey' of the first half with psychological hooey, which is much harder to camouflage with opulent tracking shots.

I pretty much agree with zedz regarding Birth. I was a member on another board that pretty much canonized the film, so I watched it with high expectations and was really disappointed. Glazer does seem convinced that he's making something of utmost profundity and depth, but it really is all style, no substance. There are interesting ideas at play that Glazer seems unprepared, or unwilling, to explore - possibly because doing so would disturb the film's facade of baroque austerity... the front that Glazer is trying so hard to put up and cater to the "sophisticated" crowd.

But the other major reason it didn't work for me was Kidman. For me, Kidman is an actress desperate to break free of her own mediocrity. It is like she's aware of her limited talent, her brittle screen presence, her lack of skill with accents and her inability to convincingly emote, so she tries in vain to better herself by picking the most esoteric and interesting roles that most mainstream actresses attempt. Too bad she simply isn't good enough to pull them off. Even when she's good, it is because a role ties in with her own rigidity as a performer - "The Others", "Dogville" and to some extent "Australia" (where she's seemed the most comfortable on screen in ages). Other times, her brittleness lends itself to an execution that is mannered and shallow ("To Die For", among others) or to a performance that misses the point entirely ("Birth"). Her performance here failed to capture the reasons why her character might even take this child's assertions seriously (sure, she longs for her husband, but no widow would fall into this pattern of behaviour without something else in their past playing a part), the chemistry with Huston (also miscast) was ice-cold, she seemed too preoccupied with wielding the accent to actually attempt coloring between the lines with her character, and stylistic tricks like the 3-minute close-up were ruined by the fact that she simply isn't very good at telegraphing emotion. I found Anne Heche's bizarre intensity near the end of the film far more compelling, and I would have liked to have seen her arc beefed up a little - seeing things from her point of view was far more interesting than the flimsy Kidman-Bright thing.

In almost every Kidman performance I end up zoning out thinking "What would the Toni Collette version of this character be?"

[tullera]

This has been burned in my brain since seeing it. Ok, the movie AND this interview:

"What's one film that you wish more people had paid more attention to?"

https://youtu.be/kI2ucw7hP34?si=N5EpoRf3_lqmCNSi&t=371 (timestamp link)

[TVC15]

Spoiler

That opening giveaway scene is emblematic of the problems I have with the film's plausibility at all levels. You bring an inappropriate gift to an engagement party and have second thoughts, so your first instinct is to - bury the gift in Central Park in the middle of the night? Huh?

Spoiler

What should she have done with the gift? She wasn’t going to throw it away, the letters were obviously important to her — why else would she have kept them for ten years

[lethallyfab]

Glazer and Kidman did an LA Times retrospective interview last year that seems to say they had to do a lot of rewriting around Bright’s abilities.

[Oedipax]

No posts in this thread since the 4K release - is everyone in the same situation as me, i.e. still waiting on delivery? I pre-ordered from Amazon last November and I'm looking at an estimated Feb. 20 - March 27 delivery!

The same thing happened with Eyes Wide Shut. The fact that both of my most-anticipated releases of the past year had the same issue is enough to put me off pre-ordering from Amazon going forward, I assume delivery has been better from other sellers?

[The Curious Sofa]

It's at the top of my to-buy list of things but I too had a lot of trouble with Amazon.com recently. Three orders didn't arrive in Germany, and I spent a lot of time on chat with their customer service team, who promised refunds that never materialised. The service has deteriorated to a degree that it borders on fraud. Ultimately, threatening to get my money back via chargeback worked, but I won't be ordering from them again. Diabolik's shipping costs are rather expensive, especially for a single disc, so I am looking out for it on eBay or may wait for a sale.

[andyli]

I think I've made a wise decision not to bother with Amazon from the new year on. Days of dealing with wildly off delivery dates, long waits for stock to arrive and random splitting of parcels are gone. With my purchase frequency I'm good with alternative outlets such as DeepDiscount and all these boutique stores. If labels have official shops that offer good service I'm happy to use them during sales. It turns out without Amazon my physical media life could not be happier, thanks.

[wattsup32]

No posts in this thread since the 4K release - is everyone in the same situation as me, i.e. still waiting on delivery?

I hope that is the issue because I welcome renewed conversation on this. So many of the comments are from a long time. I am very curious about what those previous commenters think upon their revisits.