In recent decades, scientists have faced the task of studying human brain activity and cognition of his feelings and emotions. First, they learned to cut, to see what was inside, then they began to delve into and examine human parts under a microscope, finding new topics for discussion. Now, the empirical method has been replaced by the theoretical one, it is necessary to talk, interact with each other, based on trust.
How did a 10-year-old boy break a woman’s psyche? Manipulating feelings and memories backed by verbal evidence, he turned her head, eclipsed her mind, and took a dominant position in her plight. Anna doesn't care anymore. Her own love for Joseph is weak, because it was invented only in exchange for her deceased husband. The film shows true love, strong and unbreakable. Even after death, the ridiculous memory of Sean revives Anna’s former fire of emotion. The opportunity to experience the happiness she had been given from above was what she saw in the reflection of this young Sean's eyes. It is a pity that the chance is given only once, and the second and subsequent ones are either luck or parody.
The boy Sean is still only a boy, but despite his young age, he got used to the role of the deceased, at least the author intended. His unemotional abandoned expression captivated and convinced the audience all 2 hours. His show has experienced mad success and a long-awaited fiasco. Professional play on the feelings of a sweet lady was a parody of a two-faced schoolboy who left behind a bright dark unforgettable spot on the family tree of Anna. Her broken heart will not be sewn up, the crippled nerve cells of the innocent conqueror Joseph will not be healed, and Sean’s pupil, who has already grown beyond his years, will not be forgotten.
Nicole Kidman is a true heroine of our time, and in this film, she masterfully portrays the madness that draws her character. In this respect – the penetration into reality of some irrational forces that few for whom reality will not be able to shake – “Birth” reminds me of Soderbergh’s “Not in Himself” and Lanthimos’ “Murder of the Sacred Deer” (from the same phenomenal Kidman), which, I must say, were filmed later.
But the layers in the picture, of course, there are many – here and the question of social inequality (the family of Anna, the heroine of Kidman, lives deliberately luxuriously, as opposed to the reincarnation of her husband, which came from a lower social layer), and the theme of the “troublemaker” in the bourgeois family (see the film of the same name, plus Pasolini’s Theorem and Ozon’s Ratman), and, perhaps most importantly, love and death.
While watching the picture, I remembered a literary work that was close in meaning, which, I must say, made a much greater impression on me than Birth - this is Yukio Mishima's Death in Midsummer. The death of any person, especially a loved one, always leaves hope in the heart that it will not be true. This hope smolders in the soul of every person who has lost a lover. And 'Birth' shows us what happens when you blow this corner up.
P.S. It is impossible not to mention the impeccable musical accompaniment created by Alexander Despla, and seasoned with Wagner.
No one wrote that the boy was good, fell in love with the heroine, did not talk about letters and mocked the fool. I think the film is about it, not about mysticism or rebirth. Reincarnation is a container. And the birth itself is the appearance of the real feelings of the boy to the heroine and the heroine and the groom to each other.
I think that sharp, especially positive reviews are made by young people. Young people, watch old movies! This movie is secondary. A one-on-one final like Claude Lelusch in Man and Woman. Only there everything is subtle and subtle, and here - intrusive and rude.
The film is not strong, not shocking, not pulsating, not masterpiece. This isn't about him. It's a retelling of what's already been filmed, with the addition of psychopathy, for appetite when eating popcorn. The director is very good, thank you for your work. I looked at it, but it was clear from the beginning. When I realized that the plot was obvious, I began to ask myself, what was the point of watching the movie? I realized this at the end when the boy explained himself to the heroine.
I love Kidman, the groom played great, the boy is good, the mistress is good.
' Birth' decided to look very spontaneously and was completely unprepared for what she saw. I did not read the reviews and did not know anything about this film, so I watched without any emotional basis. So let's say with a clean head.
Anna (Nicole Kidman) is incredibly hard going through the death of her beloved husband Sean. After 10 years, the widow decides to tie the knot with Joseph (Danny Houston), because he has long won her favor. Suddenly, a young Sean (Cameron Bright) appears in Anna’s life, who is sure that he is the deceased husband of the main character.
I don't want to be verbose. In fact, the film speaks for itself. It does it very organically and calmly. No hint of pedophilia or any attempt by the filmmakers to touch our limits. Few will understand Anna's heartbreaking pain. From the first shots, you can feel this cold air in your lungs on a winter city morning. Everything from dialogue to music is imbued with the suffering of characters 'Births'. Everyone has their own suffering.
Anna feels that she has begun to cope and has come to terms with the idea that the idealized deceased spouse will not return. But when hope looms on the horizon to be with someone you still love, the desperate woman grabs the opportunity like a straw. This picture is like a quiet river, which from the first minute picks you up, dragging you into the plot and slowly carries with the flow.
Nicole Kidman has his own style of play. Her Anna looks calm, meek and serene, but it's all just a picture. In fact, in the soul of the main character raging emotions, passions, questions. With the role of the actress coped wonderfully. Every scene with Anna is saturated with bitterness, longing and despair. Nicole Kidman performed the main task of the actor. You believe her, you sympathize with her, you try to understand her. Let me tell you about Cameron Bright. From his characters in the movie always run goosebumps. It is not a drop inferior to adults and more experienced partners in the film. ' Birth' proves this to the viewer once again.
To be honest, it turned out exciting, mysterious, frightening and very atmospheric. I recommend reading reviews before viewing, because ' Birth' the same film from the genre ' not for everyone'.
I am still amazed at the main characters! How is it possible to play a perfectly believable love story between a child and an adult woman without disturbing your psychological status in reality? Especially worried about Cameron Bright, he had a very hard time! But he coped with this task, was verbose like a child and very sharp facial expressions, like an adult resurrected man. This is the first time I have seen a film about women’s pedophilia.
After the death of her beloved husband, Anna (Nicole Kidman) suffers a painful loss. At the moment when the pain has decreased its intensity and Anna was ready to start a life with another person – appears 10-year-old John the deceased husband, claiming his reincarnation.
In the event of psychological trauma, some persons predisposed to this may develop obsessive compulsive disorder, which is characterized by irresistible drives that arise against reason, will, feelings. Often they are unacceptable for a person, as they contradict his moral and ethical standards. These instincts are recognized as wrong and painfully experienced and rejected by the person himself.
But Anna didn't suffer from it! Involuntarily I want to believe “John is a child”, because he so clearly operates the past, tells many facts that put everyone in an awkward position. It would seem that it remains to accept as truth the miracle of the reincarnation of the soul and rejoice for the return of lost happiness due to the sudden death of John, despite the absurdity of their existence. To do this, you just need to turn off your mind and stop explaining anything, it is clear that they will have a hard time. It's not that simple.
And there is only one question: what will Anna choose? 1-risk, deceive everyone (he is a minor, so she faces criminal punishment), but do not miss the chance to remain happy with her husband 2- To live with an unloved man for convenience and ease of existence in this mortal world. The choice is for a woman.
What's this movie about? For me, it is about love, about a feeling of power so colossal that it overcomes time, death, betrayal and deception. And at the same time takes away from a person, this love of the experiencing, fortitude, dignity, sense of reality. This is a film about love, destroying a person, leaving him an empty lifeless shell, which like a kite will sway with the slightest hope.
Birth. Birth of what? I don’t think it’s literally the birth of a boy, Sean, even though it’s kind of shown in the beginning of the movie. Perhaps the birth of hope in Anna's heart, when her world, in its depths absolutely joyless, disturbed this strange boy? Maybe Anna herself was born again in front of the audience?
Nicole Kidman's performance deserves a long standing ovation. For an hour and a half, I forgot that she even existed, and I only saw Anna, a case for aspiring psychotherapists. About Cameron Bright, unfortunately, I can not say this, too little he expressed emotions, although maybe this was the idea of the director, but then I did not appreciate it.
The color scheme of the film is boring, sulfur and monotonous, even seemingly warm colors do not give any ' warmth', which once again shows the inner emptiness of the main character. Another thing is the musical accompaniment - it is above all praise: colorful and rich; the scene in the opera house - the turning point of the whole film - an example of how music and barely noticeable facial expressions can convey inner struggle and the collapse of mental balance.
To sum up, I paraphrase my first thought: it seems to me that the director took feelings and thoughts that were familiar to many in one way or another (hope for the return of a loved one, unwillingness to put up with reality), and brought them to the limit, increased them hundreds of times, and then began to carefully consider. Do you want to watch all this? If so, enjoy the movie.
"At a certain age, the season coincides with fate" (I. Brodsky)
Dress properly, wrap yourself warmly, because from the first shots you will get into a cold, inhospitable world, in which all the time is winter, not Christmas, December, fluffy snow and the expectation of the miraculous, but February, the most winter month, despite the twenty-eight calendar days. It is in February that you want warmth and spring so much, and instead - frozen, asphalt, steam from the mouth and stiffened hands, and it seems that it will always be so.
For Anna, the main character of this story, this weather is a kind of reflection of the inner world. Self-esteem after the death of her husband. And if you imagine... to believe that a ten-year-old boy is really possessed by a grown man trying to reunite with his wife, he, the poor fellow, will be as uncomfortable and cold in someone else’s body as his wife in a world where he is no longer. But will it be possible to believe and is it worth it? It all depends on the power of love. How many people can love so much that ten years after the death of their lover, they are ready to surrender to a little stranger who was able to convince you that he was your deceased husband. Is it madness or true love that clings to every opportunity, to last hope?
This is an amazing film about love, which will be fully understood only by those who truly loved and those who really lost. Only then will the despair of the impossibility of resurrection and the dulled unending pain become real.
And this is a double story, the story of Anna’s life “before”, which opens in a very unusual way, through the present, through a boy who spits out facts, secrets, secrets dear to his heart, without any embarrassment. In this story, Anna loved Sean, and Sean did not love Anna, but was with her. And the story of the present, in which crazy hope was born and in which Sean, although he loves Anna, can never be with her. What can you do if love is inherently illogical? It defies neither the usual logic nor the logic of the transmigration of souls. Only the heart.
Let me tell you what. If I suddenly lose my wife and the next day a bird sits on my windowsill and looks me in the eye in pure English and says, "Sean, it's Anna, I'm back." What do I tell her? I'll probably believe her words or I'll want it to be so and I'll have to live out my age with a bird.
I won’t sing praises to this film, but I will say that the film is worth it. It is a calm and subtle statement about the desire to believe when there is no reasonable reason for it. About how close people give each other the right and time to go a little crazy. No, really. No one laughed at Anna or told her how to live. I was so pleased for her, for the fact that even if she is wrong, if she does something reckless, then no one tortures her, but on the contrary, how can one refrain from harsh words and deeds. The same goes for Sean, by the way. How wonderful to have such parents. This experience is no worse and no better than others that could have been in the boy’s fate, and the fact that he was allowed to suffer from this, in my opinion, is right and the only way not to aggravate the situation, not to push him to steps characteristic of adolescence and, often, irreparable.
I liked Joseph the least and I don’t understand Anna’s decision to marry him. Life created an incredible situation in which Anna could clearly see the extent of her obsession with her ex-husband, but even the grotesqueness of the situation did not seem to help her. Who should have visited a psychologist, so it was Anna to get rid of a protracted addiction (ten years is a decent period) and start a new life, where she will not only allow herself to love, but will fall in love again herself.
My verdict is that the film is never a thriller or a detective, but it is good, it has a lot of feelings, there is something to think about and to empathize with.
This is an unusual film – a film with a “focus”. Glaser’s filmography up to 2013 seems to confirm my guesses (the review was written a few years ago). So watch your hands, as magicians say.
There was once a director, Jonathan Glazer. He shot a music video, tried advertising, in 2000 he shot the well-received film “Sexy Beast”, lazily made any plans for the future.
And then he met Nicole Kidman. Whether the movie I watched, or in the pizzeria collided ... and disappeared Glazer, disappeared for the industry B-movies. He realized that there is no further life for him if they do not turn out to be with Nicole’s sweet heart on opposite sides of the camera. Glaser, as a generally reasonable person, did not claim to be more, and his passion was of a different nature (here the half-forgotten word “platonic” emerged from memory). “And they say that there are no romantics left!”, as the robot Bender noted on a similar occasion.
What efforts Jonathan made to win the money, to assemble the team and, in fact, to interest Kidman participation (well, yes, “now it is only Prince Potocki to persuade”) – this history is silent. It is clear that Jonathan first reviewed all the films with the adored Nicole, and traced some trends in them, especially drawing attention to the recent success of Amenabar’s The Others. Finding a “mystical” script in today’s Hollywood is not difficult; finding a mystical script without a child in the lead role is almost impossible. This, by the way, also played into the hands of Jonathan, and gave him one promising idea, which he brilliantly implemented. Even moderate pedophilia did not block the film’s way to the screens, but only added a very useful image of a “film with fascinating experiments on the verge of foul”, which has a beneficial effect on the festival fate. The film safely passed on the screens, collected a couple of awards, and sank into the rarely disturbing oblivion of “Jonathan Glazer films”.
Did you notice that I didn’t say anything about the plot, the actors’ performances, etc.?
Yes, I think the review should be like a movie, and this one is no exception. I’m not going to drag it all the way to the end (just like it happens in the movie), and I’m going to lay it out right now.
There is no plot, acting, “operator work” and other things in the film. Well, that is, there is something there, but this is so, “for order”; just as in Soviet times it was impossible to buy Dumas without the obligatory addendum “Convention Decisions – to Life!”, so a “Hollywood intellectual film” cannot be without a plot and without “actors’ play.” Physically, you can see how Glazer, wrinkling, prescribes the placement of actors, puts replicas ... – in short, develops the minimum, without which “this” simply will not be missed on the screen.
There's Nicole Kidman in the movie. That's it. The film is Nicole, unimaginably beautiful with a short haircut; crying Nicole in the theater (a few minutes of one non-removable close-up!). Nicole, humiliated by relatives and groom; Nicole, crazy with powerlessness and love. The Nicole that Jonathan Glazer is looking at. From the bathtub, from the bed, from the chair in the cafeteria ... he did not in vain put a stupid child on this role - he turned out to be an ideal conductor of his soul flame, not clouded by any thoughts and feelings.
Here she is sitting on the edge of the bathtub, crying, and she wants to believe that he is the one who will bring back her past life of love. Glazer couldn’t sit down in that bathtub himself, but it’s better; some things need to be dreams. He's going to watch this movie a hundred times because the whole movie is all about her, Nicole Kidman. Her beautiful eyes, her feelings, herself. He left a monument of his love, such as he could make.
Next year, he will shoot what is usually done by old men in their 70s – a tribute to himself, a short film “the work of Jonathan Glazer”. And that makes sense. "Life in the Movie" for Jonathan Glazer is over. And the possible appearance of further tapes will not change anything - well, we must somehow earn.
And Glazer has already made his main film.
P.S. Generally speaking, the film is quite good, a worthy “four plus”. Well, the finale is blurred, there are other flaws, but it's not very important. Because the above feature of the film struck me and completely blocked the rest of its sides. This is a unique, another such “dedication” (or “explanation in love”, as you like) I have not seen.
And, yes, I understand Glazer. She's really beautiful, adorable Nicole Kidman.
Honestly, I don’t understand what an uncertain ending everyone is writing about. Ever since the “gift” was buried, it was clear to me that there was probably a diary there, and the boy just dug up, was impressed and decided to change things. Okay, there were letters, but it's not significant. It's just a form of submission. The situation is essentially the same. He learned from personal correspondence personal details.
The boy can be understood - at his age, both adult aunts seem strongly romantic, and adult love stories are the source of an unlived reality that helps grow up.
But aunts better find their uncles and try to be happy. Such false hopes only increase the sense of loss. May God be with any of us patient and understanding people who will forgive us this “transitional period” of doubt. Because it's very difficult - but those who can and are potentially close.
Because, of course, the easiest way would be if our loved ones lived forever, or no less than we did, and we would never have the same choice between them and new acquaintances. An old friend is better than two new friends.
But the film is about a mad hope that exists against all conventions, and a new love that is ready to forgive. And both are equally great.
“Birth” is a movie as one long psychological tension that keeps the viewer from the first to the last frame. The film turned out to be deep with a subtle, complicated story with two bottoms. His story is compromised and causes awkwardness and constant anxiety when viewed. The movie is original and I liked it. His story was not corny, but quite original and unambiguous. When you start watching this drama, it slowly immerses you in its atmosphere, which hypnotizes and takes you into a strange, mysterious story against a background of some cold and incomprehensible.
We see the main character who lost her husband ten years ago. The woman loved him very much, but she finally managed to cope with the grief, and now she is marrying a man who had long sought her. Her peace of mind and newfound happiness are shattered when a little boy appears claiming to be her husband. He knows all the details of their intimate life and much that no one except her late husband could have known. The heroes find themselves in a difficult situation, and its consequences become irreparable.
Oscar winner Nicole Kidman is the strongest dramatic actress, and she always manages to play the most difficult, bold and controversial roles. In this psychological drama, she was the heart and soul of this story, and her pure and flawless play delights the eye. Some of the scenes with her and the young boy were really a bit shocking and very awkward. When watching, you experience various emotions, and it is impossible to break away from the screen. This film has its exclusivity with some mystery and an unexpected ending. This drama certainly deserves attention and positive feedback. Watch Birth, and this difficult film will reveal to you a strange and vague story, in which somewhere deep, but accurately stored the true truth.
8 out of 10
The film of the British director Jonathan Glaser, on the fashionable theme of “reincarnation”, refers to the type of tapes that interestingly begin, intrigue the viewer, but by the middle they exhale, and the denouement completely leaves in puzzlement – “And what was it?”. The result is a movie with a curious concept, which the director and screenwriters completely failed to successfully implement.
And the thing is that the writers initially drove themselves into the limits, choosing a 10-year-old boy as the main character. After all, if, say, the plot told about a 40-year-old woman who lost her lover 20 years ago and a 20-year-old boy who claimed that he was the reincarnation of the deceased, then a great melodrama with a full-fledged love triangle and a really difficult dilemma for the heroine could come out. And here all the hints about the possibility of an affair between a grown woman and a 10-year-old child look silly and ridiculous. It's hard to believe the heroine's doubts.
Although even with such a concept could come out a good movie, if the authors came up with a strong dramatic outcome. But here everything is not at all convincing - the meaningless and ambiguous finale raises only one question: "And why was it an hour and a half to organize these plot wilds about the relocation of souls, and then finish everything like this?"
The output turned out to be the so-called “not fish, not meat” – for an ordinary melodrama there is not enough romance and a beautiful love story, for an experimental art house – originality (except for the famous and allegedly frank “scene in the bathroom”, shot more for pre-premier hype and PR) and an interesting approach to the topic, and for a mystical thriller – plot and conflict. It is not clear what viewer this film is designed for.
Although completely helpless and failed film still can not be called. Nicole Kidman perfectly played the main role, conveying all the emotions and changes in the character of the heroine. Not bad and young Cameron Bright, given that the character he got is not simple. The secondary cast in the film is also very representative - Danny Houston, Peter Stormare, Ann Hech, Ted Levine and Lauren Beckall. Because of the actors, this movie still deserves one view.
In general, we have a rather mediocre drama with excellent actors and a curious, but poorly implemented, main idea.
“You will think I am in pain. You'll even think I'm dying. It’s just like shedding old skin. There's nothing sad about that. ?
Where did you come from, golden boy? What should I do with you?
Timekeeping does not allow you to reach the heat level. There are only its shades - meaningless, nowhere applicable. It is stupid to go into oneself and think: how can you hate everything that surrounds you to come to this?
How do you love someone?
Tight threads stretch, weaving a web of pink silk and pastiles (not the newest words, but it's a pity - they are here very convenient) - surrounding its softness and leading into oblivion. There is no real one in which the main character dreams of hiding, there is no silence and you are dead inside. A stop in the desert should end with only one – the appearance of the little prince, who must disappear by the end, only having managed to bring the hero to the water.
The sea is not trivial at all - only the water will wash away all the soot that life inflicts - aimless, unfolded by the underside of happiness - honey hair, blue eyes - and they look quite good, right? Boy and Eve.
He'll be growing up soon.
That's what she thinks. In fact, the dream is dead. We have to leave so as not to hurt. Leave with the pain of the old and the memory of the promise of happiness.
How will I be without you?
The sea. Sea, I'm leaving. Cold water. Splash. Curtain. It's cold.
Honey hair will soon turn gray.
It was an interesting movie. I watched it solely because of the participation of Nicole Kidman, who, by the way, played very well, again showing her boundless acting talent. Nicole is one of the greatest actresses of our time. Of course, the role in this picture is not the most significant for her, they were better and more interesting, but, nevertheless, when you watch how Kidman embodies the experiences of his heroine on the screen, you understand so sensually, so sincerely, that real connoisseurs of cinema must necessarily watch this film, and Kidman fans especially.
A little boy comes to a woman who is going to get married for the second time and says that he is her late husband. Agree that the beginning of the story suggests a very interesting continuation.
The movie really doesn’t look boring. I loved the way the boy played, very professionally. The story is far from banal, and the ending, of course, not to say that unexpected, but very unusual. I enjoyed watching it.