Birth

my rating:

Birth was a disappointment. It could have been a really great film, but ended up leaving me mostly un-engaged. It's about a widow who - 10 years after the death of her husband, and following the announcement of her new engagement - is approached by a 10-year-old boy who claims to be her late husband. OK, stranger things have happened in movies, but this one just isn't believable... not in the sense that "it couldn't happen", but "it wouldn't happen like this". The characters' reactions are all dictated by the plot, rather than making sense from them as characters.

There was a tempest in a teapot over the fact that Nicole Kidman (the widow) and Cameron Bright (the boy) have a scene in which they share a bathtub. "Child pornography!" some shrieked. "Disgusting!" some spat. "Child abuse!" some wailed. It was none of that. At the risk of spoiling it, here's what happens: Kidman is taking a bath (no nipples or other naughty bits shown or hinted at). Bright walks in, gets undressed (the last full-body shot reveals his undies), and sits at the other end of the tub. Kidman demands an explanation of what he's doing. He replies (rather blandly), "Looking at my wife." End scene. And for the record, both actors wore bathing suits for filming. There's also a scene in which the two kiss on the street. A little more intimate than any kiss I've ever shared with, say, my mom, but it was no more intense than when one of my sisters' friends showed me how to kiss, at about the same age. Furthermore, it was acting; the kid certainly wouldn't traumatized by it.

The kid's lack of passion is symptomatic about why the film didn't really work. I'm not blaming the actor; he was following the script and direction. The widow is appropriately skeptical of the boy's claim to be her husband, but she seems willing to entertain the notion despite the fact that he doesn't behave like the husband would have acted. No, "I'm so happy to see you again, punkin!" and nibbling on her ear, just "Don't marry whatshisname," sitting in the tub with her. And the tests of his authenticity all focus on his knowledge of private facts only the late Sean would know, not the obvious sniff test of "Does he seem like Sean?"

It seems like the movie was intended to leave the audience wondering along with the widow whether the boy is who he claims to be, or what. But in the course of providing the necessary foreshadowing of the answer, it provides the answer rather obviously. It doesn't take too much brain power to connect the dots from A to B to C... to D. There was a little bit of surprise about one aspect of the final proof, but the basis question of "is he or isn't he?" was answered even before he said "I am."