You've certainly convinced me to take a look at the Glazer film, as I checked it out at the local video store tonight. I'm not sure what to expect, but both the 24LPS piece, along with your own appreciation on your blog since the film's initial release, serves as a great primer.

You're in for a treat (from my point of view, at least). Be sure to let us know what you think...

Birth is a masterpiece and one of the decade's best.

I watched Birth for the first time on Wednesday night but want to give it another viewing before I begin reading and, eventually, writing about it. I have a few qualms with the last act of the film but was stunned by Glazer's direction. It felt so strange -- good strange -- to watch those long, long takes in a large budget, English language film.

Birth, here I come.
PS I like how we all sorta influence each other's viewing choices from week to week.

why not..i'll check it out too. i have to agree, if it weren't for reading some of everyone's blogs, i'd not ever watch half of the films i end up viewing..

SPOILERS!

Just finished watching Birth again, and it is even better on a second viewing. One quick comment about Robert's essay. He writes:

"What makes this film different is that the thing that possesses him is not the spirit of the dead Sean but the power of Anna’s memory of Sean. And it’s an enhanced memory, a memory of a Sean that never really was. That’s why the boy knows everything about Sean and Anna, but nothing about Sean alone. If he were Sean, he would know what Sean knew; but in fact he knows only what Anna knows—or, more precisely, what Anna believes—and so it is not Sean that possesses him but Anna’s creation of Sean, her dependence on that creation, her inability to escape it."

What most interests me about this story -- setting aside for a moment all that interests me about the film -- is that the young Sean is "possessed" specifically by the power of Anna's love letters. He has literally read a one-sided account of a relationship, and Anna's perspective of their love is distorted (for good or bad, I'm not sure) by a deep, almost obsessive passion.

When I said in my previous comment that I had some qualms with the last act, I was referring to the way the script explains away much of the film's mystery. I was enjoying the mystery and didn't need the loose ends wrapped up. (I'm still ambivalent about the last shot.) On a second viewing, though, I think it's actually a better and more complex film because it can be explained. The idea of a young boy reading such passionate letters addressed to someone with his name and being shaken by the experience -- that makes the young Sean as interesting a character as Anna. The narrative puts them on equal footing, I think.

Don't be surprised to see some of these comments reworked at Long Pauses. ;)

By the way, I just bought Desplat's score, along with the prologue to Die Walkure and Nancy Sinatra's version of "Tonight You Belong to Me" (the original recording by Patience & Prudence isn't available), from iTunes and burned my own "expanded" version of the soundtrack. Ain't technology grand?

I think the CD is also lacking a few cuts of Desplat's actual score, although I may be wrong; regardless, it's the best original score of the decade.

I'm so glad you liked it, Darren; I had a few issues with the film (in the middle, though, rather than the end) the first time I saw it, but they've evaporated with subsequent viewings. So Brad, Girish, Aaron - if you aren't blown away right away, give it a chance to sink in.

One of the things I noted in my original review, and which Robert expands upon in his article, is how well Sean is established as a character, and how well his relationship with Anna is illustrated - all after the fact! It's an astounding example of retrsopective development.

Thanks for the mention, David. And what a joy to see this positive-minded comment section expanding after the critical beating this marvelous film had to endure since its disastrous reception at the Venice film festival.

FURTHER SPOILERS:

Darren, you said:
"I think it's actually a better and more complex film because it can be explained."

How can you explain the fact that the boy knows where Sean died? It's not in the letters, that's for sure. This is one of the reasons why I think people who think the ending is a cop-out misread that last act. The film only seems to hand the viewer a solution to the mystery, but it never really does. It only adds to the complexity.

Matt Zoller Seitz, who mentions our article in his blog, argued in the New York Press that "Sean's climactic decision, which reverses the film's narrative momentum, could be a gesture of defeat and exposure or an act of almost unfathomable generosity, depending on how one interprets his character."

I find Glazer's intention for the flm to "ask the right questions" especially profound. (The quote can be found in the liner notes of the booklet that's part of his Director's Label DVD.) It implies that the literal story of BIRTH is secundary, and what truly matters is our reaction to the ideas it provokes. This is consistent with the long take on Anna's face at the opera, which is sustained for such a long time that we as an audience are forced to project our thoughts onto Anna. In other words: the film becomes a manifestation of our thoughts and feelings just as much as the boy is the projection of Anna's memory.

BIRTH works on the same level as magic realism does (Jean-Claude Carrière, who also wrote for Buñuel, was one of the scriptwriters).

I'm the guy everyone is referring to as Robert. You can call me Bob (though I sign my articles more formally). I deeply appreciate all the kind comments, and am thrilled that my thoughts on the film have sparked such interesting discussion and brought new viewers to a film that so richly deserves attention.