In this review, I thought I'd offer some insight to other viewers on how I understood this movie.Warning- major spoilers ahead.I feel there's two possible explanations for this movie.1. Sean is not really Sean. Sean's father was a tutor in the building and Sean hung around in the lobby while his father was working. He followed the woman to the park and unearthed the box containing the letters Anna wrote her husband, and through them discovered personal, intimate details that only Anna would know and was able to trick everyone into thinking he was Sean. When the kid saw Clara at the door, he wasn't taken aback because he recognised her as his past lover but as the woman he had followed who buried the box. Clara showing her dirty hands was the dead giveaway of this. It indicated that she had been digging in the park looking for the box where she had buried it and couldn't find it, and she knew he had the box. When Sean said "don't tell Anna", he was referring to not telling her that he is a fraud and had been deceiving Anna. As for whether he was intentionally deceiving her, he's a 10- year-old kid with a wild imagination and he happened to share the same name as the man Anna had addressed the letters to. It could be that he got carried away with the fantasy that he was Sean. The only inconsistency in this account is how he would know things like where Sean died or how he recognised his desk or the lady who told Anna there was no santa. We don't know how much Anna revealed in the letters and I suppose he could have come across some old newspaper clippings or spoken to someone who had informed him of where Sean died. The rest could be lucky guesses. I think the point of this account is how easily people can be deceived into believing the supernatural in times of emotional distress, grief and desperation. And as Sean's character indicated at the start of the movie, he doesn't believe in all that "mumbo jumbo" and is a man of science. Also, the point was that the kid was representing the idealised version of Sean Anna had carried around all these years, not the real Sean who was unfaithful. So maybe the fake kid Sean was metaphoric of the real Sean, who was also a fake. 2. Sean is really Sean. Sean was an ordinary, 10-year-old kid who was hanging around the lobby while his father was tutoring like on any other day. But then he spotted Clara, his lover from his past life and started to remember everything. Clara was his true love because he had probably hung around that lobby many times before and had seen Anna come in and out of the building but his past memories had not been triggered by her because she's not the one he truly loved. It was only when Sean saw Clara, who admittedly had not visited Anna in the past 10 years that his past life memories were triggered, and he followed her into the park. When he opened the letters that were previously unopened as proof he loved Clara more, he started to rediscover all the love he had for Anna, presumably before his affair with Clara had started. When Sean saw Clara again at the door, he recognised her and remembered the affair he had been suppressing since rediscovering his love for Anna and when he said "don't tell Anna", he was referring to not telling her about the affair. Although this is later contradicted when he doesn't recognise her and asks her who she is at her apartment. If he was the real Sean and he did not recognise Clara then what didn't he want Clara to tell Anna? This is a major plot hole in account 2 and makes me think the first account must be true and the kid is not really Sean. Unless he just had a moment of recollection and then suppressed it afterwards because it was too painful for him to admit to himself that he had betrayed Anna. Also, perhaps seeing Clara didn't trigger his past life memories because he really loved her but because deceiving Anna was the major regret in his past life, his "unfinished business" or "karma" that led him to Anna to ultimately help her see who he really was. When he came to terms with his past actions, he realised he didn't deserve Anna and decided to tell her he wasn't really Sean to spare her feelings and in a roundabout way of saying that if he really loved her, he wouldn't have betrayed her so he can't really be the person she thought he was to her, as described in the letters she wrote that he never opened. So Sean's purpose of becoming reincarnated was to allow Anna to move on with her life and let go of her love for Sean, something which would have happened anyway as Clara had planned to gift the unopened letters to Anna. However, ultimately both Clara and Sean were too cowardly to admit this to Anna and perhaps that is why she is seen distressed at the beach after marrying someone else, still unable to let go of Sean. Alternatively, perhaps the point of this second account was that Sean wanted to come back as a better version of himself and not make the same mistakes, hence his comment "I'm not Sean because I love you". What he meant by this is he is unable to face up to his past self and accept he was a person who could do that to someone he loved. And ultimately he ended up deceiving himself in his second life the same way he deceived Anna in his last, believing he was someone he was not just as Anna did.

Having only recently watched this, I am slightly torn as to what to make of it. On one hand, the cinematography - all eerie, snowy landscapes in palate tones and classic houses, is stunning, and the acting from all of the performers is incredibly executed and "real". Another thing that stood out for me from the start of the movie was the score, which is incredibly raw, organic and haunting but manages to stay somewhat uplifting. As a film in general, however, I felt that too many things were left unanswered or unclear. The inclusion of Sean's secret lover was a brilliant touch, and as pointed out by another review, was pivotal to the end of the film as one could argue that Sean was tricking Anna into thinking he was lying throughout the film about being her husband, because he was ashamed of the way that he lived in his previous life with her. Although this seems incredibly likely, it is left very much to the viewer to make this decision themselves, as the only hint is a one liner from Sean -"Don't tell Anna" when his lover comes to see him, implying that he knows who she is. This suggests that he really is a reincarnated Sean, which on a first view you would not see, as this hidden message is simply, too hidden. Another thing that struck me was that because the acting was so real, it seemed unlikely that Anna would of fallen for the boy, simply because he shows no character traits of Sean, except for memories such as knowing where and when they slept together, etc. In fact, other than that, the only "proof" Anna would have that the boy is Sean, is the fact that he tells her "I am Sean". The film seems more a character portrait of Anna, as you watch her slowly deteriorate from a level headed, relaxed and balanced woman from a privileged background (which makes the whole situation worse, as her prim family watch in disapproval as she falls for the boy claiming to be her husband), into a slightly unstable and confused character, who seems to simply want to believe that the boy really is Sean. All in all, a good film with a decent plot, excellent cinematography and a breathtaking score, but the anti-climax style ending could be a let down to viewers if they do not take in the fact that Sean may have been so embarrassed about cheating on Anna in his past life that he convinces her he was lying throughout the film.

This film is something I would recommend almost anyone, and I do not say this lightly. It is so well done and the Director and DP are highly talented individuals! The film is shot beautifully, with the Director showing his willingness to PUSH things into the realm of serious avant-garde, (at least these days!) with regards the length of his close-ups, and also his having characters express emotion in a very very understated manner a lot of the times. I am talking about the faces of the people around Anna while they are being obviously SHOCKED by what this strange boy knows!! The score is magnificent and I would love to buy it on Cd and probably will. The production design I found to be top notch also, even if it was not necessarily a difficult challenge to most people's minds. The acting of ALL principals was terrific, and Bacall was a real treat I must say!! Nicole Kidman although ever so slightly understated in conveying desperately intense emotions,nevertheless manages to make us understand the power of what she is feeling. I would guess that her performance was probably driven by the Director due to the fact that I KNOW she can be far more intense when she wants to (Australia). Huston is great as the poor guy who is blind-sided by this fascinating and interestingly enough TRUE SCENARIO (it happens is what I mean). Reincarnation is a fact of our existence that I have NO DOUBTS ABOUT ANYMORE, I only wonder if the scenario in this picture is within the realm of possibility due to the fact that we usually have at the very least SEVERAL years go by if not a century before we incarnate in this dimension. So beyond the fact that I question the logic of the idea, the only problem I have with this aesthetically highly satisfying picture is the ending which left me cold because I wanted things to turn out differently for Sean And Anna. Regardless of that disappointment I hope you make sure to see this wonderfully filmed, beautifully scored work of modern art, and then return to this site to discuss your views!!

"Sorrow makes us all children again." - Ralph Emerson Jonathan Glazer's "Birth" stars Nicole Kidman as Anna, a woman whose husband died ten years earlier. Though still mourning her husband's passing, Anna begins a relationship with Joseph, whom she somewhat reluctantly plans to marry. Things get complicated, however, when a ten year old boy enters Anna's life. She doesn't know him, but the boy claims to be her long dead husband. Much creepiness, confusion and mystery then ensues."Birth" was written by Jean-Claude Carriere, who worked on a number of Luis Bunuel's scripts ("Belle de Jour", "The Milky Way", "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", "The Phantom of Liberty", "That Obscure Object of Desire"). Like most of those films, "Birth" eventually becomes a meditative inquiry, the ten year old boy becoming a manifestation of Anna's grief and pre-marital anxieties. He is a weight tying her to the past, an anchor preventing her from moving on. In a very real sense, his birth prevents her rebirth.It's important to remember that Carriere often writes about issues of theology and has even interviewed the Dalai Lama several times. So look closer, and "Birth" is very much about faith, belief and even fundamentalism. In this regard, the film revolves around twin beliefs; Anna's absurd belief that the boy is her husband reborn, and the boy's belief that he can be her husband if only he ritualistically love her like a husband should. For obvious reasons, both beliefs are presented as being, not only irrational, but highly transgressive, veering into paedophilia in Anna's case and peripubescent teleiophilia in the boy's case. But both transgressions are also shown to be surmountable, the film echoing Blaise Pascal's famous advice to those who struggle with faith: when in doubt, ritualistically kneel down and pray until faith comes to you. This, of course, echoes numerous self-help mantras: "Believe until you believe", "Fake it until you make it", "Practise makes perfect" etc. What the film says, though, is that, not only is belief less dependent on the subject's critical judgement than on habit, but that belief always serves to delay the inevitable. Belief always delays realisation and defers (unattainable) satisfactions and expectations. Belief, then, is the postponement of the trauma of belief. In this regard, Anna not only feigns love in order to postpone the realisation that the boy is not her husband, but feigns love in order to delay having to feign love for a new man, the Biblically named Joseph. The film then ends with Anna on a beach, tearfully embracing her new husband. She will fake it with him until she believes it. The difference is, now she's learnt she never will. This is Antonioni/Kubrick territory ("Beyond The Clouds", "Identification of a Woman", "Eyes Wide Shut" etc): our only means of being guilty is by giving way to desire, and the only way that one can truly love another is by absolving them of the burden of believing in that love.For three quarters of its running time, "Birth" is a masterful picture. This is a type of high-brow "European psychodrama" which all but died in the 1960s. Elsewhere it resembles the moody horrors of early Polanski ("Repulsion", "The Tenant" and "Rosemary's Baby", Kidman even sporting a Mia Farrow haircut) and late Kubrick (The Shining", "Eyes Wide Shut"), with a little Hitchcock thrown in. Shot by cinematographer Harry Savides (the sublime "Elephant"), it's a gorgeous film, filled with elegant passages, enchanting moments, and spooky, stealthy camera movements.Unfortunately the film's final act is a mess, "Birth" degenerating into merely a classier version of "The Sixth Sense", topped off by a generic "beach ending" reminiscent of Truffaut's "400 Blows" and Fellini's "La Dolce Vtia". And so by the film's climax, the audience is offered one of two readings. Either there genuinely was a reincarnation, the boy halting his romantic pursuits simply because he realised that he was unfaithful to his wife in his prior life, or there was no reincarnation, the boy concocting an elaborate plot because of his infatuation with Anna. The latter reading is the more interesting, as it suggests that the boy's fantasies stem from his poverty. This again is a common Jean-Claude Carriere theme; the pauper child wants to live in Anna's world of wealth and elegance, but cannot have it because he refuses to be the bastard her husband was.Watch the film a second time, though, and neither reading enhances the film or adds nuance to what we see unfold. Instead, our newfound knowledge seems to push "Birth" toward the phony and the unsatisfying. In a way, this is thematically fitting. The con job the kid plays on Anna is akin to the con job this film plays on its audience. It's all outer appearances and outer beauty, all of which masks the fact that there's nothing present except for the longing of presence.8/10 – See Agnieszka Holland's similarly themed "Olivier, Olivier". Worth two viewing.