MovieChat Forums > Birth (2004) Discussion > I Get The Movie!!!!!

I Get The Movie!!!!!

posted 15 years ago by myke7777
30 replies | jump to latest

Someone may have written this already but here it goes.

Sean WAS her husband but it was his soul that was reincarnated. Remember that a soul cannot be evil it can only be good/love. So his soul (which was really him) loved Anna. His ego in his past life was what caused him to cheat on Anna with Clara. Therefore he would have no memory of this because your ego is in your mind and it didn't transfer to him in his new body, only his soul which is good. When Clara told him about him cheating on Anna it put doubt into him about ever really being Sean. He couldn't tell Anna why he changed his mind because he loved her so much that he didn't want her to ever find out what the past Sean did. Does this make sense? So it's the ultimate show of love by holding back the past.

[–] Scifi71 15 years ago

The kid was not sean.

[–] pegasusgiraffe 14 years ago

Agreed, which the filmmakers slammed down in a very hamfisted way. The whole twist ending is just a cop-out by hackney screenwriters who couldn't figure an even marginally plausible way to wrap it up.

[–] baybeejune 15 years ago

Interesting theory. It does make sense.

I'm in the camp of "the movie was deliberately vague and there is no real answer," but so far yours is the most interesting theory I've read about it!

[–] morganseer 8 years ago

Except the movie wasn't vague, IMO. The kid found the letters, and made it his story. He did finally admit he lied, though, as kids sometimes do, he may have over time convinced himself it was his story. Maybe partly because his name was also Sean.

[–] greengods 15 years ago

I'll preface this by saying that I haven't seen this movie for a long time, so my memory of things may have slipped a little. My thought on it was that the kid could be Sean. He says to Clara, "Don't tell Anna" - as if he does actually remember Clara's significance and is actually asking her to not bring up the topic of their past affair. Soon he (arguably) decides that continuing with this claim will only end up causing Anna pain.

There's the reality of his affair, which would need to be dealt with, the conflict within the family because of this, the nature of him being a child and her an adult, etc. So he decides it would be easier to let her believe that he's just a kid, in the hope that it will make life easier for Anna.

I agree with many people that it's made so that there's no definitive answer. We take from it what we want. I'll watch the movie again soon but I remember that's what my feeling was of the possible answer.

[–] Demarates 15 years ago

I agree, best explanation I've read here so far.

NATIONAL SARCASM SOCIETY

Like we need your support...

[–] MarthaJonesSmith 15 years ago

Yes, I can agree with this theory. I like that...and he loves Anna so much that he'd rather break his own heart that hers. Ego is of the mind and not the soul.

Henchmean 24: "We're going to get our asses kicked!...We didn't have a breakfast!"

[–] New_malkatrazzz 15 years ago

This is not how I read the movie at all. He is never actually Sean. There is no supernatural element in the movie. He reads the letters and being kind of mentally disturbed, he convinces himself that he actually is her dead husband. The whole point of the movie isn't the truth behind all this, it's a plot device that works as a catalyst for all their insecurities, grudges, desires to come out. The reason that she was so willing to believe him was that her husband was a jerk who cheated with Anne Heche and she never really felt that she had his love when he was alive. When he arrives in the form of this boy (or at least she thinks he's arrived) she is able to believe so easily because he actually loves her this time and that's something she's always wanted. She saw what she wanted to see. The reason he said "Maybe I'm not Sean because I love Anna" is because the little boy really does love Anna. He has a crush on her. When he finds out that the real husband loved Clara instead, he thinks that maybe he made a mistake.

But the details like this, in my opinion, are less important. The point the film makers wanted to make was to show all the dynamics between the characters. Anna never felt love from a man she desperately wanted to love her. Clara wanted a man who was married to someone else and had to watch Anna be married to him and be rich while she was on the side and poor. And for the second time, Anna is going to be married. She's jealous of the happiness that Anna has. TWO men have married her and it drives her crazy that Anna is happier than she is. The fiance just wants Anna to love him like he loves her. And the boy just has so many problems I don't know where to begin. He really thinks he is this guy. That's how I interpreted it.

When life gives you lemons, shove em down your shirt to make your tits look bigger!

[–] Dondi0 12 years ago

Three years later so I suppose you'll never read this but for what it's worth I agree with you 100%. This is exactly how I understood the film on watching it for the first time tonight.

Ultimately, I think the film is about how we never really truly 'know' anyone, we just think we do.

[–] New_malkatrazzz 12 years ago

Thanks, I did read this. I have the feature turned on where it emails you when you get new replies. :-)

Ultimately, I think the film is about how we never really truly 'know' anyone, we just think we do.

Yeah, there's a lot of that in there as well. We see the things we want to see.

Oh, where are you now? Pussy willow that smiled on this leaf...

[–] Dondi0 12 years ago

Yeah, I have that email thing set up too...surprised more people don't.

The real heartbreaking moment, I thought, comes at the end as she's having her photo taken (and so is Sean; so much emphasis on 'faces' in this film) when Anna finally realises the implications of what Sean meant when he said:
"I can't be your husband, because I love you."
And her whole world comes crashing down.

Overall a pretty good film but I still don't really understand the title in relation to the themes. I know I must be missing something glaringly obvious.

Also, ever since Eyes Wide Shut Kidman has been all over dark films that deal with women under psychological duress and the almost metaphysical complexities inherent in relationships with both partners and children: The Others; Birthday Girl; The Hours; Dogville; The Human Stain; The Stepford Wives; Birth; Margot at the Wedding; Rabbit Hole; even The Golden Compass to a degree.

Makes me wonder about her 'contract' with Cruise back in the day...especially with how crackers it seems to have sent her 'replacement'...

[–] New_malkatrazzz 12 years ago

The real heartbreaking moment, I thought, comes at the end as she's having her photo taken (and so is Sean; so much emphasis on 'faces' in this film) when Anna finally realises the implications of what Sean meant when he said:
"I can't be your husband, because I love you."
And her whole world comes crashing down.

Yeah, that was a moving scene. The whole dynamic between the characters is well developed.

Yeah, the title is definitely an unusual choice for the title. I think it works though. I'm glad they didn't go with a longer title. I think Birth is simple, haunting. There is the scene where Sean #1 dies and Sean #2 is born. Birth is also used to describe changing and growing and starting a new phase in their life. I'm not sure if it fits the story exactly, but it has a dramatic enough feel for the movie.

Makes me wonder about her 'contract' with Cruise back in the day...especially with how crackers it seems to have sent her 'replacement'...

Yeah...he must've done a number on her!

Oh, where are you now? Pussy willow that smiled on this leaf...

[–] volkomenkoen 9 years ago

Thanks for pointing out a few more details i missed. I love it when a movie can make you feel this bad

[–] jamiecon52 15 years ago

myke7777, thats exactly what I got from the movie. I agree, but the movie left enough ambiguity to allow many other interpretations.
Jamie

[–] blondepittbull 15 years ago

I interpreted the film just like the original poster Myke. I think that is a very good theory in describing the movie. I think that's why she flips out at the end..she knows he WAS Sean. Remember the letter he writes:hecloses it out by saying "see you in another life".

As for her not feeling loved by Sean..I didn't agree with that. She wrote him all those letters, never knowing he wasn't opening them and had no knowledge of his affair with Clara. I agree that Clara was jealious of Anna but also does the right thing and decides not to hurt her by showing her the letters. I think both Anna AND Clara loved Sean deeply. Sean-the adult Sean, was not portrayed as a nice guy, as at the end doesn't someone-I think the mother-say she never liked him anyway? As for her new relationship Anna couldn't love him like Sean because she never really got over Sean. She thought they had a fairytale life together.

I think..and am with the original poster. That's always been my theory that his soul was reborn as utterly good and this time around he truely loved Anna. Therefore at the end he gives her up to keep her from knowing Sean never loved her in the first life. It IS very open to interpretation but a movie this layered wouldn't make it that easy to just say he is or isn't Sean. The ambuiguity is definetly there on purpose.

[–] drGhostOrchid 15 years ago

All this would make sense, and i would like that the movie is the ultimate love story, but just isn't. You seem to completely forget about the letters the kid read after Clara burried them. Read this article, makes perfect sense
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337876/board/thread/59776769

[–] New_malkatrazzz 15 years ago

Yea, I agree drghostorchid. I think people are reading too much into it. I mean, if you have an interpretation that makes you happy, more power to you, but I don't think that was the film maker's intention. If he had intended for the kid to really be shawn, he wouldn't have given a concrete worldly answer for all this. He also wouldn't have made the original husband such a douche. I mean, who wants to root for a couple where the man treats his wife like garbage? I actually think it's a better movie as a non-supernatural one. Everyone's deepest insecurities come to the surface in this one. It's a far better tragedy than it is a love story.

Malkatraz! Masheen!

[–] sseanbarr 12 years ago

heres a little wake up for you BTW... REINCARNATION IS NOT SUPERNATURAL..
quite the opposite in fact, and you need to understand that before you understand ANYTHING ElSE IN YOUR LIFE!! look it up and do a bit of reading on the subject and I am certain that if you are a reasonable person you will come to the conclusion that it has been proven as a FACT of LIFE!! I say this to you for your own good BTW, it is a big understanding to operate on the knowledge that you are coming back and that you have been here before probably many mnay times!!

[–] New_malkatrazzz 12 years ago

Well, okay then.

USPS--you can ship your weed in it. No wait, that's fedex

[–] psdhart 12 years ago

I agree, it is a possibility

[–] emncaity 14 years ago

OP, you hit on more or less how that part of the story struck me--that it was some kind of statement as to a purer nature of a reincarnated person, and how such a person would be fixed on a "true love" (just go with me here) and not on some imitation or substitute (an affair) brought about by selfishness, human frailty, fear, anger, pride, etc. Makes me want to go do some reading about the story and listen to some commentary on the DVD to see if this is even close.

[–] New_malkatrazzz 14 years ago

Yea, let me know if you find out anything with the reading or commentary. I'd love to hear from the director what his intentions were.

Malkatraz! Masheen!

[–] zuzus_petalz 14 years ago

I wish the debate as to whether he REALLY was the 'original' Sean or not was a result of a deep and meaningful and well-directed film. However, the debate has stemmed from poor editing. It almost achieved what the director had set out to accomplish, but the editing was so disjointed and a forced attempt at being 'artsy' that it missed the mark. It could have been a brillant film. The opening sequence was compelling and drew me in.

I started to believe that he truely was NOT Sean when the boy said in the bathroom, "Don't tell Anna". At first, we are led to believe he said this because he remembered his former lover. However, later in the movie, he asks this same person who she was. We then realize, he didn't recognize her, so when he said, "Don't tell Anna" it was ACTUALLY referring to the fact that he dug up the letters after following her and that he had read them and didn't want Anna to know that all his 'memories' were from the letters.

The problem is, the kid knew TOO much stuff that could not have been containted in mere love letters. The odds that when he was interviewed and taped, that all the answers of EVERY question he was asked could have been in the letters is not plausible. And, I'm a huge statistics person. Statistically, the odds that his name is Sean and was born the same year as the guy named Sean who died 10 years before? Hmmmmmmm.

[–] Parsley_Mostly 14 years ago

" Remember that a soul cannot be evil it can only be good/love."

since when? that's not true. or do you mean in your explanation?

if it takes *beep* to make bliss then i feel
pretty blissfully