Is Mr. Reincarnation enjoying his cake?

Birth

(2004)

Jonathan Glazer’s sophomore film (following the superb Sexy Beast) is an unsettling piece that manages to be, by turns, profound in what it has to say about love and manipulative in the ambiguity it utilises to extend the narrative. As a result, it feels as if there’s a butting of heads between ideas and the resultant method of storytelling.

Nicole Kidman’s Anna decides to remarry 10 years after her husband Sean died. At which point a 10-year old boy, also called Sean, appears on the scene claiming to be her reincarnated husband . By this point the film has already offered two conflicting scenarios concerning the truth or otherwise of his identity; as Sean dies, we see the birth of a baby, instructing the audience to link the events on some level. In the subsequent scene, at Anna’s engagement party, the wife of (dead) Sean’s brother buries a tin, witnessed by young Sean. The contents of the tin later enable the reading that young Sean may have invented his connection to Anna.

The problem with this kind of elusiveness is (as evidenced by the imdb boards, for example) is that the viewer ends up fixating on the wrong aspect of the story. It isn’t whether Sean is or is not dead Sean returned, but whether Anna can ever let go of her deceased husband (the signals suggest not). I’ll admit that I came down against the metaphysical interpretation, reading both (young) Sean and Anna as attempting to make a connection for different reasons.

By the director’s own admission, the film is more about Anna, and to some extent Sean is a cypher, impenetrable and unforthcoming (ambiguous). Anna herself is clearly mentally unravelling, and Kidman really sells this. She is matched by a bewitchingly intense supporting turn from Anne Heche, whose revelations appear to put a punctuation mark against any further discussion of Sean’s identity. However, the tone of the film is so intentionally subjective that it refuses to commit fully to a final verdict.

A mention for Danny Huston, who I’m usually a fan of, but his character here is over-dramatic to the point of cartoonishness, and as a result he becomes an element that doesn’t work especially well (his behaviour is expedient to where the script wishes to take the other characters, rather than being believable in and of itself).

While Glazer has picked rich subject matter to explore, I don’t think he’s been wholly successful with it; if he had done, the thematic content would have won out over the narrative ambiguity. Additionally, the ideas put into motion (an adult woman’s feelings for a 10 year old boy, complete with a slightly notorious bath scene) are troublesome even given the reincarnation device; remove that, and reverse the genders, and you’re left with something highly unsavoury. To be fair, these issues are voiced within the narrative but I was left with the feeling that to make it work either a few more drafts of the screenplay were needed or the director needed to venture more into the Nic Roeg territory of fractured reality.

Suitably Roeg-ish, Glazer’s next film has Scarlett Johansson as an alien in Scotland disguised as a human.

***1/2

Comments

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Nanobots aren’t just for Christmas.

No Time to Die (2021) (SPOILERS) You know a Bond movie is in trouble when it resorts to wholesale appropriation of lines and even the theme song from another in order to “boost” its emotional heft. That No Time to Die – which previewed its own title song a year and a half before its release to resoundingly underwhelmed response, Grammys aside – goes there is a damning indictment of its ability to eke out such audience investment in Daniel Craig’s final outing as James (less so as 007). As with Spectre , the first half of No Time to Die is, on the whole, more than decent Bond fare, before it once again gets bogged down in the quest for substance and depth from a character who, regardless of how dapper his gear is, resolutely resists such outfitting.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

So the devil's child will rise from the world of politics.

The Omen (1976) (SPOILERS) The coming of the Antichrist is an evergreen; his incarnation, or the reveal thereof, is always just round the corner, and he can always be definitively identified in any given age through a spot of judiciously subjective interpretation of The Book of Revelation , or Nostradamus. Probably nothing did more for the subject in the current era, in terms of making it part of popular culture, than The Omen . That’s irrespective of the movie’s quality, of course. Which, it has to be admitted, is not on the same level as earlier demonic forebears Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist .

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

Ladies and gentlemen, this could be a cultural misunderstanding.

Mars Attacks! (1996) (SPOILERS) Ak. Akk-akk! Tim Burton’s gleefully ghoulish sci-fi was his first real taste of failure. Sure, there was Ed Wood , but that was cheap, critics loved it, and it won Oscars. Mars Attacks! was BIG, though, expected to do boffo business, and like more than a few other idiosyncratic spectaculars of the 1990s ( Last Action Hero , Hudson Hawk ) it bombed BIG. The effect on Burton was noticeable. He retreated into bankable propositions (the creative and critical nadir perhaps being Planet of the Apes , although I’d rate it much higher than the likes of Alice in Wonderland and Dumbo ) and put the brakes on his undisciplined goth energy. Something was lost. Mars Attacks! is far from entirely successful, but it finds the director let loose with his own playset and sensibility intact, apparently given the licence to do what he will.

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth (1936) (SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End , Wuthering Heights , The Little Foxes , The Best Years of Our Lives , and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog