Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Message
Author
User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#51 Post by Antoine Doinel » Sun Jan 21, 2007 9:45 pm

Has anyone else seen the Becel margarine ad that completely rips off the opening "jogging in the snow" sequence? It's practically frame for frame the same thing. A faceless jogger going down a snowy path, and the camera slowly moves in. I was just flipping around on the TV and saw it. I'm not angered so much as confused. What a bizarre image to use to sell margarine.

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

#52 Post by Oedipax » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:53 am

Antoine Doinel wrote:Has anyone else seen the Becel margarine ad that completely rips off the opening "jogging in the snow" sequence?
I've noticed this happening in a few ads - one other that springs to mind was the use of a sound-alike track which copied the main theme to In the Mood for Love as a couple walks across the screen in slow motion. I believe it was an advertisement for diamonds. One assumes they're the work of a bored/frustrated commercial director working these things in in one way or another.

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

#53 Post by Matt » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:28 pm

Antoine Doinel wrote:What a bizarre image to use to sell margarine.
Are they trying to imply that if you don't use Becel, you'll drop dead?

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#54 Post by Polybius » Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:58 am

Classic Madison Avenue ploy: use of specified margarine leads to a bath with Nicole Kidman.

User avatar
Antoine Doinel
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec
Contact:

#55 Post by Antoine Doinel » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:58 am

Damn, then I'm buying myself a case of margarine!

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#56 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:46 pm

Based on Michael's initial recommendation and the praises of others in this thread I finally got around to checking out this film and was blown away by it. Incredible stuff.

Having read through all the posts I found it interesting that nobody mentioned the scene in the hallway where Sean collapses after the argument he has with his father about being told to stop bothering Kidman's character. It looks like to me that Sean collapses much in the same fashion as Kidman's husband does at the very beginning of the film which lends a little credence to the whole reincarnation/possession theory. I find it interesting that he falls to the ground almost exactly the same way.

I also stumbled across a pretty interesting essay on the film at 24LiesASecond. Definitely worth a look.

User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#57 Post by lord_clyde » Tue Mar 13, 2007 1:10 am

I was blown away as well, I even edited my top ten of 2004, placing it in the top spot.

User avatar
jt
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 9:47 am
Location: zurich

#58 Post by jt » Mon Mar 19, 2007 10:12 am

I watched this over the weekend, my interest piqued by the praise on this board and by how much I enjoyed Sexy Beast (and because I found it for £5).

I found it one of the most exhilarating 90 minutes of cinema I have seen in recent years, the tension throughout the film palpable. More than once I caught myself leaning further and further forward toward the screen and holding my breath.

I thought the opening few minutes more beautiful and composed than any film in recent memory and Glazer's control of both the actors and the silences throughout was flawless.

I am in the camp that doesn't believe that young Sean was a reincarnation but I love the fact that more intelligent people than me agree and disagree with this. Ultimately though, I don't really think it matters, as I see the film is purely about Anna's coming-to-terms with her loss.

I had always thought that the electrically-charged scenes in Sexy Beast were a result just of the acting but will be revisiting soon with an eye on Glazer's technique. This will have to tide me over for the next 12 months before his next feature. I do enjoy his Directors series dvd but the shorts in that seem like mere show-ponies compared to the level of maturity shown in his features. A level of maturity lacking from most western cinema these days...

scalesojustice
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:25 am
Contact:

#59 Post by scalesojustice » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:44 am

i have to say that this movie is a great reason why i hang around these boards. i initially wrote this off when it came out as a lame drama/thriller due to the horrible teaser trailers (although, there really isn't a way to "sell" this film). but because of the praise and exposure on the boards, i gave the film a a chance. honestly, this is the only place i've found on the 'net that makes hidden gems and obscure titles accessible. asdie from whether i like the film or not, i usually find that a recommendation from these boards is at least worth checking out.

with that, i checked out birth last night and found it to be a solid film. however, with the beautiful cinematography and wonderful score working in tandum, i finished the film a bit empty. perhaps it's that no thematic subtext is working its way through the film's aesthetics. the duality of the characters is a given, but the neatly composed images are hardly put to work thematically.

granted, i think this is a major nitpick. perhaps because everything else was so amazing. if there was one aspect that was lacking, it was subtext in the aesthetics. i'm really looking forward to glaser's follow up. sexy beast was fun (from what i remember) but nothing outstanding. birth is nearly outstanding, but i get the impression that is a transition film. glaser's best work is just around the corner, if he continues to develop his skills.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#60 Post by mfunk9786 » Wed Mar 26, 2014 3:14 pm

I don't mean to bump a thread for a film from 2004 (what a masterpiece this film is, I appreciated it more than ever upon revisit with an unsuspecting LQ), but that's the actual theme of what I mean to bring up: Has there been any rumbling about a Blu-ray release of this film? It appears to be available (for purchase only) in 'HDX' (1080p) on VUDU's streaming service, but I'm a bit suspicious that it's just an upscale of the flawed US DVD transfer that's out there. It appears that it hasn't been released on Blu-ray anywhere worldwide and that there are no HD television broadcasts that've found their way onto, you know, at any point either.

It's strange to think of a 2004 film as 'lost' - but I'm hoping that there's some mention elsewhere that I just missed about Criterion or Twilight Time bringing this to Blu-ray soon.

User avatar
mistakaninja
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 5:15 pm

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#61 Post by mistakaninja » Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:23 am

I saw it on Sky HD in the UK recently and it was a disappointing presentation, barely an improvement on the DVD at all. One would hope the release of Under The Skin might prompt a genuine HD release.

User avatar
PfR73
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#62 Post by PfR73 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:25 am

This is one of my most wanted Blu-Ray upgrades. The first time I saw it, I was bowled over by the cinematography & score, so I'd love to have it in 1080p & lossless sound. I'd never taken note of the names Harris Savides or Alexandre Desplat before this, but Birth permanently etched them in my brain.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Under Chris' Protection
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#63 Post by mfunk9786 » Thu Mar 27, 2014 11:42 am

This would be such a good fit for Criterion - it's begging for critical discussion and a re *cough* birth in the home video market that the old feature-less DVD just didn't accomplish. Give it a shiny new Criterion dual-format and there'd be a lot more eyeballs on this gem.

User avatar
Steven H
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:30 pm
Location: NC

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#64 Post by Steven H » Sun Apr 06, 2014 4:32 pm

I just hope beyond hope that if it is given new life on blu-ray it is once again marketed as a Sixth Sense clone. That will surely end just as well as it did the first time.

nolanoe
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:25 am

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#65 Post by nolanoe » Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:23 pm

SO; who is going to release this for us all? :^o

User avatar
Oedipax
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:48 am
Location: Atlanta

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#66 Post by Oedipax » Tue Jun 20, 2017 2:18 pm

Excellent question! It's a shame that the renewed interest in Glazer post-Under the Skin wasn't enough to get a new HD release. For now, the HD copy for rent/sale on Amazon streaming isn't too shabby. It's certainly better than watching the old DVD!

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#67 Post by Matt » Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:42 pm

Criterion curatorial director Ash Clark is on Twitter talking about how he hopes this film doesn’t get “reclaimed” from its bad reputation because the “discourse” would be intolerable.

Cool to know the one company who could possibly get this released—the company that keeps in print Salò, Sweet Sweetback’s Baadassss Song, Antichrist, The Night Porter, Fat Girl, The Last Temptation of Christ, Crash, Sweet Movie, and at least a couple of movies with prominent blackface scenes—can’t deal with a movie where a kid briefly gets into a bathtub with a lady.

They’re literally about to release Zeffirelli’s Romeo & Juliet which is currently the subject of a lawsuit from its two then-teenaged leads who claim they were coerced into filming nude scenes and does anyone even appear to give a shit?

I’ll get off my soapbox now. I know it’s just a dumb tweet, but the continued neglect of this film really rankles.

User avatar
Computer Raheem
Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2021 7:45 pm

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#68 Post by Computer Raheem » Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:29 pm

Matt wrote:
Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:42 pm
Criterion curatorial director Ash Clark is on Twitter talking about how he hopes this film doesn’t get “reclaimed” from its bad reputation because the “discourse” would be intolerable.

Cool to know the one company who could possibly get this released—the company that keeps in print Salò, Sweet Sweetback’s Baadassss Song, Antichrist, The Night Porter, Fat Girl, The Last Temptation of Christ, Crash, Sweet Movie, and at least a couple of movies with prominent blackface scenes—can’t deal with a movie where a kid briefly gets into a bathtub with a lady.
I get that this is borne out of frustration, this response is, in my opinion, missing some vital context. Keep in mind that Clark is all-for the film being rediscovered and given acclaim, the discourse just being something he's annoyed about in the event that this happens. This isn't him not wanting the film to be released, nor some sort of prudish attempt to neget the film because of one minor scene - if anything, it's the opposite. And, in all fairness, given the discourse that arised after Criterion release Sweetback, I don't blame him being afraid of the film being attacked by those same individuals
Last edited by Computer Raheem on Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MV88
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:52 am

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#69 Post by MV88 » Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:46 pm

Yeah, Clark definitely isn’t saying he has an objection to the film, just that he knows that if it were to get more exposure in today’s climate, a lot of other people would definitely have problems with it, and Criterion would get flak for releasing it. But given the other films mentioned above, I’d always assumed they didn’t let that sort of controversy deter them from their selections, so if anything Clark’s recent statements have me worrying that they are, in fact, starting to feel discouraged by that sort of pushback against certain films. Almost like he’s saying, “I wish we could release this film without exposing it to the types of people who will jump at the opportunity to start that discourse.”

User avatar
Matt
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#70 Post by Matt » Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:12 am

Computer Raheem wrote:
Fri Jan 20, 2023 11:29 pm
I get that this is borne out of frustration, this response is, in my opinion, missing some vital context. Keep in mind that Clark is all-for the film being rediscovered and given acclaim, the discourse just being something he's annoyed about in the event that this happens. This isn't him not wanting the film to be released, nor some sort of prudish attempt to neget the film because of one minor scene - if anything, it's the opposite. And, in all fairness, given the discourse that arised after Criterion release Sweetback, I don't blame him being afraid of the film being attacked by those same individuals
You’re right, I in fact missed that Clark was the one who mentioned the film in the first place. I thought that was Karina Longworth’s tweet.

Just please, somebody rescue this and the other great Nicole Kidman / Harris Savides collaboration, Margot at the Wedding.

User avatar
therewillbeblus
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#71 Post by therewillbeblus » Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:45 am

Matt wrote:
Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:12 am
Just please, somebody rescue this and the other great Nicole Kidman / Harris Savides collaboration, Margot at the Wedding.
Never Forget: That Time the Criterion Forum Defended Kidman Against Ominous Forces Keeping Her Movies Off of Blu-Ray

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#72 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:12 am

Hopefully as long as they do not release an edition of Last Tango In Paris without properly considering the implications of such an announcement, Ashley Clark and/or Criterion will probably not find themselves having to contend with another Sweet Sweetback or Romeo & Juliet scale situation any time soon.

User avatar
MV88
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2022 8:52 am

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#73 Post by MV88 » Sun Jan 22, 2023 9:45 am

Real question though: are the people who express outrage over the announcements of such controversial titles even buying Criterion discs (or any other discs, for that matter) to begin with? I haven’t used social media in a few years now, but I seem to remember noticing that a good majority of people who took issue with boutique labels releasing certain titles were not even people who used — let alone collected — physical media. Not that I’m saying that invalidates their objections to the films, but from the perspective of the label, are they really losing sales due to any given instance of backlash?

If anything, I’d assume the controversy only serves to draw attention to a disc that otherwise would never have even been noticed by 99% of the people who participate in the outrage. Clark’s comments about Birth seem to confirm this in that he’s insinuating it would be a bad thing for this film to get a lot of exposure on social media, not that it would be a bad thing for it to get a release. Unfortunately, Criterion’s reputation as its own sort of film canon can work against it sometimes in the respect that even people who don’t own a single Criterion disc are aware of the company and buy into the notion that a release from them affords a film a certain level of prestige, so perhaps Criterion has simply gotten too big to get away with releasing controversial titles without sparking outrage. But again, I would question how much that outrage is actually affecting their sales, because it doesn’t seem like most of the people who object to certain releases were ever part of Criterion’s clientele anyway.

So is it a matter of “we’re afraid we’ll lose customers if we release this” or just “we’ll get dragged on social media if we release this even though it won’t really affect our sales much at all?” I’ll put it this way: to use the example cited above, would any member of this forum boycott Criterion if they were to announce Last Tango in Paris? I’m doubtful. The vast, vast majority of people who would be calling for a boycott would be people who don’t purchase Criterion discs anyway, which of course leads to the question of whether it’s possible to boycott something you never participated in to begin with.

crimlaw
Joined: Thu May 23, 2019 6:06 pm

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#74 Post by crimlaw » Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:25 am

I’m wondering whether Criterion is concerned about their employees objecting to the release of films like Last Tango in Paris, or for that matter, Annie Hall and Manhattan. Criterion, I’m sure, doesn’t want a revolt on their hands, similar to Hatchet’s when they published Woody Allen’s memoirs.

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

Re: Birth (Jonathan Glazer, 2004)

#75 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Jan 22, 2023 10:35 am

I was going to faectiously add a line to my previous comment that "Or if they want the publicity they should do that"! But just don't be surprised if people get upset at the announcement!

I think there are two different strands going on. I think something like Birth (where there isn't a lawsuit or any obvious breaking of the law that would interest the mainstream media or the interest of people who would not have watched the film anyway) may attract its share of articles in the film world sphere and on social media about its 'problematic' status. Although I have a suspicion that that was already very much the intention by the filmmakers back when the film released and it received some attention back then about that particular scene. I also very much still stand by the feeling that having the 'controversial' first bathroom scene take the majority of the attention means that the much more important second scene in the bathroom is able to work without the focus being so much on the nudity aspect as being sexual, but more on exposing the character's vulnerability. You could probably release that film now and weather that storm of commentary without having to feel the need to apologise for the decision to have released the film.

But things like Sweetback, Romeo & Juliet and Last Tango have had significant real-world impacts that have gone beyond the film into matters of legality and consent, which makes the decisions to release them more awkward cases of actively ignoring those aspects rather than it being a matter of perspective about whether material should be portrayed on film. The case of Sweet Movie would be the interesting one: that is a film that is still banned in the UK for some of the things that occur (and interestingly the bannable material has shifted over time, so different aspects have become contentious from when it was first refused a certificate and now something like the commune material would probably be allowable now in a post-Pink Flamingos passing climate; whilst the boat captain doing a strip tease dance for children less so), and was almost completely unavailable until Criterion brought it to DVD in the US. Its obscurity has helped in some respects, to the extent that maybe Criterion would get some comments if they upgraded it to Blu-ray in the US but it might not get the attention that something that major news outlets are already highly aware of the controversy around, and with the high profile celebrity involvement of something like a Last Tango.

In those cases I can understand why distributors may shy away from releasing those works either on principle or just because they would not want to deal with the criticism. Plus the whole 'profiting from imagery of an illegal act' issue. Although (much like my stance on animal violence undermining films which use such material, yet not wanting Andrei Rublev to be edited despite its horse scene) I think it would still be important to have these films accessible in some way for audiences to be able to assess them for themselves rather than brush the issues under the carpet by making a film entirely unavailable and just telling audiences to take it on trust that they are not allowed to see why such material was contentious.

(And the Woody Allen and Roman Polanski films are arguably a third strand where its nothing to do with the content of the films but the surrounding controversy swirling around the filmmaker themselves making the works persona non gratis by association, or because they let the filmmaker maintain a respectable cultural status. In that situation it is a far more difficult call to choose between wanting to celebrate a truly great film like Chinatown and also have to accept the storm of comments that will inevitably, and arguably rightfully, accompany such a release)
Last edited by colinr0380 on Sun Jan 22, 2023 4:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply