MovieChat Forums > Birth (2004) Discussion > Anne Heche's character is actually lying...

Anne Heche's character is actually lying. SPOILERS

posted 13 years ago by The_Coma-Man
19 replies | jump to latest

Seeing the film a second time, I am absolutely struck that nobody has pointed this out just yet:

The film is not as much about identity as it also is about truth and lies.

We, as an audience, just as Anna's family, don't accept that Sean IS indeed Sean. Even if we believe in re-incarnation, in the context of the movie we simply don't. It's the same with his family, except for one: Anna.

Now, stay with me for a second. We all know the letter scenes, the photos, but... I must say, I find Anne Heche's character a lot more questionable than Sean. While Sean has found the letters, even after it is revealed he has, it is never discussed why he followed Heche's character, or why he loved Anna. He himself states that he believes to be Sean, that it feels like Deja-Vu. And I don't think he lied.
However, when Heche's character tells him that Sean loves HER, that he wanted to leave his wife, that he give her the letter's Anna sent him, unopened... I really have to question whether or not this is true. Remember that she actually wanted to give Anna the letters as a "wedding gift" - it's actually an act of revenge. She herself does this to proof Anna that Sean loved her! Why would she need to do that if that would have been the truth?
Heche's character seems so bitter to me that IF Sean would actually be Sean, then that could potentially ruin HER life, HER truth she's been living all these years. And it's not that the knowledge of Sean finding the letters made him consider the he was wrong, or come out as a liar. It's that he is convinced that Heche is telling the truth, that Sean loved HER and not Anna... yet Heche has no proof whatsoever, except for her possession of the letters.

But what if she stole the letters? What if Sean only gave them to her to shut her up?

The truth is: we accept Heche's statements without any explanation just as Kidman accepts Sean's "confession" that he isn't Sean, without any proof or explanation.

Seeing it a second time... in the reality of the film, I think Sean never lied. I think he IS SEAN. He is so convinced of it, that the only counterproof is that Heche's character claims he loved her... without any proof whatsoever.

The film thus isn't all about identity - it's about the lies we actually believe to make our lives easier, to actually "go on living". Anna knew how hard her life would be IF Sean would be Sean. So she accepts the first answer of "No, I am not Sean." - without any further proof or explanation. She wants to accept it, just as we do, just as Anne Heche's character wants to accept that Sean loved her, just as Sean wants to accept that he is insane.
--
VOTE JACOB'S LADDER INTO THE TOP 250's!!!
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0099871

[–] B-Bomber 13 years ago

I thought the exact same thing - Heche's character buried the letters not because she worried about the effect it would have on Kidman's character (she tells Sean that she hated Kidman's character because Sean wouldn't leave her), she buried the letters because she knew they weren't proof of anything - if Sean had actually loved Heche's character, he would've left his wife for her and he didn't.

Heche could've stepped in at anytime and put a stop to what Sean was doing and made up a lie to excuse it all away (she found the letters and didn't want to bring up painful memories, et cetera). She didn't. And she didn't because she wanted Sean to have loved her, not Anna.

Her only proof that he isn't the real Sean is that he didn't come to her first, but that proof is based on her own self-delusion. She *wants* that to be the proof, but it's not, thus it destroys her fantasy, so she refuses to believe it.

[–] holdek01 13 years ago

Both of you, just... just... shut up.

[–] Mister_Magoo 13 years ago

Really nicely broken down/explained, Coma-man :)

I, myself, have always been a little surprised by the fact that so many seem to just 'accept' Heche's character (and her assertions) without a hint of skepticism.

Her character definitely falls under the heading of 'unreliable', imo, for many of the reasons you've outlined.

But, to be clear, I'm not trying to suggest that the question of 'is he or isn't he?' is necessarily proven/disproven or defined by Heche's 'problematic' character ~ if anything, I just see it as one more element of the film's 'we just don't know' theme.

In fact, the more times I watch the film, the more I think that 'lack of certainty' is one of the primary issues at the heart of things. But, as is human nature, most of us can't accept uncertainty, even if it is the entire point of Anna's story :)

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr-Dedlock 12 years ago

Interesting theories guys but me personally I believe Heche’s character, why?
Oh little things, I always felt that Kidman’s character Anna knew that her husband was cheating on her and that he wasn’t in love with her but she was in denial over the whole thing and after he died she just couldn’t move on, she was trapped in this endless grief, resentment and pain.

In fact there are a lot of hint as to their social status, Kidman’s Anna comes from an upper class family living in an upscale neighborhood there are also hints that Sean might have married Anna for purely financial and social reasons.

He continued sleeping with Heche’s character even after they got married, he gave Clara the letters unopened to prove a point and that is how little Anna’s thoughts and words meant to him.

Clara was spiteful because Sean never left Anna for her, so this was her revenge but she changed her mind probably not wanting to cause a scene in her new engagement party.

in that scene when Anna goes to the apartment and speaks to Sean’s brother about the kid being Sean, I actually see her boasting to Clara and telling her that Sean came back from the dead for me.

"You were supposed to love me, werent you?", Nicole Kidman-Stoker 2013

[–] Tchoutoye 12 years ago

You're merely repeating what Clara said to Sean without any convincing logic as to why she should be telling the truth.

[–] b0sendorfer 11 years ago

I really like what the OP had to say and it sounds very plausible.

I have a question though - why did Heche's character show up with dirty hands? What was that all about?

[–] symphonyOFsilence 11 years ago

That's what I was wondering about the second time it happened. I think she went to dig up the letters wrapped as a gift she buried the first time, and found they weren't there any more. The implication is that young Sean dug them up, so she figured out how he knew all those personal details. But she was still hoping that somehow Sean was back as the boy.

[–] b0sendorfer 11 years ago

Oh yeah that makes sense. Haha I should've realized! Thank you. I really like this theory about Heche's character.

[–] Vincen7 11 years ago

Sean was not Sean, period.. otherwise he would've remembered whether he was or wasn't in love with Anne Heche.. his reaction to her words confirmed that he was lying.. he was a boy who had nothing else to do and fell in love with Kidman's character

[–] Singingorilla 11 years ago

No, he was a boy living a normal life, albeit with separated parents. He's curious and follows Clara, digs up the letters and then realizes he's Sean, Anna's husband.

One thing I never realized until watching this last evening, he calls Anna's apt to leave the msg about meeting her in the park. How does he know the phone number?

I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred

[–] The_Coma-Man 11 years ago

^
Exactly my point. There are aspects to the story that are inexplicable if we do not accept at least a hint of the paranormal (or reincarnation).

"Sean was not Sean, period.. otherwise he would've remembered whether he was or wasn't in love with Anne Heche.. his reaction to her words confirmed that he was lying"

How come? He repeatedly states that he remembers he loved Kidman's character. What confuses him is the insistence of Heche's character and the so called "proof" of the letters. Remember that, as the previous poster mentioned, Sean realized these things, instead of knowing them. He goes on to mention that he can't remember loving Heche's character, therefore he must not be Sean - but the relationship is clearly more complex than that, and I doubt it.

[–] zandor1204 11 years ago

After just watching the movie I find that Clara is indeed believeable and could most likely back up her past affair with the Adult Sean with details of their affair. Times, Dates, Places etc.. The phoney younger Sean had no other knowledge of the adult Sean's life that was not covered in the letters. Zero previous knowledge of any skills, hobbies, desires, abilities. Little things like what his favourite foods were his favourite colours what was his favourite restaurant, previous Sean's friends and any and all times and activities he did with them as well as past employers and work experience and so on and so on. Even if by a miracle others still doubt or believe the younger Sean he could still not recall what activities and food and other such stuff he did and ate with Anna during his previous life's honeymoon. It has already been discussed on other threads on this board in fact.

[–] Singingorilla 11 years ago

Young Sean knew where Old Sean died.
He knew Anna's phone number.

Neither of those things would be in the letters.

He also seemingly recognized Clifford.

I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred

[–] The_Coma-Man 11 years ago

Indeed, indeed, indeed.

I will watch it another time over the weekend (to celebrate the release of incredible UNDER THE SKIN) and look out for some more details/hints.

I also like the responses dealing with "If Sean had been her husband's reincarnation, he would have 'acted like this'." It's not like any of us are proper experts of reincarnation, I figure. ;)

[–] Singingorilla 11 years ago

It is written on this board that the original script delved much deeper into the reincarnation aspect, that essentially it was a film about reincarnation, not left up to interpretation. While I enjoy the film and the question: is he or isn't he? I would also have enjoyed a different question: he is, so what now? I realize this is one small piece of it and the focus of the movie is Kidman's grief.

I like tacos, 71 Cabernet and my favorite color is magenta. -Fred

[–] Od1n 11 years ago

You are wrong guys, the point of the movie how clean and deep feelings (child perception) could be ruined by daily routine (adult perception - muted feelings, adulter, etc).

Anyway the film pretending to be ambitious, that's why you could choose either side and be right.

[–] mgulev 10 years ago

Coma man-> I just don´t follow your logic. You ask

Why would she need to do that if that would have been the truth?

But you just answered that question:

it's actually an act of revenge. She herself does this to proof Anna that Sean loved her!

Seems to me, you want to believe Sean is Sean and you (and a whole bunch of others) are using all the tools that the movie gives you to prove your point. Remember, the MOVIE is giving you all the clues you want or need. It´s your interpretation of the clues that leads you to believe Sean and to believe that the others are lying.

And why

IF Sean would actually be Sean, then that could potentially ruin HER life, HER truth she's been living all these years.

??? To Clara, Sean is dead. Clara has no interest in Annas fiance, nor is she interested in a 10-year old, so how on earth could it ruin her life, that a 10-year old claims to be Old Sean?

[–] wak1 9 years ago

Yeah I took your idea, which I hadn't thought of before and wrote more on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0337876/board/reply/220723105