Birthmarked movie review: A fun take on the nature versus nurture debate that turns hackneyed

Viewing Birthmarked, the new Netflix film, is a frustratingly engaging experience. On paper, it seems to have everything worked out. A top notch cast: Toni Collette, Matthew Goode and the fantastic Michael Smiley. An intriguing plot revolving around the eternal quandary of nature versus nature. The director appears confident about giving this subject a comic spin. The film begins with great promise, lean and tight with a focus on its peculiar characters. However, with the passage of time, it becomes increasingly clear that Birthmarked is content staying in second gear. Throughout, you keep wishing it quits staring anxiously down the cliff and leaps into more interesting territory. A final twist to the tale, then, merely comes as consolation for a film that could have truly soared, especially given the talent available at hand. Ben (Goode) and Catherine (Collette) are scientists who wish to answer the question of nature versus nurture once and for all. They devise an experiment, funded by Gertz (Smiley), a rich patron, to raise their own son and two adopted children contrary to their genetic predispositions. They aim to insulate their kids from all influences that could possibly derail their project. But their belief in the power of nurture begins to falter very soon, slowly leading them to question their scientific attitudes and acquainting them with the importance of love and family. [caption id=“attachment_4892221” align=“alignnone” width=“825”]  Poster for Birthmarked. Netflix[/caption] When you combine the plethora of possibilities offered by the comic genre with a plot that has amazing subtext, you become excited about where the filmmaker will take you. There’s much to admire in the film. The strong performances, for one. All the actors, including the children, are in good form. For a considerable period, the writing is funny, often offering moments to laugh out loud. But if a film has a clear beginning, middle and an end, Birthmarked loses steam in the middle. The science starts to become lazy, at best. The pacing goes for a toss. Some of the more interesting characters, especially Collette, suddenly start sprouting cliched characteristics. For a film tackling evolution head-on, it all begins devolving rapidly.

Mind you, the plot, let down by the story, still manages to keep you interested. But the agony that accompanies the shattering of one’s long held beliefs is depicted casually and, more prohibitively, with sterile seriousness.

The toll it takes on Ben and Catherine’s relationship never emerges from the well of cliches so rampant in cinema. Momentarily, the science simply seems to vanish from their lives. But throughout all this, the simple joy of watching kids being kids, away from the harsh glare of their parents’ eyes, keeps you going. Not surprisingly, the kids’ characters end up being the most carefully thought out of all. Their struggle, gentler and more acceptable versions of which play out in households worldwide, remains earnest and deeply affecting. Birthmarked’s great triumph lies in communicating its true message through the innocent yet remarkably clear sighted eyes of children at play. Their discovery of the child inside every one of them, despite their clashing personalities, is a joy to witness. That this strand of the story plays out secondary to the main narrative adds to its great charm, however much you’d have preferred for it to take centre stage. Birthmarked offers glimpses of director Emanuel Hoss-Desmarais’ talent. And while those glimpses are annoyingly few and far between, they suffice to keep you interested. With such an exceptional well of acting talent at hand, Desmarais could have taken this film to stratospheric heights. Had he chosen to engage more combatively with the multiple moral implications that accompany such an experiment, it could have turned into a film to ponder over while you laugh along. Ultimately, Birthmarked fails to shatter the walls of its own prison of beliefs. Rarely venturing into riskier territory, it plays a hackneyed tune to the audience. For a while, it is good fun. But there’s only so much you can do to avoid lapsing into being a bore without rattling a few gilded cages. We know what awaits Ben’s lab rat at the end of the maze of death. It is his journey through the labyrinth that truly interests us. But the traps he sets for the rat are as manipulative as the narrative’s. Eventually, the rat runs into the final trap because there is nowhere else to go.