A.V. Club
March 26 2010
Interview : Atom Egoyan
by Keith Phipps March 26, 2010
Atom Egoyan makes films about redirected desire, the way technology
distorts or amplifies passion, and the elusiveness of any objective
truth beneath competing narratives. These themes are evident in the
films he wrote and directed during his first decade as a
writer-director working within the state-funded Canadian system, a run
that stretched from 1984’s Next Of Kin through Exotica in 1994. They
persisted as Egoyan began alternating original stories with literary
adaptations, in a period that included The Sweet Hereafter in 1997, a
poorly received adaptation of Rupert Holmes’ showbiz noir Where The
Truth Lies, and the underappreciated Ararat, an attempt to address the
Armenian genocide. Chloe, Egoyan’s latest, is the first film Egoyan
has directed from a script he didn’t originate. (It’s taken from an
Erin Cressida Wilson screenplay adapting Nathalie¦, directed by French
filmmaker Anne Fontaine.) Starring Julianne Moore as a Toronto
gynecologist, Liam Neeson as her possibly unfaithful husband, and
Amanda Seyfried as Chloe, the high-class prostitute Moore hires to
test Neeson’s fidelity, Chloe is the closest Egoyan has come to making
a movie designed to accommodate mainstream expectations. But it’s also
unmistakably his own work, in details both great and small. Shortly
before Chloe’s release, Egoyan spoke to The A.V. Club about
communication, separation, researching high-class prostitutes, and the
perilous activity of making dramas. [The interview contains vague
spoilers.]
The A.V. Club: Chloe opens with a voiceover in which the title
character explains herself to the audience, yet she disappears into
enigma after that. Was it part of your strategy to misdirect viewers
right away as to how much they could know about the main character?
Atom Egoyan: Yeah, I think so. It’s an interesting point, because
there was more voiceover in the original script. We found it was way
more interesting if you took it out. There were some scenes where she
describes something of her background, and all of that felt more
powerful stripped away than it was in the film. I think you are lulled
into a sense that you’re going to have access to this person, but as
she says at the end of that voiceover, at a certain point, she’part of
her job is to disappear. I think that’s an intriguing way to approach
Chloe, that she’s someone who’s really constructed by what other
people imagine her to be. Our only real sense of who she is comes
through this absolute obsession she develops with [Julianne Moore’s]
Catherine, because Catherine listens to her so intensely. She allows
herself to believe that Catherine is listening to her story, as
opposed to what she was supposed to be listening to, and that
overwhelms her. As someone who only exists as other people imagine
her, that is such a powerful alchemy that she can’t help but be
overwhelmed by it.
AVC: Catherine develops an intense attraction and repulsion to hearing
stories about her husband. Would you characterize that as voyeurism,
or something else?
AE: Well, I think it’s a lot of things. It’s an odd choice to go to a
prostitute to determine whether your spouse is having an affair. I
mean, she could go to a private investigator. But from the moment she
makes that decision, there are a lot of things that aren’t really
resolved. I think that at some level, what she wants to know is who
her husband is in those situations. She wants access to an erotic side
of this man that she still loves but has no connection to. As these
stories begin to come back to her, she’s pained by them, but also
charged by them in a way that I don’t think she could have ever
expected, or would be able to explain. But something powerful is
overwhelming her and inspires her to go further.
So it’s a number of things, and fortunately we had an astonishing
actress [Moore] who could convey the wealth of emotions she’s trying
to negotiate. She’s a very controlling figure. Anyone who starts in a
film by saying that an orgasm is a series of muscular contractions,
nothing mysterious about it, and then hands a patient a pamphlet,
arouses some dubious suspicion. The fact that she thinks she can order
things in her life and the lives of those around her so succinctly and
yet feel that she’s disappearing, feel that she’s somehow not present.
I think that’s a particular crisis that happens in many people’s lives
at a certain point, and Catherine is in the throes of that, and is
desperate to find some degree of emotional status.
AVC: That pamphlet scene was striking, too, because I instantly began
to wonder whether this was someone who had always felt that way, or
whether it was an attitude, a demystification of the orgasm that had
developed over the years.
AE: I think it’s developed. The amazing thing about Julianne Moore is
that she’s so appealing and nice that she can get away with a line
like that, and you still feel it’s somehow within the realm of being
acceptable, but it’s a really dangerous thing to say. [Laughs.] I
think. In that position. I think that it’s an early clue as to the
extent of her psychic place.
AVC: Speaking broadly, Chloe falls into the genre of the erotic
thriller. Did you have any opinions of that genre going into this
movie?
AE: You know, it’s funny. It’s come up a few times. I can’t say that
I¦ Maybe I’m naïve. I just look at these films as dramas. When the
drama is accelerated, then the tone shifts. It becomes something more
concentrated. But I wasn’t thinking explicitly of that genre, or
making references to it. There are certain films in that tradition
that I have respected and enjoyed, but then do you think of Persona as
an erotic thriller, or do you think of films like Teorema as erotic
thrillers? They have elements that create tension, but that’s
certainly¦ those types of films have been more a part of my formation
than some of the films that have been hurled at me or hurled at this
film in comparison.
I understand, though. I understand that maybe that’s what the
producers were thinking, but it wasn’t part of my decision. I flirted
with genre more explicitly in films like Ararat, in terms of historic
epic, or even Where The Truth Lies. I was much more aware of mystery
noir, and that the characters were recreating these scenes in their
own minds. But in this film, it was all so concentrated on this
peculiar alchemy between the two women, where there is this set of
competing fantasies, and one of the women falls obsessively in love. I
think that Chloe falls for Catherine in a way that’s so powerful to
her. When she feels denied access, she, as people do, becomes mad.
It’s mad love, l’amour fou. It happens. And that’s what I was thinking
of. But I’ve also respected films like Unfaithful, say, if that’s what
we’re talking about.
AVC: I used to work in a video store, so I tend to think of things in
terms of where they would be shelved.
AE: Yeah. It’s funny, though. I want people to enjoy the movie, so I
don’t want to apply any¦ I think there are people who will enjoy it as
whatever type of film it’s being presented as or marketed as, and
that, for me, is separate from my job. Exotica was also sold as an
erotic thriller. I remember at that point, 15 years ago, I was really
upset by that way of presenting the movie. But if it means that it’s
more accessible to more people, then that’s fine. That’s what the
distributors need to do. I certainly think this is a film a lot of
people can enjoy, and I hope it appeals to a wide group of people.
AVC: How did working from someone else’s script change your approach
to making this movie?
AE: It’s certainly less lonely. You feel there’s less on your
shoulders. You feel you actually have a blueprint your entire crew can
follow. This is a crew I’ve been working with for many, many years,
but often they would come to the final cut of one of my movies and
say, `Oh, now I understand what it’s about.’ Because the scripts are
so schematic and open to interpretation. This script was really
considered and went from A to B in a very clear way. That meant we all
knew what our respective jobs were. My job was to try to bring in the
best actors and try to create a tone to the performances that would
serve this drama, and then to choose locations and concentrate on the
frame and what was in the frame, and not think about the overall
structure and shape, which is my obsession when I’m directing one of
my own scripts. The directing process is often a continuation of the
writing. This is just a different skill-set.
AVC: There are more than a few elements, though, that fit into some
ongoing concerns’
AE: Sure, of course. That’s what drew me to this material. I get sent
a lot of scripts. This one excited something in me, and I felt that
there were a number of issues close to me, which I then developed, I
suppose, with Erin, the screenwriter, and we took the screenplay in a
certain direction.
AVC: One of them is the use of video chatting, smartphones, and
technology as a medium for desire, which is an ongoing concern in your
works. Has your attitude toward technology changed over time?
AE: Oh, I think so. I think in the ’80s, when I started making films,
we were all suspicious of these technologies. We were all convinced
they would filter out any emotion and sense of intimacy, and the films
I made during that period reflected that. In fact, what has happened
is the opposite. I think we’re saturated with a degree of intimacy we
would never have expected, and we’re trying to sort through this idea
of complete access to each other’s lives on an ongoing basis. Our
emotions aren’t filtered out at all. They’re actually accelerated.
In the last film [Adoration], I was dealing with this more explicitly.
I think entire social groups are formed through these technologies
that could never exist in the real world, and relationships that are a
function of these technologies’ ability to accelerate feeling and
emotional contact. So in that way, it’s really different from the tone
of my early films, even though, curiously enough, the texture is
exactly the same. If you look at Speaking Parts, it looks like they’re
speaking to each other on the Internet, but it was a whole different
technology. But we’re still staring at TV screens, right? They’re
still monitors. But the way information is delivered is different. So
it creates an interesting way of looking back at these early films,
because they’re actually relevant in terms of the devices people are
using. But the consideration, the debate, around those technologies
was very different from what’s being presented now.
AVC: Picture quality and portability may have as much to do with it as
anything. Something that looks good that you can carry in your hand is
different from something you stare at while sitting in a chair.
AE: Sure. And again, that was something that came up in the last film,
Adoration, the notion of portability, but that’s probably not as¦ Yes,
there was this idea that in the previous generation, your technology
was located at specific sites, and there was something ritualized
about the way we would have these moments of contact in these specific
sites. The portability has made that even more accessible, but it
hasn’t changed the fundamental nature of what we’re looking at.
Whether the quality is HD or low-grade, I don’t think that that’s¦
With apologies to Marshall McLuhan, who believed that was everything,
who felt the nature of how we receive the information and the pixels
really determined whether it was a hot or cold medium¦ Certainly
McLuhan is getting a major revisitation up here in Canada these days,
because he’s brilliant. It’s amazing what he was talking about. But I
think the textures he was assigning to certain mediums is not
necessarily as relevant as the concepts he was introducing in terms of
global village and the nature in which we are so profoundly
interconnected.
AVC: You introduced a not-yet-available type of video chatting in
Adoration. It seems related to this movie, because they both present a
situation where people are trying to control a narrative. That seems
to go throughout your work, too.
AE: Yeah. I’m obsessed with this idea of storytellers and people who
have a narrative, and sometimes sustain a relationship because they’re
telling a narrative and someone is listening to that. Often the nature
of the relationship is determined by how well they tell the story, or
someone else’s ability to suspend disbelief, or infuse into their
narrative something which they may not even be aware of. From that
perspective, Chloe is very much one of my movies. [Laughs.] I don’t
think Catherine’s aware of what Chloe’s projecting into her, but
Chloe’s certainly aware that this relationship can only be sustained
as long as she continues this narrative. So it becomes a type of
sexual Scheherazade, in a way.
AVC: Did you feel any obligation to research the world of high-class
prostitution?
AE: Superficially. Just to make sure it still existed in this world of
Internet and online escort services; I just wanted to make sure that
one would still find hookers in hotel bars. And sure enough, yes,
they’re there, and I paid to have a conversation with a couple of sex
workers just to get the details of their job and to ascertain how the
business was conducted, knowing that Amanda [Seyfried] would need to
know all that. Just to give her some background. I must confess, when
I first read it, it seemed a little antiquated in terms of the
mechanics of meeting people in bars and negotiating deals, but that’s
still very much a part of how it’s done.
I went to¦ I can’t do this in Toronto, of course, but in New York,
there was a particular hotel, and I was told by someone that that’s
where you can make connections. Actually, that night there wasn’t much
happening, so I got into a conversation with the bartender, and he
told me where else to go. It’s not like every place in town has
hookers in the bar by any means. I think it’s very particular. But if
you know what you’re looking for, you know where to go.
AVC: In general, do these people have a life after that career?
AE: Oh, sure. I think there are sex workers who are students and are
using it to supplement their careers, who can do a really great job of
separating their work from their personal lives. I know people in the
sex trade here, and they’re completely¦ I’d say it’s a lucrative job,
a great way of making money. I found this out when I was doing
research for Exotica. Lots of people are students and just using it as
a way to earn their education. But there are others who are coming
from a different place and who cannot make that separation. The job
doesn’t involve needing to separate yourself from the work you do. I
think it’s very dangerous to confuse those lines. Chloe is very
confused. It’s all new territory for her. She’s never negotiated a
client like Catherine, so those lines become blurred, tragically so.
AVC: I get the sense that she never had trouble compartmentalizing before.
AE: No, I don’t think she did, either. That being said, when we meet
her, she’s distraught. There’s something happening in her life now
that’s raised these issues. We don’t know what those are exactly. The
danger of a film like this is, you hope you’re not making
generalizations about people who are working in the sex trade, or
certainly about the sexuality of¦ It may well be the first time that
either of these women have had a relationship with another woman.
Again, it’s open to interpretation. You just hope people are able to
understand that these are particular characters, and this is the
particular story that’s being told, and that a generalization is not
being made. This is an unusual circumstance for these women to
negotiate. They’re wading through completely uncharted territory.
You can tell, as Chloe says in that opening monologue, if her job is
to sense what a client wants, how a client wants to be touched, what a
client wants to hear, you can understand her confusion with Catherine.
When she says to Catherine early on, `I don’t know what you want,’
she’s completely baffled as to why this woman is pursuing this,
whether it is masochistic, or¦ She has to determine what this woman’s
story is. I do think you fall in love when you feel that something of
your story is being listened to for the first time, or you feel
someone else is hearing it as no one else has ever done. That’s what
overwhelms Chloe. She gets to actually talk about her experience to
someone for the first time, and it assumes a stature and a sense of
purpose she’s never experienced. So if she’s at a point where she’s
feeling diminished by this work, Catherine gives her a sense of
self-worth, of dignity, through the nature of how she listens. That’s
very powerful. Overwhelming, as it turns out.
AVC: You worked with Liam Neeson in staging Beckett. Did you find any
connections between Beckett and this material at all?
AE: Oh, God. Samuel Beckett would be turning over in his grave.
[Laughs.] Well, the nature of that particular piece, Eh Joe, a man
listening to the voice of a woman who is tormenting him for thinking
he could ever leave her¦ Again narration; it’s still someone listening
to a story. In that case, what was so incredible is, it is probably
the longest reaction shot I can think of. It’s just Liam onstage
listening to this voice as this video camera moves closer and closer
onto him. It was an amazing experience for both of us. It was just so
intense. It’s interesting, because there is this one long passage that
Julianne Moore has where she’s telling her story to Liam, and all he
does is listen. I learned what an extraordinary actor he is through
this experience we had. I would not make any links between a remake of
a French movie and Samuel Beckett’s illustrious career, but I’ve been
personally just so influenced by his writing. It’s informed that
aspect of who I am. But I wouldn’t be so cavalier as to make a
connection between the two.
AVC: You’ve talked about having a lot of offers to work in Hollywood
after Exotica. Is this another period like that?
AE: Yeah, it is. Confusingly so. I’m just glad I’m at a different
point in my life. I don’t take these offers as seriously. After
Exotica, that was such an unexpected breakthrough, and that was a
different time. All these films that were being sent to me, they all
seemed real. They all seemed like they were about to happen. Now I
realize that’s not the case. Not only is there the question of
assessing a script, but also looking at the background and the
producers and how serious this project may or may not be. I made a
promise not to waste time on things that have no chance of getting
made. And I’m a lot more selective than I was at that time. I spent a
very, very harrowing year in L.A. attached to a Warner Bros. thriller
that was never going to get made in retrospect, and thankfully walking
away from that and making The Sweet Hereafter.
I don’t think I would get swept up in something like that again. I get
the opportunity to do these smaller films that I get to produce up
here, working with European distributors, and I get to make my own
movies. Occasionally something like Chloe might come up, and I’m glad
it did, and I’m proud of the film, and I’m thrilled that it’s getting
this sort of a release. But it’s rare, and even this film took a long
time to actually get made. It was the fact that Liam Neeson’s Taken
was so successful and that Amanda, from the time we cast her, became a
huge star through Mamma Mia! And again, all these things aligned in a
way that allowed this film to get made. And, of course, Julianne Moore
coming on board. Making dramas for the cinema is very difficult these
days. It’s a perilous activity.
oyan,39570/