Atom Egoyan

Interview by Nicole Holland

Academy Award^® nominated director and Cannes Film Festival alumnus, Atom Egoyan has seen many of his films grace the screens at the Cannes Film Festival. Starting with Speaking Parts (1989) and The Adjuster (1991) that screened in the Directors’ Fortnight, followed by Exotica (1994), The Sweet Hereafter (1997), Felicia’s Journey (1999), Where The Truth Lies (2005), and Adoration (2008) that premiered in the Grand Salle Lumiere, Atom is one of Cannes’ most recognizable directors.

Over the years, Egoyan has had a consistent “Cannes Timeline.” In 1994, Egoyan’s Exotica won the FIPRESCI Prize, and was nominated for the Golden Palm. He was a member of the Cannes Jury in 1996. In 1997, his highly acclaimed film, The Sweet Hereafter, won the Grand Prize of the Jury, Prize of the Ecumenical Jury, FIPRESCI Prize, and was nominated for the Golden Palm. Then, in 1999, 2005, and 2008, respectively, his films Felicia’s Journey, Where the Truth Lies, and Adoration were all nominated for the Golden Palm. In 2008, Adoration also won the Prize of The Ecumenical Jury. This year, Atom returns to Cannes and serves as President of the Cinéfondation and Short Film Jury.

In this exclusive conversational interview, Independent Film Quarterly’s Nicole Holland spoke with Atom Egoyan as he discussed his first Cannes experience, directing the first international production fully financed by StudioCanal, ambiguity and symbolism in Chloe, and his company, Ego Film Arts.

IFQ: You have had a steady stream of films that have premiered at the Cannes Film Festival: Exotica (1994), The Sweet Hereafter (1997), Felicia’s Journey (1999), Where the Truth Lies (2005), and Adoration (2008). You were also a member of the jury at the Cannes Film Festival in 1996. Which year was most memorable for you and why?

Atom Egoyan: That’s a really good question. I’d been to Cannes twice in the Directors’ Fortnight with a film called Speaking Parts in 1989, and The Adjuster in 1991. In both of those years, I remember watching the competition screenings and imagining that it was a world apart. There was something unworldly about seeing people walking up this red carpet to premiere their movie in the Grand Salle Lumiere. I believed, even though I was having these screenings in the festival, that there was this next stage, which was such a dream at that point. When Exotica was invited into competition, that walk up those red stairs was ethereal. Also, we brought a babysitter who was looking after our son, who was just a few months old. We saw her in the crowd as we were walking towards the carpet. I went over and picked up our baby son. I think he might have been the first baby to go up those red stairs! I’m looking at the photograph of it right now, as I’m telling you, and it’s kind of amazing. It was a remarkable consecration.

IFQ: I want to congratulate you on Chloe, which is one of my favorite films of the year. It’s so profound and beautifully done.

AE: Thank you! It divides opinion, right?

IFQ:  I’ve seen it twice. Obviously, I like it.

AE: It’s crazy how some people are just kind of dismissive of it. I just don’t get it. I’m very proud of it, and I think the acting is amazing. I think that some people find it really disturbing, which it’s supposed to be, in some ways. Anyway, thank you!

IFQ: Chloe is the first international production fully financed by France’s StudioCanal. I understand that before Chloe’s theatrical release, the film had already made back its budget via pre-sales, which is rare in today’s economy. Why do you think the film did so well in pre-sales in both North American and international territories?

AE:  I think the cast and the genre, honestly.  At that point, Liam was coming right off of Taken and Amanda with Mamma Mia and Dear John. The film was a genre movie in a way. It was being marketed as a thriller. All those elements came together to make it something that was very accessible and commercial. I think that was always the idea, that the film would hopefully find that market. I was really gratified that it did. I think StudioCanal took a huge risk with this film.

IFQ: Why is that?

AE: Well, because they fully financed it. It’s unusual for them to fully finance an English speaking film.

IFQ: Can you tell me more about StudioCanal’s involvement with Chloe? Were they adamant that you closely stick to, and preserve the spirit of the original film, Nathalie…?

AE: No. Honestly, what happened was, Ivan Reitman optioned the rights from StudioCanal to do the remake and they were very excited that it would be an extension of some of the ideas that were in Nathalie… They really responded to the thriller element and being able to find a way of expanding the audience.  Remember that Nathalie… was marginally distributed in the United States. It didn’t really find an audience. They were eager to see if that story or premise could go further. In that sense, they really supported Ivan’s vision of it, and certainly supported my vision of it. They were great producing partners.

IFQ: So you were given the freedom and creative control to create your own interpretation?

AE: Yes. This is a different deal than one of my own movies, where it’s all within my head. Honestly, with my own films, I don’t have test screenings. I’m not really subjecting it to the industrial process that a film like Chloe needs to go through. Chloe was heavily tested in LA. As we were refining it, we were making sure that it was able to find the target that we wanted it to hit, in terms of viewer response. It’s a very different type of approach to filmmaking than something like The Sweet Hereafter or Adoration. It was remarkable for me to have these two films, Adoration and Chloe, released back-to-back. They couldn’t be more different, in some ways.

IFQ: Julianne Moore is a brilliant actress, and she does a phenomenal job in her portrayal of Catherine. Was she your first choice for the role?

AE: Yes. It was written for her in a way. I think that the screenwriter, Erin [Cressida Wilson], has said that publicly a number of times. She was our dream choice, but it was essential in terms of financing the film that we were able to support Julianne with two other actors who are as strong as she was.

IFQ: Did you use symbolism or certain effects to provide audiences with visual clues about Catherine’s emotional state?

AE: That’s a great question. I think that, to me, most of those clues are embodied in the symbol of glass. I think glass is repeated through the film. For Catherine, glass is very much about seeing through things as a way of almost becoming a voyeur, or a surveillance tool. Her house is a series of observation posts. We can see from her office, that it’s set up like a perch from which she can overlook the town, from which she first sees Chloe.

For Chloe, glass is actually more about mirrors. When we see Chloe, we are introduced to her through a reflection, the mirror. And when the two women meet, it’s through a mirror. Glass is a very important visual component of the movie—right down to the close-ups of the glass with the lipstick trace that Catherine picks up in the hotel room. It seems to me that glass is both something that gives you a position of authority, because it allows you to control things, but it’s also very fragile and breakable, obviously.

IFQ: I read that the scene between Julianne and Amanda was taken in one beautiful long-shot. Was this the most challenging shot in the film? Or, were the shots in the glass house more challenging since the house itself was a character?

AE: Technically, the shots in the glass house were way more challenging because the question is, how do you make something look as beautiful and rich as that without seeing all the lights and the camera. I think that became more of a nightmare than the lovemaking scene, which is carefully designed. In some ways, that’s the most organic way of shooting that type of moment, because it allows the actors to kind of preserve the performance and have control over that.

IFQ:  Were they nervous about that scene?

AE: They are nervous until they are on set and then you realize it’s like any dramatic scene. Ultimately, once you define the parameters and what’s going to be seen or not, then it becomes like any dramatic scene. In this case, they were both assured that they would look great. Because of video playback, they are able to see the scene right after, and that gave them confidence. I think the key to making sexual scenes work is to make sure that they are treated as all the other scenes. I’m someone who is very focused on performance—on the dramatic contours of a moment. Those have to be observed as carefully in a physical scene like that, as in a dialogue scene.

IFQ: Why did you decide to include the powerful and haunting song, We Were Never Young, by Canadian indie-band, Raised by Swans? Is Raised by Swans a personal favorite of yours?

AE: Yes. I used their music in Adoration, as well. I think that they are an amazing indie-band. We have a lot of great music in Toronto. There are other bands that are featured, like Great Lake Swimmers, which is also another amazing band. In particular, Raised by Swans have this very haunting sort of approach to the vocal line. I thought their work was so amazing and worked so well with my vision in Adoration that I asked them if they had any new material so they sent me a working CD of their next album. I really focused on that song the moment I heard it. It just seemed like there was a great progression. That it was something that could work both with vocals and without. The guitar line is sort of woven through a number of scenes. First, when [Catherine] meets Chloe in the back and they see the band performing. Then, there’s a direct cut to them at a table by a window. You hear the guitar kind of continuing to flow through that scene. It was a very beautiful guitar line that could be used independently of the vocal line. It’s a great song.

IFQ: Did you include Amanda’s vocals?

AE: [Laughs.] It’s funny that you mention that.  That became a bit of an issue with the band. Yes, we did. We hear the song kind of end, and then we hear the guitar line continue and persist. Then, Amanda’s vocal comes in, which is quite separate from their song. It’s meant to be very eerie and either probably there or not. It’s either in Catherine’s imagination, or it might be the recording that Catherine’s son has been sent, because Chloe does give him the CD of their music. Since we saw Chloe alone with the band during practice, it’s possible that she sang on that track. It’s left ambiguous.

IFQ: Your sister Eve also contributed to the beautiful score in Chloe.

AE: She plays piano in all of my movies, but the thing that is really extraordinary here is, that she taught Max Thieriot to look like he can play piano in the scene where he seems to be performing one of the hardest pieces in the repertoire. Max doesn’t play at all.

IFQ: He was pretty convincing.

AE: Yes. She was able to work with him and get that detail. Before we did that, she performed a piece on that piano right before we took that take so it would sound like an advanced student playing that piece as opposed to a professional. It was a really remarkable contribution she made musically. She has played in a lot of the films, right from the beginning. You can get her music online, as well. The album that is really great is the Erik Satie album [Hidden Corners] that she has.

IFQ: The original film Nathalie… was set in Paris. Chloe, however, is set in Toronto, which in itself becomes a character. Why did you decide to shoot in Toronto?

AE: I know the city so well. I felt that it hadn’t really been shown off in a certain way. Even though I was really excited by the idea of shooting in San Francisco, when I actually went there, I realized I’d seen so many representations of that place. I couldn’t imagine how I would do something different with it. Toronto has never really been seen in this kind of way before, and certainly never played itself in a foreign-financed film. So I liked that. I liked the fact that it was not only going to represent a place that people hadn’t seen, but it was also a place that I knew intimately. I know all these places really well, like where these people hang out, where they meet, where they work, and where they live. It just seemed a way of making it more personal and it strengthened the film. What was very exciting about this, in the test screenings in LA , people just really loved the idea of seeing a place that they knew was a major metropolitan center, but they couldn’t recognize it or necessarily having seen it before.

IFQ: In the beginning of the film, I couldn’t figure it out. I saw a street sign that said “Yorkville” and I thought it was the Upper East Side in New York.

AE: Isn’t that cool, though? In a way, it kind of really fits the mood of the film. You are entering into uncharted territory, and you need to kind of suspend your own disbelief. You are in a place you have never been in before. Much like Catherine is in a place that she has never been in before. I think it’s a great way of bringing the viewer into the journey.

IFQ: Your film is visually erotic between the two leads, which is highly effective. When I interviewed Anne Fontaine, she said that she wasn’t blunt enough in taking the erotic implications as far as she should have. Why did you decide to push the eroticism factor?

AE: It felt like a really sexy story. Also, I think the huge difference from the two movies is that, in this film, Chloe falls for Catherine, in a huge way. I think that you needed that scene to make that very visceral. After that night, Chloe is just completely overwhelmed by Catherine, and Catherine kind of just moves on: she says in the office that it was nice, but it didn’t really rock her world. But, you could see the affect that it had on Chloe. Even though Chloe’s a professional sex worker, and she should know those limits, she just allows herself to fall for Catherine. I think, from the beginning, for me, the story was how love is about thinking someone is hearing your story for the first time. From the moment Chloe begins to tell these stories, even though we come to realize that it’s not about… I don’t want to give the film away! It’s not about Catherine’s husband. Chloe is talking about these encounters that she’s had with these strangers in these rooms.

IFQ: Like strangers from her past.

AE: Yes, exactly. In some cases, people she has just slept with. When she calls Catherine to the hotel room, I think she’s just had a trick with a john. I think she is feeling very low about herself. She gets to retell the story to this woman that she really admires, and who is a role model. It’s so much of a different world from hers. This woman is completely attentive to her.

IFQ: Chloe never really had much of a mother figure in her life and she never had anyone to really listen to her, and then Catherine comes along…

AE: Yes. Catherine is so obsessed with her own sort of pain, and her own sort of sense of panic over her life issues, that the last thing that she would think about is what Chloe is going through. As far as she is concerned, Chloe is a professional: she pays her. Something about Catherine affects Chloe, so I needed that erotic moment of union between the two women to consolidate that. I think we see that in the next scene when Catherine is driving Chloe home in the taxi. We can tell from Amanda’s wonderful performance that she’s in love with this woman.

IFQ: What message or themes do you hope audiences will discover and discuss after watching Chloe?

AE: Human beings are complex. You can’t just enter into a relationship thinking of your own agenda without considering that people have their own history. Sometimes that’s deeply mysterious. Catherine is obviously a very controlling person from the moment that she has her first client. She mentions that orgasms are just muscular contractions and there’s nothing mysterious. Of course, everything is mysterious when it comes to human beings. I think all of my films have tried to talk about this essential mystery about any meeting between two human beings.

IFQ: Switching topics, your film career started with short films. Can you tell me how making short films led to your first feature film?

AF: It was really a process of apprenticeship and beginning to explore ideas and themes in the short film format and then beginning to work with actors and beginning to extend the structures I was using. I do think short films are much like short stories and are essentially a different form than a conventional long feature or a novel. There are filmmakers, and certainly writers, who are better equipped to tell their stories in the short film format. It’s not only for animation artists. I think there’s an amazing tradition of filmmakers who have worked exclusively in the short film format. But that’s quite separate from filmmakers who are young and who are using the resources that are available to them to begin to express themselves with shorts, then graduating to features.

IFQ:  Finally, can you tell me about your company Ego Film Arts?

AE: The company is set up to help produce my own work, but in the past number of years, we have also executive produced or directly produced a lot of other films—mostly first features, but also more challenging projects by established directors like Guy Maddin and Peter Mettler. I think that what I’m most proud of are the first features: Sarah Polley’s Away from Her, Alison Murray’s Mouth to Mouth starring Ellen Page (in her first feature lead role), and also films by Ruba Nadda. Ruba’s new feature, Cairo Time, with Patricia Clarkson is coming out in the United States and IFP is distributing it. We were also involved with producing Ruba’s first feature, Sabah starring Arsinée Khanjian. I really believe in supporting the work of the new generation. I think it’s very important for established filmmakers to help and give encouragement to the next generation of filmmakers.

*Atom Egoyan photo credit: Sophie Giraud, Adoration Productions, Inc., Sony Pictures Classics