Chloe

(2010)

Directed by

Atom Egoyan

Review by Zach Saltz

Posted - 7/11/10

Judge: Case number 660472, American audiences vs. Atom Egoyan and his new film entitled Chloe.  Is the defense ready for their arguments?

Attorney 2 (Defense): We are, your honor.  We live in a society that values an easy and seamless relationship between art and erotica.  We believe that film is an important medium that can bridge the gap between those two entities in an entertaining and enlightening way.  We believe the artist in question, Atom Egoyan, is one of the most capable directors in this field, as his previous films Exotica and Where the Truth Lies have both accomplished the ambitious feats of entertaining and arousing his audience.

Attorney 1 (Prosecution): I object your honor.  The premise for this sickening film is sick and not what Americans want to see, even with the nudity.

Attorney 2: No one said it was for American audiences.

Judge: Objection overruled.  The defense may sit if there are no more opening arguments.

Attorney 2: The only thing more I have to say is that what able-bodied member of the primary marketing demographic of men in their twenties wouldn’t want to see girl-on-girl action between Julianne Moore and the girl from Mean Girls?

Attorney 1: Why would they pay for that when they can see that misguided young woman remove her garments for free during drunk tirades online?

Attorney 2: I wasn’t referring to Lindsay Lohan.  The blonde one from Mean Girls.

Attorney 1: Oh, right.

Judge: Very well, the defense may sit.  Prosecution, your opening arguments.

Attorney 1: Your honor, the defense seems to have very little idea of what American audiences actually want – wholesome, pure entertainment that emphasizes love and domesticity over adultery and hedonistic sexual deviancies.  Leave that to the French.  This film needs to be significantly altered before it is absorbed by innocent viewers.

Judge: Does the defense have any specific objections to the content of this film?

Attorney 1: Well, the premise seems to be a violation of penal code 118736, which means it is improbable and offensive.  A woman is devastated that her husband appears to be cheating on her.  They are both successful white people who live in a house out of Architecture Monthly and clearly love each other.  She throws him a surprise birthday, for Chrissake.  Why would she ever think to have a dirtied, sexually amorphous prostitute attempt to seduce him in the first place?

Attorney 2: Your honor, I think the premise speaks for itself.  She wants to see if he will cheat on her when granted the opportunity and along the way, she (caughing) finds herself getting turned on by, uh, the prostitute, Chloe, and her accounts of their sexual encounters.  She finally reaches her first orgasm through self-stimulation.

Attorney 1: Objection, your honor!  According to numerous statutes of precedents pertaining to amorous relations in movies, self-satisfaction is limited to films about young American males and apple pies or films airing on Cinemax at two in the morning.

Judge: Hold on, council, let’s take this one issue at a time.  Let’s talk about the prostitute.

Attorney 2:  There has to be one, your honor.  The story won’t work without it.

Judge:  Understood, council.  It’s just, well, does she have to be “dirty” and “sexually amorphous?”  Julia Roberts was never any of those things in Pretty Woman.  Why can’t the prostitute be a sweet college girl who is misguided because of daddy issues?  She appears virginal, but that’s what makes her so deceptive and evocative.

Attorney 2: The prostitute with a heart of gold?  (Sarcastically) Haven’t seen that one before!

Judge:  Well maybe Chloe . . . that’s the name of the girl, right? (Both attorneys nod).  Maybe she can be a little different.  Maybe instead of daddy issues, she has mommy issues.  She’s a lesbian, right?

Attorney 1:  I concur, your honor.  Maybe she can say innocent and girly things to justify her job, like “I try to find something I love in everyone I’m with.”  And she can’t be a homosexual.

Judge: Yes, I like where prosecution’s going with this.  Maybe she never sleeps with the husband in the first place, she’s just making up the stories.

Attorney 1:  Oh, just so she can accept the money Julianne Moore pays her?

Judge:  Maybe.  But maybe she just wants to be around Julianne Moore because she thinks she’s her mother.

Attorney 2: I’ll reluctantly agree to this as long as we can have four topless shots of Amanda Seyfried and two of Julianne Moore.

Attorney 1:  I’ll agree to four of Julianne Moore and two for Amanda Seyfried.

Attorney 2: Deal.  But if she is a virginal college student with a heart of gold, how do we establish her as a prostitute?

Judge:  Easy.  Opening shots of the film show her in a skimpy S+M suit.

Attorney 1: Not see through, though.

Judge: All right, let’s move on to the issue of Julianne Moore’s character, Catherine is it? (Attorneys nod).  She’s ignored in her house by her husband and son, both of who seem to be having sex.

Attorney 1: Seem to, your honor.

Attorney 2: What?  How is she not going to turn to masturbation if she doesn’t feel sexually alienated?

Attorney 1: Liam Neeson plays the husband, Henry.  Remember Schindler’s List?  He’s too morally upright to play a philandering spouse.

Judge: I like where the prosecution is going.  Maybe she just discovers a picture on his phone.  No sex or anything, just a picture of him with a girl.  What’s he do for a living?

Attorney 2: He is professor of opera, your honor.

Judge: Ah, a professor.  That’s easy, they’re practically expected to be sleeping with their students.  Maybe he comes in close contact with them to “stay connected” with the student body.

Attorney 1: Or several student’s bodies (the court chuckles).

Judge: Silence in my court!

Attorney 2: So he never actually sleeps with anyone?  Not Chloe or any other students?  Darn, we contracted him for a couple of sex scenes.

Attorney 1: We were willing to offer the defense a few provocative shots of Chloe and Henry going at it.  But maybe they can just be all in Catherine’s imagination.  You know, to make the “final twist” of Chloe not actually sleeping with Henry all the more shocking.

Attorney 2: You would have to have a movie IQ of negative ten not to see that “shocking twist” coming.

Judge:  All right, let’s proceed to the film’s ending.

Attorney 2: All right, your honor.  We contend that the film should end with Chloe and Catherine having sex, Henry discovering them, and taking their son and leaving her.

Attorney 1:  We don’t like this ending, your honor.  The prosecution feels the ending should return the characters to a domestic harmony, highlighting the importance of the family unit in today’s chaotic and secular society.

Attorney 2:  How can this happen if Catherine is cheating on her husband in a lesbian tryst with Chloe?

Judge: Good question, council.

Attorney 1:  The prosecution contends that it shouldn’t be Chloe’s body that turns Catherine on, it should be Chloe’s description of her imaginary encounters with Catherine’s husband.  You know, she misses him, she misses touching him.  She asks Chloe to touch her like her husband used to touch her.  They make up by the end of the picture when it’s revealed that he never actually slept with anyone, and they passionately embrace.

Attorney 2: Oh please. So the entire premise of homoerotic curiosity is lodged in the fact that, fundamentally, Catherine just wants to have sex with her husband again?  How much more bourgeoisie can you get?

Judge: Defense has a good point.

Attorney 1: I didn’t think that would entirely fly.  All right, we’ll give you one scene of close-up sex between Chloe and Catherine. (Cheers heard in the audience).

Judge: Silence! Who is that sitting behind you, defense?

Attorney 2: Oh, just the film’s American producers.  They’ve been lobbying that for a long time.

American Producer: Well that’s it, we got the lesbian scene we wanted.  We’re out of here to make sure the scene’s tame enough for the MPAA to not slap us with an NC-17 like they did with Where the Truth Lies (they leave the court).

Judge: Well I’m glad to see someone happy.  Now we need to solve the nature of the ending.

Attorney 1: Well, we don’t really think Catherine should suffer.  Mothers and wives need to be there for husbands and sons – you know, to throw birthday parties and be at piano recitals and all.  Fundamentally, the prostitute needs to be eliminated for being hedonistic and destructive to the family unit.

Judge: Yes, we’ve seen the obsessive lover die before.  Remember Fatal Attraction and Unfaithful?

Attorney 2: But I thought you established Chloe as an innocent, virginal schoolgirl type?

Attorney 1:  Your honor, we like the idea of Chloe being distraught when Catherine discovers her having sex with her son.  You know, as a means of payback with Catherine rejects her.  Maybe she jumps out of a window.  Supreme pathos there.

Judge: Defense?

Attorney 2:  Totally nonsensical and laughably over-the-top.  I’m sure if our producers were here, they’d like the idea of another sex scene though.

Judge:  Well then it’s settled.  She’ll leap out the window.

Attorney 2: I did mention that it was nonsensical and over-the-top.

Judge: Your American producers have left the court.  You have no more power. Case is dismissed!

Rating: