Chloe
Whereas the original, Nathalie…, is virtually devoid of any tension and anticipation, Chloe is a Hitchcock thriller for the 21st century.

In 1960, Alfred Hitchcock created a very unique trailer. Although the montage trailer format becoming increasingly popular, he decided to walk around the set of his upcoming release Psycho pointing out different sinister locations and hinting at key plot points without really giving anything away. Oh how times have changed.

Now it seems that studios try to squeeze as many highlights from the film into the trailer as possible. In some cases, this is good marketing logic, especially if the film has very few highlights in the first place. If the film itself isn’t that good, it is best to advertise what good bits there are into the trailer so people will think it is better than it is. When the film is particularly good though, there is little logic in giving away all of the highlights. In fact, the trailer for Chloe goes even further and reprehensibly gives away key plot twists in order to make the film seem more marketable. It sacrifices emotive, unpredictable plot points in order to get the film a bigger audience. Although the thought process behind it is simple (i.e. the film will bring in more money) it shouldn’t be at expense of the viewer’s experience. It is akin to Hitchcock changing the Psycho trailer to Norman Bates wearing a wig, shouting ‘I am the mother’ at the screen. Apologies if you have yet to see Psycho but, it has been half a century now, you should have.

Based on the 2003 French film, Nathalie…, the plot of Chloe is fairly straightforward. David (Liam Neeson) is a very affable lecturer with a lot of admirers. In one of the first scenes we see a pretty girl asking him out to a post-lecture drink in front of her classmates. He declines as it is his birthday and waiting at home in a different city is his wife, Catherine (Julianne Moore), who has put together a surprise party for his return. As the crowded house waits with baited breath for their guest of honour, David phones home saying he has missed his flight and won’t be home for hours. In the background we see the pretty young girl approaching him and our alarm bells start to ring. From her expression, it seems that Catherine has already heard these bells ringing for quite a while now.

When she checks his phone the next day and discovers a picture of him with the girl, it confirms her fears that her husband is having an affair. This is confirmed by the swift minimisation of chat windows when she approaches him at the family computer.

Catherine is a gynaecologist and, looking from her surgery windows onto the street below, notices one prostitute, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), with various clients. As her husband’s obvious flirting with the waitress pushes her to further despair, she withdraws to the toilet where she discovers Chloe crying. As Catherine’s marriage spirals into crisis, she begins to pay Chloe to act as a honey-trap and test whether or not her husband will cheat on her. This is the point the trailer should’ve left it.

Catherine visits Chloe more frequently as she yearns for her husband’s attention and whilst a quite predictable twist seems inevitable, the film remains thoroughly engaging.

As always, Atom Egoyan is an excellent portrayer and observer of the human condition and, here, he is directing three thoroughly complex characters.

Amanda Seyfried, in the most challenging role of her fledgling career, manages to be both vulnerable and predatory as the title character but it is Julianne Moore who steals the show.

As Catherine, Moore is truly exceptional.  With one look, she displays such forceful emotion within her character that you can completely emphasise with the torture her thoughts are giving her.

In the opening scene a patient stresses that she has never been able to have an orgasm. Moore responds that she shouldn’t be waiting for anything special, it is merely a scientific process, devoid of love and passion. This is her state of mind. She dislikes the passion that seems to be constantly surrounding her; a friend with a girlfriend half his age, the swarm of businessmen preying on escorts, the constant attention her handsome husband receives and her teenage son in his first sexual relationship. She conveys her character so genuinely that when there is physical intimacy, the passion is intense.

Moore’s character contrasts entirely with Neeson’s. While Catherine looks in the mirror and sees an older person than she wants to be, Neeson gets more and more handsome with age. Catherine feels a constant lack of attention and yearns to be noticed, while Neeson, with his infectious charm, is sought after by students, colleagues and various females.

The dialogue and interaction between the husband and wife of a marriage in which any enthusiasm is quickly eroding away, is sharp and there are scenes in which it is hard not to be affected by the desperate desire of Catherine to say the words to David that she is finding it so hard to say.

The contrast to the trailers of Hitchcock’s Psycho and Chloe is noteworthy as this is a film that draws many parallels with the master of suspense. Whereas the original, Nathalie…, is virtually devoid of any tension and anticipation, Chloe is a Hitchcock thriller for the 21^st century. There are aspects of this that are more noticeable than others; the voyeurism of Catherine observing Chloe throughout the film is an evident hat-tip towards Rear Window. The frequent accompaniment of strings and drums are unquestionably as sharp and dissonant as Bernard Hermann’s Psycho score. There is even a MacGuffin thrown in to keep you thinking. However, if you want to retain the element of suspense and, in fact, any emotional connection with the film, then just steer well away from the trailer.