Washington, DC International Film Festival Launches 24th Year

The Cinema Lounge

Adam's Rib Looks Back at the Best of the '00s

DC Film Festival Sneak Preview

Chloe: A Press Conference with Director Atom Egoyan, Producer Ivan Reitman, and Actresses Julianne Moore and Amanda Seyfried

By James McCaskill and Annette Graham, DC Film Society Members

Atom Egoyan's latest film Chloe opened March 26. This press conference took place at the London Film Festival. Present were director Atom Egoyan, producer Ivan Reitman, actress Julianne Moore and actress Amanda Seyfried.

Question: What was it about the piece that turned you on?
Ivan Reitman: I was the first one to see it. There was a lovely French movie called Natalie that played the Toronto Film Festival four or five years ago. I thought what an interesting concept for a movie. I thought there was lots more to explore in it and was able to buy the rights and hired Erin Cressida Wilson to start writing a screenplay which we worked on for a few years. For a moment I thought I might actually direct it myself then thought better and thought Atom Egoyan would do a much better job of this and called him up and he fortunately responded to the screenplay. That's how this whole thing evolved.
Amanda Seyfried: The challenge. I'm pretty young in my career and haven't had many opportunities to spread my wings. It was an opportunity I couldn't resist. I couldn't resist the challenge. And also Atom.
Julianne Moore: For me it was Atom. We'd known each other since the early 1990s and I'd been a great great admirer of his work and had rushed him at the Toronto Film Festival and said I really hope we can work together someday. So it was lucky, great circumstance when I received the script and Atom said he wanted me to do it. So I was inclined to say yes immediately.
Atom Egoyan: For me it was Ivan, the ability to work with the man who made Ghostbusters. It was an extraordinary script. I'd seen the French film as well. It would have never occurred to me to remake it. What this really is is a reinvention of it. I thought Erins' script was really compelling and an amazing opportunity to work with wonderful actors. I'd always had Julianne in mind because I've loved her work for so many years. Every young actress you can think of and Amanda was so, so astonishing. I had done a play with Liam [Neeson] and he said wanted to do something else and I said well this is it, let's do this. So this incredible cast came together and it was a great opportunity.

Question: There are some quite intimate scenes in this. How did you approach them and discuss them and was it a day that burned in the script?
Atom Egoyan: Every scene is treated like a dramatic scene. That's first and foremost what we would talk about. Of course you talk about how it's going to be photographed and make sure the actresses are feeling comfortable. But once that's out of the way then it's really about the drama and where those two characters are. And that's what makes that scene powerful, because they are in such different spaces in their own minds. So there's a physical intimacy but we know that they're thinking about so many different things and that's what gives it its charge. So yes there are stresses and considerations when you're shooting that sort of scene but really it's about drama and has to be rooted in that.
Amanda Seyfried: It always is very technical when you have to do something very physically intimate. Atom showed us exactly what he had in mind to make it as easy as possible and then we just laughed.
Julianne Moore: We had already spent a lot of time together by the time we shot that scene. We'd had a lot of heavy emotional scenes and a lot of language and we'd established the relationship. It was very prepared. Atom knew exactly how he wanted to shoot it; we knew how we were going to do it. And then you just make a lot of jokes, which you always do when you do a love scene whether it is a man or a woman. There's usually a lot of jokes.
Atom Egoyan: One funny thing I remember is we had these two stand-ins as you do when shooting a film. I took the stand-ins aside and said it might be more comfortable for the actressses if we were able to show them what it might look like. So I had the stand-ins choreograph the scene and then I brought Amanda and Julianne in and we all started laughing because it seemed so ridiculous that they're watching these two other people writhing on a bed. And it was kind of unnecessary as it turned out. I really do think it's about preparation, or over-preparation in that case.

Question for Amanda: Congratulations on a remarkably sensuous performance. Did you think your character was predatory or vulnerable and did you find it easy or difficult to relate to some presumably quite different from yourself?
Amanda Seyfried: It was difficult to relate to her until I started absorbing what Atom was actually describing to me. Because we spoke at great length about Chloe and about how she was dealing with different moments in the film. It was just so extensive. I felt overwhelmed at times about how much information you had and I was able to finally absorb to a point where I could really really connect to her and to fall in love with her. I really did like her. It was completely challenging. This character is so inconsistent throughout the movie. It's almost like I'm playing so many different characters in one and it's really exciting to do that.

Question: Julianne, you are playing older women in two films in the festival: A Single Man and this one. Most of us don't see you as older. How it feels doing these older parts now? And Amanda what it feels like to work with Julianne whose work you must have known before?
Julianne Moore: Age is relative. You're older if there's somebody younger than you in the room and you're younger if there's somebody older in the room. I think I'm playing in both movies my age which is 48. In this movie I think it's about a woman's confidence eroding in a long-term relationship which can happen if you're young, medium, old, whatever. I think having been together for a long time, there's something that's been lacking in the relationship. And frankly her husband has given her cause to feel insecure. You see him paying all this attention to much younger women and not paying that much attention to her. So that could happen given wherever you are in your life. That erosion of who you are and lack of confidence in your partner can be most destructive to a relationship. One of the things that I liked about the relationship with Amanda too is precisely what's happening to her which is the feeling of not being seen. She basically finds someone who is receptive and open and pays her attention then she just projects everything onto in order to find her way back to her husband. When she says to her husband You don't see me, I'm not here for you anymore." she does it to the other young woman who is simply kind of conduit to her husband. She doesn't acknowledge her as a human being.
Amanda Seyfried: Working with her? It was amazing. I got to work with talented actresses whose work I have seen. And I've learned a lot. You've done a lot of stuff. You're not old.
Julianne Moore: Older than you.
Amanda Seyfried: This is the first time I've worked on a movie with someone like Julianne where I've been respected. And it's the best feeling in the world. It makes me feel like an equal. Sometimes you don't get that.

Question: I've seen the original film but don't remember the thriller aspects as being so prominent. Is that something you wanted to bring out in order to make the character of Chloe a bit more emotionally threatening?
Atom Egoyan: It certainly was something that was in the script by the time I read it. But it is part of the reinvention. That's not there at all in the French film. There's no thriller aspect at all. But it's something that Ivan saw when he watched the film.
Ivan Reitman: I felt the story needed some kind of motor. There's something very dangerous about this situation. There's very few movies about mature relationships, about long term marriages, what happens to sexuality when you've been with the same person for 10, 15, 20 or in my case over 35 years. And to tell a story about that and then when some other person comes into that story there's an inherent danger to it and to the whole family unit. Just trying to work those dynamics into a seriously told story, a naturally told story about family, about partnerships. I thought it would be really interesting.

Question: Liam was obviously going through a very difficult time due to tragic personal circumstances. How much did that affect the production in terms of shooting schedule.
Atom Egoyan: Of course it affected the film in a profound way. But what was remarkable was that he did come back and he was so professional and so dedicated to the film, it was astonishing. Yet that old adage is absolutely true that the show does goes on. I think in some ways the best thing he could have done was to be back with a group of people who supported him in a working environment. We were so blessed by his determination to finish the film.
Ivan Reitman: Most of all it affected the film in technical things, in a subtle way and sometimes dramatic way for a few days. But most of all it affected us as human beings. We become a family on a film. He's an extraordinarily talented but fine man. To see tragedy strike so close and so quickly. Everything seems ordinary, life is going along and suddenly something happens like this, it forces you to think about your own life and how ephemeral everything is.

Question: We always appreciate actresses who don't use body doubles. Has the person in your life seen this film and what is his reaction?
Amanda Seyfried: He's seen half of it. Funny story. We were seeing it for the first time together and his tooth chipped. He called my friend's dentist for an emergency appointment because he's also an actor who needs that piece of chipped tooth to be put back on in a timely fashion. So therefore he did not see the bulk of it unfortunately. But he can redeem himself tonight because he is going to watch the second half and then he can finally tell me how he feels about the content.

Question for Julianne Moore: You look absolutely stunning in the movie. You always do. When you know you are going to have to disrobe and the camera is going to go lovingly on your body. Do you feel that because Hollywood can be quite fascist at times towards women that you go on a diet beforehand?
Julianne Moore: Beforehand? Constantly! You're trying to be nice to the cameraman, chatting up Atom. It's very unnerving obviously. The camera is pretty close and as we've established I'm pretty old. I keep swearing I'm never going to do this again.and then I get another script that I want to do except this time it's with a girl. Of course you have a tremendous amount of trepidation about this. But one of the things I admire so much about Atom is that he makes movies about the human condition, about who we are, what we want, how we communicate with one another. And as Ivan said, this is also an exploration of a long term relationship and what happens in it and human sexuality. That all helps because you realize you're not trying to communicate something that's completely unrealistic. It's supposed to be about this woman in this particular point in time. So while yes, vanity comes in to play at least you have the support of knowing that you're trying to tell a story about a woman who is your own age in a relationship. But that aside, yes of course I dieted.

Question: What are the main challenges of adapting foreign films?
Ivan Reitman: I think the challenges are the same in any picture which is telling an original story in an original way. Finding a truth in the story that people can relate to. Really there was just this kernel of an idea in the original film that attracted me to tell the story again in a fresh way. I felt there was great opportunities in the continuation of the story the French movie posed. I wasn't thinking of making an American film vs. a French film. It was just the best way to tell the story.

Question for Julianne Moore: I saw the film in Toronto and again this morning, and am trying to understand your relationship with the girl. Can you tell us something more about the attraction to the girl and her love for you. I really don't understand your idea
Julianne Moore: I think that Catherine doesn't feel seen by her husband, doesn't feel like she exists in any kind of a sexual way. She doesn't understand what her husband wants any more; she has lost touch with her own sexuality and what he is looking for. And she meets this girl who just listens to her and who is incredibly receptive and attentive and she starts to spend time with her and then it occurs to her that she might be able to experience what her husband is feeling or learn from this girl, find a way to get to her husband. One of the things she finally says to her when she sleeps with her is, "Tell me how he touches you. What does he do?" She feels that by being with her physically she is going to find a way to feel what he feels and therefore feel kind of close to him. Now unfortunately I don't think she ever takes this girl as a person. I don't think she ever sees her, I don't think she wants to. So what I liked was the duality of the character. I liked the idea that here is someone who is so bereft and so lacking in confidence and feeling so unloved. I like the duality of the character. Here was someone feeling so unloved who was simultaneously able to go down that path in her own relationship with her husband. And then this utter callousness of "No, you are for me. I'm not thinking of you." And she says "This meant something to me." And Catherine says "Yeah, I liked it but guess what, it didn't mean anything to me. This is about my husband." That to me is interesting cinematically and emotionally, that there is this duality in this character that she is very much about her own needs and own relationship and simultaneously able to really hurt someone and not understand it until the end. I think that's the tragedy of the end. "How did this happen?" She uses this girl. That's the nature of intimacy and perception. If something is happening do we know it's happening or is it only that we perceive it? And because Catherine perceives it it's actually happening. And for Chloe as well. Chloe is perceiving a relationship as happening that Catherine is not participating in. But that doesn't make it any less real. One of the things that I've always loved about Atom's films is that it is about perception about what that reality means to us. And then with the audience you have another perception happening all the time. Because the audience is having a different experience and perception of that same story. But that's the nature of communication and mis-communication and the mess we make of our relationships. It was all interesting to me.
Atom Egoyan: That's a really beautiful response. There's that scene outside the elevator where Catherine stops and talks about how it used to be, and how physical the relationship was. She is so consumed in her loss over that moment, and there's a great second where she looks at Chloe and says, "Have you ever felt that way?" There's something almost accusing and angry. It's all in that moment where she's using Chloe in almost a therapeutic way for her to hear all this. And yet there's an anger towards her as well. Obviously when you work with extraordinarly intelligent actresses and people who are able to absorb the contraditions of the part, It creates something else. And the script of course is so beautifully written as well. And a lot of those passages were not written in the French original . It didn't really go to that place where Catherine is exploring a therapeutic relationship that she has engineered and is directing in a way. That is part of the thrill that she feels. There's something cruel about that as well because she's dealing with this part of herself that she has come to loathe and yet wants to desperately to retrieve.

Question: There is a line in movie when you do say I feel old and invisible. I think it's because they've stopped taking care of their relationship. Do you take time out to take care of that side of your life?
Julianne Moore: I think we try; I think everyone does. As Ivan said, there's a lot that a life encompasses. They say this at the beginning. We spent all our time together we waited for each other outside of appointments. And then of course, you get married, you have jobs, you have children, you have friends, you have travel. Suddenly what started out as just two people becomes this huge life and usually becomes a family as well. So the thing that you spent 95% of your energy and time on becomes something that suddenly is mixed in with everything else. So it ceases to have that central importance in your life. That doesn't mean it's centrally not important because it is. But all of us then struggle with how to keep that relationship alive and yet it can't be static either. It's never going to be what it was when you first met because you're not in that place anymore and you're not necessarily the same people. That's the struggle that you're trying to make the relationship move forward with the rest of your life and make it special and make it meaningful. It's incredibly challenging. But that's one of the reasons that this film is so relatable. One of the things I'm most proud of is that I feel that Liam and I really seem like we've been together for a long time. We had a scene in the car that Atom actually hadn't conceived of as being like a fight. We did it and we were all alone in the car and the camera was outside and it kept escalating and our lines were on top of each other until it turned into a kind of spat. Then it dissipated and he kept driving. We both felt it was realistic. You didn't mean to fight; you're just sitting in the car. But you set each other off and then you're left with that. But it didn't turn into a big fight it was just there and you move on. And I think that's something we all understand. It's a challenge. It doesn't mean it's not valuable and that you shouldn't keep at it. But you can't deny that it's something that is incredibly difficult to do.

Thanks for the London Film Festival for permission to use this press conference (edited and condensed).

Mother Q&A with Director Bong Joon-Ho

South Korean director Bong Joon-ho made a splash (and piles of money) with a mutant Han River monster in The Host, the biggest box office hit in Korean film history. In Mother he takes on the overprotective, obsessive Asian mother whose mentally-challenged son is accused of murder. He said, "The relationship between mother and son is the focus. Every element in the story, from the murder in the village to some other minor incidents, is there to explore this relationship in its entirety. But if you look at the film as a whole, it's not just about motherhood and their relationship, it also hints at something greater again." Mother opened March 26 and is currently playing at Landmark's E Street Cinema.

This Q&A took place on March 2 at Landmark's E Street Cinema. DC Film Society director Michael Kyrioglou moderated.

Michael Kyrioglou: What are the origins of the story which you worked on before The Host?
Bong Joon-Ho: I was inspired to work with Kim Hye-ja, a leading actress in Korea. She has been acting for 40 years and most Koreans know her. She is almost a mythical actress and the epitome of the mother figure role in the film industry. I grew up watching her on TV and always wanted to work with her. I sensed a dark side that could be in her, contrary to what she is known for. I wanted to bring out the dark obsession in mother psychosis.

Michael Kyrioglou: Did she make any suggestions as to the character of the story?
Bong Joon-ho: No. She wasn't part of the script writing. But her initial reaction to the script was very impressive. Her first reaction was "I see a lonely wounded animal trying to protect its baby. That's where I got inspiration and guidance--a lonely hurt animal trying to protect its baby. She had strong but sad feelings after reading the script. But I'm most grateful she agreed to play the role. If she had not agreed, the project would have been scrapped. To replace her was out of the question.

Question: What was the budget?
Bong Joon-ho: Excluding marketing, only the production--$4 to 5 million. This is average for films in Korea. It's not a big scale movie, just average.

Question: Where did you get the inspiration for the visual theme of her alone in the field?
Bong Joon-ho: I thought about it 4 to 5 years ago. I think this opening scene shows her madness and the feeling that she is out of this world with her weird purple clothes. With the opening scene in the field of flowers I wanted to surprise the audience. Viewers are being attacked; it's very random and suddenly she stares at the screen. That's not normal. I wanted to focus on her face. The lady isn't normal and would gradually become more psychotic throughout the movie. You see her in the middle of the field alone--isolated, helpless. The image of her is one of loneliness. I wanted to repeat it throughout the movie. But at the same time you see a lot of closeups. But very long shots at the same time. I wanted that contrast.

Question: The Host and Mother have an ending that is not happy and not sad. Is that a typical Korean movie ending?
Bong Joon-ho: Sixty to seventy films are made each year in Korea. Many are romantic movies with a happy ending. But my movies aren't typical in that way. It's just my style. My movies tend to end that way.

Question: The Host premiered in the US and now Mother is opening in the US. Do you plan to make movies in the US and who do you want to work with?
Bong Joon-ho: Since The Host, I have been receiving scripts from agencies in Hollywood but 80-90% of the scripts I find ridiculous. In Korea I have 100% control with final cut. But I understand studios in Hollywood have more power and control over movies. As long as I have 100% control I have no problem working in Japan, US, or anywhere else. I did work on an omnibus film in Japan [the segment "Shaking Tokyo" in Tokyo!. In the US there are a lot of actors I would like to work with. But the question is would they want to work with me?

Question: Could you elaborate on the ending?
Bong Joon-ho: You see her with her acupuncture needle. She is in agony wants to forget her painful memories. If you stick a needle in your thigh you forget memories and pain. She tries to do the same to her son. Her son commits a murder and she also committed a murder. It is really a hellish situation. She is trying to forget all those memories. This movie theme is memory equals pain--pain from recollection and horror from recollection. She tried to poison her son when he was five years old and endures that painful memory. How can she keep going on with that pain? So she tries to erase it. It was ironic that throughout the movie all actions committed by the mother are committed for her son. In the ending scene she is doing something for herself for a change. She has to do it in such a hellish situation.

Question: Should we assume that the son knows what his mother has done when he gives her back the needles?
Bong Joon-ho: How much does the son know? I get this question from people in Korea. I wanted to know this even when writing the script. I think he is an enigma, a perplexed character. We never know. Most people think he is stupid or mentally challenged. Is he stupid? The character has ambiguity. It is told from the perspective of the mother. She never finds out what her son is really like. That is what is the most scary thing about this movie.

Question: Did your mother see the movie?
Bong Joon-ho: My mother saw the movie in May 2009. I was so nervous, more so than when I was in Cannes. She didn't know the plot of the film. I've seen her since then but we don't talk about the movie. Maybe in due time... I hope to discuss the movie with my mother some day.

Mother is currently playing at Landmark's E Street Cinema. See below for more Korean movies in April and May.

Sixth Annual Korean Film Festival

The Eclipse: Q&A with Director Conor McPherson and Actor Ciarán Hinds

By Anita Glick and Annette Graham, DC Film Society Members

A preview screening of The Eclipse was held at the AMC Loew's Georgetown Theater on March 23. Afterward, a short Q&A was held with director Conor McPherson and actor Ciarán Hinds. Conor McPherson is an Irish playwright and filmmaker who has received numerous awards for his plays and has received two Tony nominations. His play "The Seafarer" was performed last year at DC's Studio Theater. Ciarán Hinds is an Irish film and stage actor well known for his portrayal of Julius Caesar in the HBO series Rome. He recently appeared in There Will Be Blood and In Bruges. The discussion was moderated by Nelson Pressley; he has been covering theater in the Washington area for more than a decade and has served as the chief drama critic of both The Washington Post and The Washington Times. The Eclipse is a film about the challenges of love, fear of the unknown, character comedy and horror, and release from the burden of guilt--all embellished by the supernatural.

Nelson Pressley: Two years ago, Conor, I saw you in New York; at the time it was your play "The Seafarer." Since then you and Ciarán collaborated on "The Birds," in Dublin, is that correct?
Conor McPherson: Yes, we did the show at the Dublin Theater just last October with Ciarán and Sinead Cusack.

Nelson Pressley: And now this. So I'm wondering how your dreams are these days? (everyone laughs)
Conor McPherson: They're good.

Nelson Pressley: But it is interesting. The supernatural, the thriller; it's got to be a different vocabulary doing this on stage as opposed to doing it on screen, for both of you, I would think.
Conor McPherson: Yes. They're very different things, stage and screen. On stage you need so much dialogue otherwise when people stop talking it feels like nothing is happening. But in film you can get inside the actor's mind, inside what they are really thinking. Somehow I think that's a great luxury to be able to do that without having to actually have people say something. I'm sure it's very different for Ciarán as well, different kinds of acting.
Ciarán Hinds: When we're on stage the idea is you inhabit the soul of the character, but you have to also push it out there, to share it with the audience. Whereas camera work is very different in that as you perform it it has to be emanating from inside you and you hope the camera picks it up.

Nelson Pressley: Have you watched it with audiences before? I imagine you must have. We got some good screams here tonight. Is this how it's been going?
Conor McPherson: Yes. We had just managed to finish the film in time for our very first screening which was in New York at the Tribeca Festival last April. So we really had no idea what the reaction was going be. I was just wondering is it even going to work or make sense and when people started to really freak out it was very gratifying. I know that's a very perverse thing to say but I think that in a film like this, yes it is a horror film in a way. But what is happening to Ciarán's character if we don't feel as frightened as he is at those moments. It doesn't quite take us deep into his predicament which is really what we're trying to do and have the audience feel his sense of isolation with what he's experiencing and the inner turmoil that he somehow needs to escape from.
Ciarán Hinds: I first saw it last April at Tribeca and in Boston last night. So this is the third time I've seen it. Tonight it was quite gratifying. Throughout the story we strive for a sense of truth that therefore you can allow these visitations or manifestations to be also the possibility that they actually do happen to people whether they're self-manifested or whether they're visitations from beyond, whether they're dredged up through guilt or through fear or panic. Tonight just watching it with the audience I was gratified that the little elements of pure humanity that exist between people, the elements of humor that are thrown in, the truisms of life were responded to. That was very gratifying for me.

Question: Are the ghosts Michael's exclusively? What about the scratches on his arms? Otherwise, I get the impression that all of these experiences he has are a product of his own psyche and the things that he is going through.
Conor McPherson: I want to have my cake and eat it. I want it to be a psychological manifestation of all the things he can't process but have to be dealt with. But also I would like it to be real as well. So the scratches on his arm--she does say, "You could have done this to yourself." Maybe that's possible too. You want to leave people with more questions. I don't want to leave people saying, "I don't know what that was about at all." But certainly that you come away talking about it and thinking about it which is more interesting to me than really nailing it as one thing or another. It's a very good question, but it's not one that I have the answer to actually.
Audience: The dog barked.
Conor McPherson: The dog knew. But if you want to look at it on a purely rational way that the ghosts aren't real, it's possible that the dog might be sensing something else. I don't know. But personally I would like to sort of believe the ghosts are real. But that's just my opinion.
Audience: Is it fair to ask what "Michael" feels about it?
Ciarán Hinds: It's fair. Obviously, Conor wrote and directed it--he sees one thing. When I saw it the first time, the manifestation... there are nightmares and dreams. It's like the life we lead. The malign and the benign. The good and the bad. The light and the dark. To me the idea of the redemption at the end, the visitation finally of the wife that he was waiting for. To be able to really really grieve. He was blocked, he felt guilty. Her selfness her possibility of allowing him to go to me reads very true. On the other side, the malign of the father in law manifesting itself in that way, I would put down to his own state of guilt and inability to focus on what he could do--knowing that his father in law hates him because his daughter died of cancer. Even though he was in no way responsible for that, it doesn't matter--he should have saved her, says the father. So he's guilty in every way. And also he's in a home. He's just trying to look after his kids. So his self-induced visitations of this man are full of bile and rage and that's what he feels. The other thing is the opposite of that, the cathartic release at the end.

Question: Could you talk about the lovely patterns of windows throughout the movie?
Conor McPherson: For me it was three things--windows, mirrors, and pictures were usually in almost every shot. For me it was a little hole into the beyond--somehow that the infinite is just beyond the veil of what we can touch and know. So in a sense I'm just to try to suggest that feeling. It's not literal, not a message, just to aid the feeling that perhaps Michael was close to something grabbing him.

Nelson Pressley: Conor, what about the transition for you from writing in words to writing in images? You have a fairly long body of work behind you. In plays, as you said earlier, the actors speak it all. But here it almost seems that it comes naturally for you--this whole thinking in otherwordly ways and thinking and being able to write in images. Was that a tricky transition for you?
Conor McPherson: No. it was a beautiful thing to be able to do. It's lovely to be able to move to a different place and be able to tell a story. It's still just storytelling, but to do it in a different way in film. It's lovely . You get to take lovely photographs, and have lovely music. Plays are hard to do. It's got to happen now, it's got to happen here. You got to believe it. It's all got to work in one compressed time frame. It's tough. It's great, we love it. But in film you have that extra feeling that you are a little more in control of all the elements. I sometimes think when the audience watching a play that we all have to concentrate so hard that we all go on a collective concentrated dream together in the darkness.

The Eclipse opens in Washington, DC on April 9.

We Need to Hear From YOU

Calendar of Events