MovieChat Forums > Chloe (2010) Discussion > Twist ending

Twist ending

posted 9 years ago by BrianNIL25
7 replies | jump to latest

I watched the movie anticipating a surprise reveal at the end, like maybe Chloe set the situation up to extort money from the family. Or, perhaps, she was actually in cahoots with the husband to test his wife's faithfulness. Of course, these were not the case--she simply obsessed over the wife and made up stories about seducing the husband.

I saw another film by Atom Egoyan, The Captive, and got the same feeling. Something about this guy's style sets me up for a major surprise, but I'm left with a straightforward resolution, making me feel like the twist is that there is no twist. Anybody else get this feeling?

[–] NeedysBoy 9 years ago

The "twist" is paradoxical.

The one you thought was a lair (Chloe) was not.

Why else is she associated with white and light throughout the film?

 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

[–] BrianNIL25 9 years ago

You pointed out the Christ imagery associated with Chloe in my previous post (which I deleted after watching the movie again and gaining more information) and I appreciated the insight. However, here you're saying Chloe was not a liar, but in another thread you say Egoyan himself (the director) said she made up the stories about her affair with the husband.

I'm also not sure why you're associating imagery with a twist in the plot. That she lied about having an affair with the husband was certainly a twist, but what I meant in my original post is I expected more, in terms of what happened, not what it represented.

[–] NeedysBoy 9 years ago

"...she made up the stories about her affair with the husband."

The stories are analogous to parables.

"I'm also not sure why you're associating imagery with a twist in the plot."

Not imagery, but allegory.

Catherine begins by seeking to reconnect with her husband, but what gives her the youthful appearance in the end is not a physical love (her husband is symbolically on the other side of the room), but a spiritual love (Chloe becomes infinite in death).

 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

[–] BrianNIL25 9 years ago

Analogies, parables, allegory....my original post is about what actually happens, nothing more.

"White" and "light" may point to allegory, but they are still imagery.

Just to get this straight, when Chloe tells the wife that she's had sex with her husband, you don't take this as a lie to hook up with the wife but as some sort of life lesson? I'm willing to accept Chloe as a Christ figure in the sense that she sacrifices herself, but not in the sense that she represents Jesus at all points in the movie. Last I checked Jesus didn't go around scamming on married chicks with bogus stories that resulted in sex with them.

As far as all this allegory talk goes, I'm apt to subscribe to the theory about the hairpin. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1352824/board/thread/248566310

None of this, however, has anything to do with my original post. All I'm saying is I expected something else to happen, and all you're saying is that the stuff that did happen has hidden meaning. Fine, but irrelevant.

[–] NeedysBoy 9 years ago

"Just to get this straight, when Chloe tells the wife that she's had sex with her husband, you don't take this as a lie..."

No. I think it is not a lie. Not to labor the point, but an allegory runs through an entire story; it is not limited to just one scene. The stories that Chloe tells, cannot be lies. Christ cannot lie; therefore, her stories are analogous to the parables told by Christ: little stories that reveal a moral truth. In this case, David is the lair, or he doesn't love Catherine any more.

"Fine, but irrelevant."

Not irrelevant. Sorry to labor the point again, but an allegory is always more important than the literal. When Christ is called the "Lamb of God" for example, it doesn't mean that He bleated and ate grass.

The film is about the love that Catherine finds. It is not the physical love of David. (Note that in the end, he is on the opposite end of the room from Catherine.) It is the spiritual Love of her Saviour. There were even alternate endings once on YouTube: in one Catherine says, She could have saved herself, but instead, she saved me.

 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich

[–] BrianNIL25 9 years ago

Thank you for the explanation, now I really understand where you're coming from.

From your point of view, seeing the movie as an allegory is certainly relevant to the twist ending or lack thereof.

However, I do disagree with you. I think Chloe only represents Christ in that she sacrifices herself, and that any resemblance or imagery relating to Christ (i.e. white and light) only foreshadows her sacrifice, and should not be extended to mean that she represents Christ in any other way. A lot of books and movies (Braveheart and Gran Torino come to mind) feature Christ-like imagery that suggests a character sacrifices his or her life for a greater good. I don't think the characters of Chloe, Braveheart, or Clint Eastwood's character should be equated to Christ in any further way other than they sacrificed their lives.

I don't think Chloe's stories are analogous to the parables told by Christ. He didn't put Himself into parables in which He commits sins such as adultery to teach a lesson. I mean, think about it, if Chloe's stories are true and she is Christ, then you're saying Christ would give a handjob to a married dude.

I think Chloe's stories are simply lies made up to manipulate Catherine into a relationship with her.

Thanks for the conversation. I think we can at least agree that Amanda Seyfried is some kind of heavenly creature ;-)

[–] NeedysBoy 9 years ago

Dada is nothing; and yet it applies itself to everything. It is where the Yes and the No and all the Opposites meet...

 Celebrating 100 Years of DADA * Feb. 5, 1916 * Zurich