MovieChat Forums > Chloe (2010) Discussion > Didn't quite understand...

Didn't quite understand...

posted 14 years ago by sakura_droplet
21 replies | jump to latest

I really enjoyed this film but there are certain things I didn't quite 'get' mostly regarding the character of Chloe. The thing is I'm not sure if these things are supposed to be ambiguous or I'm just looking into it too much, but I thought'd be worth asking anyway.

Okay, so I get the main plot: Catherine is paranoid that her husband may be having an affair, and as a couple they've sort of drifted apart over the years, possibly enhanced by the trouble with the son and his fling with the older woman. So then Catherine decides to find out if her suspicions are correct and that's how Chloe becomes involved, etc.

But what I'm unsure of is Chloe and her motives.

- Why did she become so infatuated with Catherine, a woman she's never met, so quickly? Was it simply because Catherine asked her if she was okay when she overhears Chloe crying in the bathroom at the hotel (I guess, in a vague way, an 'act of kindness')?

- Was Chloe supposed to be a lesbian or bisexual woman who was fine sleeping with men for money but could only fall in love or have a relationship with a woman? Or was it just a twisted obsession?

- Was Chloe's background and lack of a good mother figure a reason for her attraction to Catherine? (I guess that'd be the 'Psych 101' option, hehe).

- Or was Chloe nasty and simply wanted to ruin the family and possibly extort them for money or something (I don't think this one's likely as it didn't seem that way, but I guess it's worth putting out there)?

Can anyone shed some light? Thanks.

[–] karahmat 14 years ago

- Catherine was genuinely kind to Chloe at the moment when she was very vulnerable and Chloe instantly felt attached to her seeing her as a mother figure. Probably rare occasion she felt some connection towards anyone.
-She was most likely a lesbian and could develop deep feelings only for another woman as you said.
-Yes, you are right again.
-Obviously she wasn't doing anything for the money, she wanted to have Catherine in her life and naturally she felt betrayed and abandoned when Catherine left her.

[–] NeedysBoy 14 years ago

sakura_droplet writes:
"The thing is I'm not sure if these things are supposed to be ambiguous..."

They were intended to be allegorical.

"But what I'm unsure of is Chloe and her motives."

The symbolism is important in Chloe. You seem to have a handle on the literal level of the film, but I think you detect only a hint of the allegorical level. Chloe is the lost child searching for love and family, but she is also much more.

Catherine is a mistrusting, cold, and controlling woman; a person who doesn't deserve love. Chloe loves her instantly and completely, however. Chloe even tries to get Catherine and David back together. Why does Chloe love Catherine? Think grace.

Think about the symbolism in Chloe's death scene. Chloe receives a wound to the palm of her hand and a kiss from the person who causes her death. When she falls, she is posed cross-like. Those provide the answer to Chloe's real motivations. The allegorical is always more important than the literal.

P. A. T. (Needy's Boy)

[–] nathan1991 14 years ago

wow, I really like that

[–] NeedysBoy 14 years ago

Thanks.

P. A. T. (Needy's Boy)

[–] willywilly 14 years ago

That doesn't describe any kind of motivation for the suicide at all to me? Unless her motivation was to die in allegorical way. But again why would she do that? Unlike Jesus I don't see any cause she had to martyr herself for.

[–] NeedysBoy 14 years ago

willywilly writes:
"Unless her motivation was to die in allegorical way."

Well, yeah, it was. It was Egoyan's intention, anyway.

The cause was love.

Catherine thought her relationship with Chloe was a commercial one; by offering herself, Chloe performs an act of love. She sacrifices herself in a Christ-like way, the symbolism indicates this. Her death atones for Catherine's sins, her machinations to trap David, her interference in Michael's life, and her wealth.

What does Catherine do with her money? She buys the services of Chloe and then tries to dispose of her like -- what's the phrase? An unwanted child. Chloe is treated like an object, like she's invisible. "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me." (Matthew 25:40).

Egoyan doesn't show us the very moment, but Catherine is converted. She reconnects to the sacredness that was lacking in her life. She reconnects to a spiritual love.

"I think it's time to see Amanda sticking guns in people's faces."

[–] willywilly 14 years ago

So basically character lacks credible motive.

[–] eYeDEF 13 years ago

Although the girl was a prostitute. It was perfectly acceptable for her to expect that she was paying Chloe out of a business arrangement and for there not to be any further emotional baggage involved.

That's the whole point of paying a prostitute. Chloe was out of line for demanding more of the relationship. She had accepted Catherine's money until the last scene so it should have been clear, to Chloe of all people, that it was a business relationship.

It was clear how sadistic Chloe was. Telling Catherine these emotionally grueling details that obviously upset her very much, regardless of whether it was true or not ... but given David's reaction to Chloe in the coffee shop it was clear he had not had any sort of tryst with Chloe. Even for a prostitute, toying with a person's emotions on that level does cross the line.

Some fellows get credit for being conservative when they are only stupid.
- Kin Hubbard

[–] TreeHuggerTravels 14 years ago

Jesus reborn=Chloe.......Hmm let me brood on this.

[–] shauna_boucher 14 years ago

I like what I've read but I'm not sure I agree.

____________SPOILERS BELOW________________

Catherine was kind to Chloe in the bathroom but it was when their hands touched. Haven't you ever touched someone who was electric to you? You know, instantly, that you have to get to know that person. Chloe wants to share herself. That's why she offers Catherine the comb. Even if she never sees Catherine again she'll know that Catherine has a piece of herself.

Chloe's goal was to continue seeing Catherine. She slowly seduced Catherine with her stories about David. She thinks she's made it when Catherine spends the night with her. While we don't have the background I'd bet that Chloe has never had anyone she had sex with because she wanted it. She never expects Catherine to not love her. In Chloe's mind Catherine had sex with her, willingly, without payment, therefore she must love Chloe. When Catherine tells her it was a business deal her heart is broken. Until rage takes over.

Her behavior after that is all about revenge and power. Chloe let's Catherine think that Catherine is in charge. After Catherine dumps her Chloe shows her that she was never in charge, it was Chloe in charge all along.

As for letting herself fall out the window I have a much sappier idea. She had a kiss from what she felt was the perfect person for her. What better moment to die? What better moment to show Catherine that she controls it all? Even her own death?

Sorry it's so long folks. I can't seem to say anything less than half a novel.

[–] Maestro37 13 years ago

Find a hobby NeedysBoy; every palm wound is not a stigmata, and every lackluster narrative is not a passion play. Read a book other than the Bible or the collected works of C. Jung, and you might find an idea of your own, and recognize crap for what it is... an unholy mess of bad casting and pitiable editing.

[–] Aeneas-2 13 years ago

I watched Egoyan and Ebert discussing this movie on YouTube. Egoyan describes it as Chloe never having had anyone truly listen to her the way Catherine was so intently listening to her stories about David. "She couldn't help but fall in love with her."

They didn't address the ending, and I don't quite buy the Chloe=Christ line of thinking. I do suspect she may have realized she would never have Catherine and just let go.

[–] Abbie_Normal_14 13 years ago

Thanks, Maestro37.
Sheesh...someone had to say it!

[–] jim914109 13 years ago

Maestro37:

Just because you didn't understand the allegorical aspects of the movie, you shouldn't indict those who did. OK - you didn't get the movie (and that is probably why you didn't like it) - so let it go and move on. Don't demean those who did. Perhaps it is you who needs a new hobby, other than watching film.

[–] Maestro37 12 years ago

Your conclusion, nay, presumption that I misunderstood or overlooked some Christian allegory is both unfounded and annoying. I rather enjoyed the precursor to this dreck, entitled "Nathalie" and released in 2003. Check it out and perhaps you will note that, by comparison, Egoyan's interpretation of the tale is overtly North American and quite unsatisfying. "Chloe" is a prime example of gross indolence (laziness) and the patent absurdity of the proliferation of cinematic "remakes" within a decade or less of original release. Your scolding, while perhaps deserved given my vitriolic dismissal of another perspective, is poorly crafted and inapposite.

[–] NeedysBoy 12 years ago

@ Maestro37,

Since when is Christianity "overtly North American"?

Or Pasolini for that matter?

"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

[–] Amygdalahaha 11 years ago

NeedysBoy is right despite all polysyllabic protestations from "Maestro". In short, NeedysBoy wins this internet.

On really romantic evenings of self, I go salsa dancing with my confusion

[–] grynet 13 years ago

Honestly, I like your interpretation but I think it's utterly naive. Chloe lied, manipulated and terrorized Catherine, no matter if Catherine was a mistrusting, cold and controlling woman -- one bad deed does not another cancel. Catherine never asked Chloe to love her, she wanted Chloe to help her find her way back to her husband and she agreed, took her money and was horrible in return.

Love is not forcing yourself on others, there was no love in Chloe whatsoever and I think that is why she was smiling in the last scene (hence the halo!) To live and not be able to love or be loved in return is awful.

In the end Chloe got freedom, the rest were worse off than before they met her.

[–] eddieinportland 13 years ago

I looked at Chole working for Catherine in a different way. Catherine was unsure about her husband and her family life. We can tell that Catherine and David had drifted apart. Also Catherine's son is not even in her life and wants hardly nothing to do with her. So Catherine is middle aged, works all day, and family life is not going the way it used to. And she belives her husband is cheating on her. So she hires Chole to find out about her husband. Catherine tells Chloe that your my husband's type and he will like you.

Now this is what I belive. Catherine hired Chloe for herself, not her husband. Chtherine is the one that wants to have the afair with another person. And Chloe picked up on that. After Chloe gave her first report to Catherine. Catherine kept seeking her out. Every time Something bad happened at home, Catherine didn't go talk to a friend. She would go find out where Chloe was at and talk to her.

Chloe was giving Catherine what she wanted. She told her her husband was cheating on her and she was there to love her when she told her the "truth" about David. When Chloe took her to the hotel room where her and David had sex. It was Catherine that started to take Chloe's clothes off. And she wanted to know how they did it. And that's when Chloe started to kiss the back of her neck and unzip Catherine's dress.

So I always viewed it that Catherine hired Chloe for herself and not the way she told Chloe. That's way Chloe was upset when Catherine dismissed her from the office and then slept with her son.

"Like I know where to find people in this bum *beep* town" Jessica Hamby

[–] siensunshine 13 years ago

Eddie this is an excellent interjection! It is also highly believable I love it I don't think I would've ever come up with it but it makes total sense because why would she start preying on her if she hasn't already picked up that it was Catherine who was longing for something? Also it goes back to her voiceover in the beginning when she speaks about how she can pick up on things from people without them knowing it.

[–] detroit-velvet-smooth 13 years ago

I'm glad somebody said that this movie didn't make sense. I felt like it had a personality disorder, unable to decide if it was a character plot dipping into a classic blue movie sensuality with nice twisted european power-sex-identity themes or just a classic bad american thriller that punishes infidelity and sex with a psychotic obcessive who tears the family apart. It was ultimately like an intellectual's Fatal Attraction. Sadly I saw this twist coming a mile away. I also felt like ultimately the movie didn't make any sense.

What was the point? Yes things are meant to be ambiguous as they should be but finally when it was all over I had to ask "What was the point of this story?". What was the writer even trying to say? I don't know what value past seeing Amanda Seyfried's breats and enjoying a pleasantly erotic and tasteful softcore scene there was in this thing ultimately for the audience.

You can kind of MacGuyver things together by inferring into stuff but... well I feel like it was an incomplete story honestly. That ending in particular felt like the director had to make up for the screenwriter having no way to close out such a confused story. I do however think that Julianne Moore made a great performance but too much of Chloe's own motivation was hidden that you can't make any real deep interpretation of her as a whole. Its mostly just impressions of her actions. The only person you can really understand is Catherine since she's the only one you see anything of from an internal point of view.

Also, the son is kind of an idiot isn't he? I don't care how hot a girl is, suddenly she's just showing up randomly and I'm not even wondering how she found me? Stalker 101 right there. Oh nice, she wants to screw me in my mom's room.

The entire interaction between the son and Chloe felt like it was engineered to justify the finale's meaningless confrontation and excessive symbolism. I felt like the movie needed instead of going towards stigmata suicidal symbolism into some intermediate scenario where we actually understand Chloe a bit more rather than just in the last 15 minutes recognizing for the first time that she is fully obcessed. Also, the twist that Liam Neeson didn't actually sleep with her was a lost opportunity. But the director probably didn't bother cause I suppose he knew that it was so predictable as it was written that we already saw that coming.

Interesting idea, great acting from the red head, sadly a muddled mess in the finale. Also, can this screewriter do anything healthy? She seems to specialize in writing films about women in unhealthy sexual scenarios, though Secretary was a much tighter film. Maybe she should just join Croenenberg and help him satisfying is unending fascination with perverse sexual excess.