Talk:Chloe (2009 film)/Archive 1

Please consider correcting the Plot section *Warning: spoilers alert*
.. it has so many false details and is misleading. I have watched the film for several times to understand it. Now and I can say that it has many mistakes in the plot section (specially the one where this was stated: "At home, David text messages someone and pays little attention to Catherine. Upset, Catherine meets Chloe at a hotel and has sex with her...." - THE TEXT MESSAGES DID NOT HAPPEN, SOMEONE CALLED HIM FROM BEHIND THAT'S WHY HE LEFT HER.) and also in delivering the story. The story wasn't all about "sex", "lesbianism", "psychopath" or "fatal attraction". If you think and look deeper to the story, you will appreciate the movie and the characters especially Chloe. Chloe is a complex character who has sad and deeper issues - mother-issues that's why if you closely pay attention to her and analyze her, you'll realize why she did all those disturbing things. Especially why she enjoys manipulating people by her words and how she studies her clients carefully without giving any hint that she's lying.

In addition, about the "revenge" it presented in the plot, it was unlikely a revenge. It was more of her way to feel Catherine again by using Catherine's son. If one noticed or heard Chloe talked to Michael (during the scene where he was making a copy of his music), she told him he looks like his mother, not exactly the looks (face) but his eyes and lips resembles his mother. And during the scene where she had sex with Michael, she wasn't looking at his face but she was looking at Catherine's clothes and shoes. When they were caught, she told Catherine that she "felt her in him. His eyes and lips are just like hers"..

The problem many people did not see was that what Chloe needs is motherly love more than money and Chloe is not necessarily lesbian because she made out with Catherine. It was her way to feel the presence of somebody who eventually listened and cared for her. The care and attention she never received from her clients and more so from her mother (which they never gave an overview, they just used the "pin" that used to be her mother's). If you notice, all the bike accident and sneeze parts in the movie, that was her way to see if Catherine really does care for her, and it worked and that made her happy and want to more connected and see Catherine as often as she could so she made all those other weird stuffs. These became an obsession to Chloe now, how she'll get to see, feel and stay connected with Catherine all the time because she thought she has finally found a mother. And on other hand, Chloe thought that the main reason why Catherine sought her was the Catherine needs to feel loved, wanted and touched again (since her husband David seems not to care anymore - the midlife crisis)so she did it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.52.20 (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the title character. Without any doubt: Chloe was a stone-cold sociopath, and Catherine was her mark. Love and jealousy never entered into the equation. If you say it all couldn't have been an act, and doesn't make any sense without feelings of attachment, you're wrong. That's what a sociopath is and that's what been deliberately portrayed. 70.91.136.242 (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with: the BOTH of you ( 121.1.52.20 and 70.91.136.242)!
 * While the first versions (lonely soul, seeking for love/mother/caretaker) seems much more likely to me, the second version (psychopath/sociapath playing with emotions/people) IMHO is still very much possible. I think the author deliberately left a lot of detail, insight and information vague or out in order to get people to make up their minds on their own and to inspire an open discussion about the artwork (movie), as many many artists do. Like that, everyone can perceive and understand the movie and the characters as they see fit, wish or hope for(!). That is part of what makes a good movie a good movie, or any piece of art for that matter...
 * BTW: The same goes for the accident ./. suicide conundrum/discussion. -- 85.212.108.119 (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Plot
The plot, as it is now written, is too long and too detailed. It should be shortened and, if no one objects, I will try my hand to condense what is now written into something more appropriate for an article. Mice never shop (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Prop books
Director Egoyan explains in the commentary that the books in Liam Neeson's office are merely prop books, and not ones chosen by the director or a production designer. That accounts for the oddly prominent biography of Menachem Begin. Varlaam (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chloe (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100305141949/http://www.studiocanal.com/tous-nos-films/films-drame/cid14520/chloe.html to http://www.studiocanal.com/tous-nos-films/films-drame/cid14520/chloe.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:04, 5 August 2017 (UTC)