Amorosa (World Premiere)

In March 2009, I decided to volunteer for the Burbank International Film Festival at Woodbury University. I was extremely excited with this opportunity because it was their first annual film festival and it was all taking place in my hometown. I had the pleasure of working with some incredible people, including students, filmmakers and festival coordinators. I was also given a “Volunteer” badge, but was envious of those individuals who received a “Filmmaker” badge.

I was in post-production with my short film, Amorosa (2010), at this time and was in the process of applying to film school. I felt like I was on the outside, looking in, and wanted to be a part of the film festival as a filmmaker, instead of a volunteer. I told myself I would submit my film the following year and come back as a filmmaker. I suppose dreams do come true, because that is exactly what happened.

I submitted my film earlier this year and received a phone call in June from one of the film festival coordinators. I was told that my film was chosen as an Official Selection for the Burbank International Film Festival and I would be receiving my laurels soon. I was ecstatic! I couldn’t believe I would be receiving a “Filmmaker” badge this year.

I couldn’t have been more nervous as this week approached. On September 10, Mary and I were invited to the Opening Ceremony of the film festival, where filmmakers from around the world had the chance of meeting. I didn’t have a “Filmmaker” badge, because this year, they were replaced with “Official Selection” badges. I believe that’s quite remarkable and I wore it across my neck, proudly. I felt like I had finally accomplished one of my goals. I was in another world during the ceremony, as lights and cameras surrounded us both. In fact, we received over half a dozen compliments on our clothing (we were matching) and we were even crowned “Best Dressed” by a festival coordinator.


I felt like all eyes were on us, as the compliments kept pouring in from strangers around us. There was another dream of ours coming true as we walked down the red carpet and had our photographs taken, from the same group of photographers who worked at the Emmys this year. Inside, Mary and I were interviewed on camera about our short film and the festival itself. I couldn’t believe any of this was happening.

On September 11, Amorosa held its World Premiere at AMC 6 in Burbank at 2pm. This is a theater we commonly watch films, and to have my first film play on the big screen there is nothing short of amazing. I feel like everything happened in the blink of an eye. I simply remember a bunch of my family and friends there, supporting me and cheering me on. In the end, it was a unique and memorable experience to share my film with my family and friends, as well as strangers. It’s funny because it helps remind me why I make films to begin with – to share them with the people I love.


If nothing else matters in this world, family does. It’s only them I want to see when I look around a theater, because it’s only them who matter. I love every person who was able to share this memorable event with us. I accomplished a dream of mine this year, to have my short film accepted at the Burbank International Film Festival, the same festival where I volunteered a year ago. I have new dreams now, different dreams, and I’ll keep fighting until I have them realized as well.

Cinema 101, Professor Karaoghlanian

If I was teaching a course on the history of motion pictures, what would the class be like? I'm betting it would be lots of fun, with discussions that go back and forth, as well all contribute to the learning environment of the class. In fact, I might even let the kids call me by my first name, just because my last name is too hard to pronounce. If I was up there teaching, however, this is an idea of what the class would look like...

Week One – Introduction, Early Cinema

In the first class, there would be an introduction and overview of the beginning stages of cinema, as well as an emphasis on Thomas Edison, the Lumière brothers, Georges Méliès, Edwin S. Porter, and D.W. Griffith.

Screening: Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat (1896), The Great Train Robbery (1903), and The Birth of a Nation (1915)

Week Two – Silent Cinema

I believe Silent Cinema was a magical time when audiences allowed stories to grab them and take them on a ride! In fact, film lovers had a hard time letting go of silent films after sound was introduced.

Screening: The General (1926), Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927), and City Lights (1931)

Week Three – Soviet Montage

If there's something audiences take for granted, it's the editing of a film. In Russian Cinema, several notable filmmakers revolutionized editing techniques, and their discoveries are both a surprise and an adventure.

Screenings: Battleship Potemkin (1925) and Man with a Movie Camera (1929)

Week Four – The Coming of Sound, German Expressionism

What are the first words that were ever said on the big screen? In this week's class, it's the coming of sound and students will be able to hear these words for themselves. In addition, we will also take a dark look inside the films of German Expressionism.

Screening: The Jazz Singer (1927) and M (1931)

Week Five – Studio Era, The Big 5, The Little 3

What does MGM stand for? Who were the Warner Bros.? In this week's class, we will learn about the studios and their function in this time period.

Screening: Citizen Kane (1941) and Casablanca (1942)

Week Six – Italian neorealism

World War II was a tough time for the entire world, but it also shaped some of the films from this timer period. In fact, come see my favorite film and learn a little bit of the history behind this time period.

Screening: Ladri di biciclette (1948)

Week Seven – Golden Age of Hollywood

In the seventh class, we will take a close look at Hollywood and its function in the films from this time period. It's an exciting time, as we begin exploring Classical Hollywood.

What is Classical Hollywood? In this week's class, we will understand what this city is made of, as we learn about the ins and outs of a town we all love.

Screening: Sunset Blvd. (1950)

Week Eight – Cinemascope, Technicolor

It's a fantastic world of color, as we sing and dance and laugh. It's without a doubt the most fun a film can provide!

Screening: Singin' in the Rain (1952)

Week Nine – Hollywood Ending

It's the end of the studio era, as well as the introduction of television, which posed a threat to the film industry.

Screening: 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Week Ten – French New Wave

It's time to see how the French changed all the rules. It's a complete different approach to what we have seen thus far, and will allow the class to fall in love and witness how cinema was revolutionized.

Screening: Breathless (1960)

Week Eleven – New Hollywood

In New Hollywood, the camera left the studio and was on the road, filmmaking out of the studio and on location. It was an exciting time period, which was our first step in changing cinema.

Screening: Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

Week Twelve – Postmodernism, Blockbusters

Steven Spielberg and George Lucas introduced us to the "blockbuster" and cinema was forever changed. It's an introduction to special effects and high concept films, as well as sequels and franchises.

Screening: Jaws (1975) and Star Wars (1977)

Week Thirteen – New Technologies, Entertainment Conglomerates

In an ever-changing medium, see how new technologies and media began affecting our films, for better or for worse.

Screening: Annie Hall (1977)

Week Fourteen – Auteur Filmmakers

Ingmar Bergman, Alfred Hitchcock, and Martin Scorsese are all considered auteur filmmakers. In this week's class, we begin understanding this concept, as well as the role of the director.

Screening: Raging Bull (1980)

Week Fifteen – Conclusion, Independent Filmmaking, Digital Cinema

In the last class, we are presented with a look at independent filmmaking, an exciting opportunity for filmmakers to create films on their own, without the need of a studio. In addition, we begin asking questions about where the film industry is going next, as we understand the function of digital cinema and its threat to cinema.

Screening: Pulp Fiction (1994)

If this fits the bill, please register on time because classes fill up! This does not include the required papers and exams, which will be both comprehensive and difficult. Remember, all films screened will be film prints to ensure the best theatrical experience. Oh, and check back soon for details on other classes I plan on teaching!

Kicks, and Totems, and Dreams! Oh My!

I've been asked a handful of questions for the past few weeks, all of which sound quite familiar. In the end of Inception (2010), does the top keep spinning or does it fall down? Is Cobb still in a dream? Is Cobb back in reality? Is all of Inception a dream?

Christopher Nolan has presented his audience with a puzzle, and he's asking us to think outside the box for this one. Inception is a maze, in and of itself, and it seems it's too complex for some viewers. Inception is making us think and perhaps that's a bad thing for some people. If Inception was too confusing at first glance, perhaps a better-suited film would be Avatar (2009)... or The Blind Side (2009).

First of all, I can't understand the comparison between Inception and Shutter Island (2010). I suppose it's because both films star Leonardo DiCaprio, but that's a horrible reason. I suppose, for the same reason, we could compare Inception to The Departed (2006). Perhaps, it's because both films leave us with an open ending and asks the audience to draw their own conclusions... but then again, for the same reason, we could compare Inception to Memento (2000).

Leonardo DiCaprio believes that both films deal with the "dreamworld and... some sort of cathartic journey..." but declares "that’s about where the similarities ended." Inception should never be compared with Shutter Island, and those who do compare them, seem to be interested with what's on the surface, because these films have nothing else in common, in themes or otherwise.

In fact – and this is where I'll step into some analysis – while several critics have compared the film to science fiction thrillers and action adventures like The Matrix (1999) and James Bond, Leonardo DiCaprio claims he based his performance on Christopher Nolan, and believes Inception is more in line with Federico Fellini's 8½ (1963). I think that's an immense clue, because Inception could simply be a film about the making of a film.

Devin Faraci explains it all better than I can, but it’s not too farfetched. Cobb is Christopher Nolan, or the filmmaker, who is at the helm of this film/job. Arthur is the Point Man, or the producer, who assists with the research. Ariadne is the Architect, or the screenwriter, who designs/writes their dream/film. Eames is the Forger, or the actor, who manipulates himself to take the physical form of another person. Yusuf is the Chemist, or the technical crew member behind the scenes responsible for their safety. Saito is the Tourist, or the financier, who employs Cobb and runs the show. Robert Fischer is the Mark, or the audience, who is being incepted/inspired by an idea. Mal is the Shade, or the impulse of an auteur, who brings herself into the dreams/films.

Christopher Nolan knows this quite well, and it's a clever device for this theory. It's an auteur who brings his personality and interests to a film, which allows audiences to recognize their work. It's seen in the films of all auteur filmmakers, from Ingmar Bergman to Christopher Nolan, himself. In this film, however, we are told through Mal's character (and rightfully so) that this auteurist impulse is not always a positive characteristic. In this theory, we look to ourselves for the meaning of the film. Perhaps, Christopher Nolan is performing inception on us, by either inspiring us with an idea (of creativity) or by driving us all insane about whether the top keeps spinning or if it falls down.

Is all of Inception a dream? Is Cobb asleep, riddled with remorse, as inception is being performed on him by somebody else? It’s quite clear what happens by the end of the film. Cobb is able to move on and is finally reunited with his children – and regardless of whether the ending is a dream or reality – his character experiences this transformation. So, it is logical then, to question if Cobb was the subject of inception. Perhaps Miles, his father-in-law, is responsible for performing inception on Cobb with the hopes that he finally forgives himself. Cobb is clearly filled with paranoia – it has become impossible for him to distinguish reality from the dream world – as he sits with a loaded gun pointed at his head, ready to kill himself to wake up from what might be a dream. Miles tells Cobb to “come back to reality” and perhaps this hints at his motive. Is Cobb the subject of inception, to allow him to forgive himself and finally live his life?

If all of Inception is a dream, that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is no meaning and emotional satisfaction for the audience. If Cobb’s team is simply a projection of himself, the entire film, as a result, is make-believe. So, why do we care, and why invest ourselves in a film that is all a dream? Well, this theory, I believe, connects to the previous one. Inception is a film about dream sharing, because these characters are able to fall asleep and enter each other’s dreams. Christopher Nolan, however, could be referencing films once again, because cinema is the power of sharing dreams. It’s what we do every time we watch a film – we’re in a dark theater, with strangers, and we all share dreams and become invested in the lives of characters that we know are fictional. If Inception is all a dream and everything is make-believe, and there’s no reason to emotionally attach ourselves to characters whose lives are not at stake, then why do we sympathize with other characters in other films, when we know, for a fact, that everything on screen is fabricated? It’s the same thing, isn’t it?

I do realize, however, that some people are wishful for a happy ending. Cobb appears to be reunited with his children and that’s what they want to believe. In fact, there are several facts that support this belief. I know for a fact that many people were focused on the clothing of the children. Cobb was forced to leave his children and flee the country, and this is the scene that he replays in his head when he sees his children. In this memory, they are playing with their backs to their father and they are always wearing the same clothing that he last saw them in. So, this brings up a key question. If there clothing doesn’t change throughout the film, are their clothes different in the final scene? If it’s the same clothing, does this mean that Cobb is still in a dream? I would assume so, and there are conflicting thoughts about the clothing of the children. I can, however, put your mind at ease because the children’s clothing in the final scene is different. In fact, the costume designer for the film, Jeffrey Kurland, says so himself when he states that "the children's clothing is different in the final scene... look again." If the clothing is different, which it is, this could mean that Cobb is, in fact, back in reality.

In addition, there is another aspect of the costume design that might suggest that Cobb is back in reality. I believe Cobb's wedding ring holds some significance, because it’s missing in quite a few scenes. I believe that this was a purposeful act from the filmmakers and it serves as a clue for the ending of the film. In all scenes that are from the dream world, Cobb is wearing his wedding ring. In all scenes that are from the real world, Cobb is not wearing his wedding ring. In the final scene, when Cobb is reunited with his children, Cobb is not wearing his wedding ring, which further suggests that he is, in fact, back in reality.

If this holds true, this could mean that Cobb drowns in the van after not receiving is kicks, and Saito dies in Level 3 from his gunshot wound. Saito enters Limbo and Cobb follows him, several minutes later, which is why several decades have passed. It’s impossible for you to keep track of reality in Limbo because your brain scrambles – years pass by in minutes and so on. Saito can only leave Limbo if he can realize he is in a dream and kill himself, but this is impossible to happen on its own. Cobb enters Limbo and is taken to Saito, which cause Saito to realize that he has been trapped in Limbo. Saito recognizes Cobb and his totem, which serve as his wake-up call. If Saito kills Cobb then himself, he should wake up on the airplane in time to return to Los Angeles. I suppose the question here is if Saito kills Cobb then himself, will they return back to reality? Is it possible to kill yourself in Limbo and wake up despite the heavy sedation? I believe this is impossible to answer because that’s the ambiguity in the film.

Christopher Nolan has constructed a film that can deal with all these theories, but it’s also possible that the main focus of the film is, in fact, in its climax. It’s all a question about the spinning top, but Cobb’s totem might not even hold a true purpose. It’s made clear that a totem is unique to its owner, because only they know it’s true weight and function. Cobb’s totem, however, used to belong to his wife, which should mean that it wouldn’t work for him. I believe this could very well be misdirection from Christopher Nolan, in an effort to shift the audience’s attention to such a small, inanimate object, that wouldn’t be deciding factor if Cobb were still in a dream or back in reality.

So, please, stop asking me whether the top keeps spinning or if it falls down. It’s impossible to answer because the only person who knows that answer is Christopher Nolan. In addition, it doesn’t matter whether the top wobbles or not because the film cuts to black before we can see what happens. In fact, it doesn’t even matter, because that’s not the point of the film.

Cobb is finally reunited with his children and has freed himself of the guilt over his wife, and is no longer in fear about distinguishing between reality and the dream world. For this reason, he no longer waits to see if the top will keep spinning or if it will fall down. Cobb lets himself see the faces of his children, and whether this is a dream or reality, this is where he wants to be.

Inception

Inception (2010) is a mind-blowing experience – a delicate and beautiful film that is both complex and touching, and will soon become known as Christopher Nolan’s best film.

Christopher Nolan presents us with his first original screenplay in ten years – overwhelming in its narrative and originality – and is being released at a time when the film industry is desperate for sequels, remakes, and endless reboots of franchises, which makes us ask ourselves – are we ready for a cerebral blockbuster?

Inception is set within the world of our dreams and deals with corporate espionage. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief in the art of extraction, whose job is to enter people’s dreams and steal valuable secrets. Cobb soon employs Ariadne (Ellen Page), a graduate student studying architecture, to join his team of experts. This team also consists of Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who researches their potential targets, and Eames (Tom Hardy), whose responsibility is impersonating and forging targets within the dream world.

In the film, Cobb is offered a chance at redemption, which will allow him to earn his life back and give him the chance to return home to reunite with his family. In return, Cobb is asked to deliver the perfect crime – instead of stealing, his team must do the opposite – they must plant an idea within the mind of their victim, which is known as “inception.”

Inception begins by making us scratch our heads, and requires several minutes for us to wrap our minds around the subject matter. Like The Matrix (1999), such a film requires some information about this newfound world before we can explore its possibilities. Cobb begins by discussing the basics to Ariadne, such as the notion of “kicks” – a technique used to wake up a subject from the dream world. Cobb also briefs us on the construction of a dream, and teaches us the rules and ins and outs of this world. Peter Travers of Rolling Stone so wonderfully said, “We’re so used to being treated like idiots.” Christopher Nolan takes his audience seriously and demands their attention, and a major blockbuster is no exception. In Inception, Nolan expects his audience to keep asking questions, instead of providing them with all the answers.

Inception consists of an effective balance between science fiction thriller and a romance drama. Leonardo DiCaprio carries us through the complexities of the film, and becomes the center for the emotional resonance of the story. It’s a film full of action, thrills, and mystery, but is successfully grounded in realism through the heart of the story – and it’s because of this balance that makes this Christopher Nolan’s best film. Hans Zimmer also once again delivers with music that is as haunting as all his previous scores, as he adds his own dimension to the darkness of Inception.

It’s Christopher Nolan’s imagination that is most impressive, as he creates dreams within dreams, and worlds within worlds. In fact, he only relies on CGI when absolutely necessary – so, if it feels real, that’s because it is real. Nolan demands a sense of reality, and when dealing with such a massive film, it’s key to keep your audience within the world you have created. Who else would go to such great lengths?

Leonardo DiCaprio is certainly worthy of any and all praise he receives for this role. Cobb is definitely the emotional driving force of the film, and allows us to invest our emotions into his character. Cobb’s objective is clear from the very beginning, and we are able to sympathize with him.

Inception's final moments are what solidify this as Christopher Nolan's best film, as well emphasizing his growth as a filmmaker. Inception moves a step further from his other films, as Nolan explores the emotional lives of his characters and what fuels their suffering. It’s the spinning top, however, that serves as the recurring visual motif in the film. Its purpose is simple – it’s Cobb’s totem, and his means of testing reality. If the spinning is continuous, the dream is still in effect, but if it stops, he is no longer dreaming.

If nothing else, Christopher Nolan provides us with a glimmer of hope in this ever-changing film industry.

Inception is scheduled for release on July 16, 2010.

It's Not What You Say, It's How You Say It!

If there's something we can all agree on, it's that sometimes a certain line from a film can be just as memorable as the film itself. For years, film lovers have been quoting their favorite lines from their favorite films. There's been a handful of famous quotes over the past few decades, including some from Gone with the Wind (1939), The Wizard of Oz (1939), and The Godfather (1972). It's never-ending and the list goes on, so here's a collection of some of my favorites.

I hope I have included several favorites of your own, and if not, I hope that some of them inspire you enough to want to watch the films. In fact, that's the magic of cinema – when a specific scene or sentence from a film can inspire! As always, feel free to share favorites of your own in the "Comments" section.

"Here's looking at you, kid." – Humphrey Bogart as Rick Blaine in Casablanca (1942)

"Well, I guess some like it hot." – Tony Curtis as Junior in Some Like It Hot (1959)

"As far back as I can remember, I always wanted to be a gangster." – Ray Liotta as Henry Hill in Goodfellas (1990)

"Shut up and deal!" – Shirley MacLaine as Fran Kubelik in The Apartment (1960)

"I did not have to go as far as I was prepared to go, but I was prepared to go all the way." – Ian Holm as Mitchell Stephens in The Sweet Hereafter (1997)

"A strange man... defecated on my sister." – Woody Allen as Clifford Stern in Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)

"It's a reason to get up in the morning. It's a reason to lose weight, to fit in the red dress. It's a reason to smile. It makes tomorrow all right. What have I got, Harry? Hm? Why should I even make the bed or wash the dishes? I do them, but why should I? I'm alone." – Ellen Burstyn as Sara Goldfarb in Requiem for a Dream (2000)

"Shut up and deal!" – Shirley MacLaine in The Apartment (1960)

"I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people." – Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood (2007)

"You know what I expected? Applause. I was surprised by what happened. They didn't applaud." – Casey Affleck as Robert Ford in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

"If I could find a real-life place that'd make me feel like Tiffany's, then–then, I'd buy some furniture and give the cat a name!" – Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly in Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)

"Our teacher says that God loves the blind more because they can't see... but I told him if it was so, He would not make us blind so that we can't see Him. He answered, "God is not visible. He is everywhere. You can feel Him. You see Him through your fingertips." Now, I reach out everywhere for God until the day my hands touch HIm and tell Him everything, even all the secrets in my heart." – Mohsen Ramezani as Mohammad in The Color of Paradise (1999)

"If you win, you win. If you lose, you still win." – Joe Pesci as Joey LaMotta in Raging Bull (1980)

"I thought of that old joke, you know, the... this–this guy goes to a psychiatrist and says, "Doc, uh, my brother's crazy... he thinks he's a chicken." And, uh, the doctor says, "Well, why don't you turn him in?" The guy says, "I would, but I need the eggs." Well, I guess that's pretty much now how I feel about relationships, you know. They're totally irrational and crazy and absurd, and... but, uh, I guess we keep going through it because, uh, most of us... need the eggs." – Woody Allen as Alvy Singer in Annie Hall (1977)

"I'm pregnant." – Dianne Wiest as Holly in Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)

"I could have gotten one more person, and I didn't... and I–I didn't." – Liam Neeson as Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List (1993)

Chloe, it's still an Atom Egoyan film

Atom Egoyan is known for his non-linear narratives and an unconventional method of telling a story. In each of his films, he presents a series of characters that, at first, seem unrelated but as the story progresses, we are given some information regarding their lives, as we begin to piece together the overall story. This results in parallel stories between characters, as we begin to discover that they are all related in some way. Egoyan, in a sense, tells his story backwards. He wants his audience to interpret the ending, piece together the lives of the characters, and ask questions about the film. His latest film, Chloe, stars an ensemble cast of talented actors, including Liam Neeson, Julianne Moore and Amanda Seyfried.

Chloe revolves around a wife who suspects her husband is cheating. When she hires an escort to test his limits, things begin to get out of hand as the story delves into the personal lives and passions of the characters. There's something different about this film, though. Chloe tells a straightforward story and is very much linear, with no congruences between space and time. That's because it is the first screenplay Atom Egoyan has directed that he has not himself written. His films have always been considered a work of art by many, simply because of the writing. Exotica is a beautiful story between a series of characters and is set partly in a strip club. The Sweet Hereafter is Egoyan's adaptation of Russell Banks' novel of the same title, but features Egoyan's touch in its narrative. Chloe comes from a new world, it is written by Erin Cressida Wilson, and it allows for Egoyan to supply us with his vision through his visuals and images.

Film Independent presented an advance screening of Chloe at The Landmark in Los Angeles. Atom Egoyan and Erin Cressida Wilson joined us for a Q&A following the screening. It's tough to talk about the film because what I want to say and what everybody expects me to say will result in two completely different discussions. I'm sure anybody who is interested in this film would like to know the film was, its group of actors, and how this story played out in the hands of Atom Egoyan, as a director and not a writer. I would much rather go into depth about what made this an Atom Egoyan film, and whether or not it is still the work of an auteur, rather than a director for hire. I'm going to steer away from speaking on its genre or how the film compares to other films of its kind, because truth be told, I haven't seen many of them. Chloe exists within these genre films (we will hear a lot about Fatal Attraction and such), but Egoyan explores the complexities and layers of a marriage.

I fell in love with Egoyan's work because of his writing and formal strategies when it came into exploring the narrative of a film. I didn't know quite how to feel about Chloe, because it is an unwelcoming change, especially if the screenplay isn't well written, to begin with. Chloe, however, is exceptionally directed and I believe that's what makes the film work. Its actors fit perfectly together as part of an ensemble and the most important thing is that Egoyan doesn't treat them as stars. He doesn't make you feel like Liam Neeson is Liam Neeson or that Julianne Moore is Julianne Moore. Egoyan doesn't even photograph Julianne Moore as we think of her, and instead photographs her within any filters. In the film, we don't feel her sense of glamour or beauty. We see her as her character is represented, a woman going through difficulties, torn between the possibility of a failed marriage. In this film, they are all performers, with great performances being handled by a great director.

I went into the film with the intentions of discovering what was Egoyan about it, considering the screenplay wasn't written by him. Is it the opening sequence? No, Egoyan usually gives us a long tracking shot and allows his credits to spill over. Is it the unconventional narrative? No, Chloe is a linear story, in a rather conventional structure. Somehow, however, Egoyan finds a way to make us aware of his directing hand. Their are recurring visual motifs, such as hands, a comb, mirrors and glass, that all highlight certain characteristics about the characters. Egoyan introduces Chloe through a monologue, then emphasizes her entrance into Catherine's life. He does this all through visuals, and expresses their characteristics and behaviors through imagery. Catherine spends much of her life looking into the lives of other people and understanding them, and at times, controlling them. Egoyan makes us aware of her personality through the use of production design, visuals and cinematography.

In the third act of the film, there is a shift in the tone as we move into a thriller. If I reveal anything here, it will be nothing but spoilers, so I can speak on how it is handled rather than what happens. Egoyan doesn't rely on gimmicks and instead brings his own style into the film. He relies on technology throughout the entire film and allows it to develop the plot; live discussions on webcams and text messaging. He allows us to break apart the characters and put them back together during the ending of the film, when a significant twist is revealed. He does this, once again, through visual motifs. I would have to kill the film to explain the ending of the film. I would like to say, however, that the ending consists of one of the most beautiful shots Egoyan has pulled off. It's breathtaking and is a true testament to Paul Sarossy, the cinematographer of the film.

Chloe allows you to feel the directing hand at work, and we can feel Egoyan constructing the film and telling a story visually. Mychael Danna, who has been Egoyan's composer throughout all of his films, gives us a beautiful, surreal score that highlights the scenes. In a sense, the music is haunting as it comes back to revisit us throughout the film. It seems Egoyan makes everything work here, from the cinematography and music to the production design and art direction. Chloe's costumes emphasize her personality, Catherine's controlling behavior is suggested through the production design of the house she lives in, and David is often revealed through different formats of technology.

During the Q&A, Egoyan and Wilson discussed adapting the film and their approach to the material. Wilson said she viewed Exotica numerous times for inspiration, prior to learning that Egoyan would attach as a director. They both also mentioned that the film is not so much a remake of Nathalie... because it touches on a slightly altered premise. Its characters intentions are somewhat different and the story unfolds in a different manner. Egoyan mentioned that some of the inspirations for the film came from Persona (which I immediately felt during scenes between Catherine/Chloe), Rear Window (Catherine's need to control her family), and Let the Right One In (surprisingly, for the atmosphere and tone of the film). Chloe holds a special place in my heart as well as Egoyan's filmography. Throughout the film, we make assumptions about characters and learn otherwise by the end of the film. Because of this, it is difficult not to be reminded of Egoyan's earlier works. It is essentially cut from the same cloth of Exotica and is set within that world, not because of its sexuality, but because of the way Egoyan explores the personalities of his characters. Chloe ends just as mysteriously as it begins, and as the credits begin, a final title card reminds us that this was "An Atom Egoyan Film."

Conversation with Martin Scorsese

In August 2009, Martin Scorsese wrote an open letter to Michael Govan after the Los Angeles County Museum of Art announced that it would be shutting its doors for its film program, after serving the community for 40 years, as a result of declining audiences and considerable losses. In his letter, Scorsese discusses the importance of seeing films in their original forms, and points to holds such museums as responsible. Scorsese also claims that it was at LACMA that he"first became aware of the issues of color film fading and the urgent need for film preservation."

Through his dedication, the Hollywood Foreign Press Association and Time Warner Cable, in partnership with Ovation TV, came together to provide $150,000 to keep the film program running. In addition, Time Warner Cable and Ovation TV have promised to spend more than $1.5 million to market the film program across local and national media platforms. Because of this, the film program will run until the end of June 2010, but the museum is still searching for additional donors and patrons for help.

In January 2010, LACMA announced that Martin Scorsese would join Michael Govan in an intimate conversation at the museum to speak about film preservation and its future. Their discussion was open to the public and sold out within minutes, and became a big buzz around town as locals began anticipating hearing the Academy Award-winning director speak, in person. Michael Govan began speaking to a room full of fans and movie lovers, who sat in anticipation of hearing Scorsese's name. Later, the audience sparked to life and welcomed him with a standing ovation, before the conversation between them began.

I'm not surprised that Scorsese brought up Raging Bull, and said that the brutal montage of Jake La Motta being beat in the ring was based on the shower sequence in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. I'm not surprised because that scene has been used as a guide for several filmmakers, because of its incredible shot selection. Scorsese also mentioned that Francesca , his young daughter, is working on a short film. He began laughing at the fact that a scene in the film requires for a handful of children to throw pies in the house, but commented that Thelma Schoonmaker can always help them edit the film. I guess it pays to be Scorsese's daughter, it comes with a handful of benefits.

In their discussion, Scorsese stressed the importance of film preservation. Through a series of clips, we were introduced to this dilemma. These film prints are in danger of being permanently damaged, because there is a lack of awareness in the protection and preservation of these motion pictures. There is also a lack of understanding of these films, and we are now facing a decline in an audience who appreciates them as well, which is why LACMA suspended their program to begin with.

The Film Foundation was founded in 1990 by Martin Scorsese, along with Woody Allen, Robert Altman, Francis Ford Coppola, Clint Eastwood, Stanley Kubrick, George Lucas, Sydney Pollack, Robert Redford, and Steven Spielberg. Since 2006, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Curtis Hanson, Peter Jackson, Ang Lee, and Alexander Payne have joined the board of directors. The Film Foundation seeks to preserve these pieces of history, such as their newly restored The Red Shoes, which premiered at the Cannes International Film Festival.

Before Govan signed off, he turned to Scorsese and asked if he would come back to LACMA. Scorsese accepted the offer, and "promised" to do so. I remember when I first got interested in Scorsese, and began searching each of his interviews. I admired his passion when he spoke about film, because he was so absorbed in the world o f cinema. I was among the couple of hundred who saw this magic come to life, and become apart of his world for a matter of minutes. I have a painting in my room, which would help him understand how we felt that evening.