By Jake Howell jake.howell@utoronto.ca

Countdown To Cannes: Atom Egoyan

TheFilmFarm_TheCaptive_2013_01

Background: Canadian; born Cairo, Egypt 1960.

Known for  / style: The Sweet Hereafter (1997),  Chloe (2009), Exotica (1994); directing plays and operas in addition to films; writing scripts in addition to adapting existing works; blurring the lines between truth and fiction; themes of alienation; working in the thriller genre; collaborating with cinematographer Paul Sarossy and often casting his wife, Arsinée Khanjian.

Atom-Egoyan-ChloeNotable accolades: The Sweet Hereafter is Egoyan’s most acclaimed picture, netting him two Academy Award nominations (Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay) and three Cannes trophies (the Grand Prix, FIPRESCI Prize, and the Ecumenical Jury Prize). Exotica took home an additional Cannes FIPRESCI Prize in 1994.  Egoyan is a multi-Genie winner, has won TIFF’s Best Canadian Feature Film prize three times (Exotica, 1991’s The Adjuster, and 1987’s Family Viewing) and is a member of the Order of Canada.

Film he’s bringing to Cannes: The Captive (formerly Queen of the Night), an original thriller by Egoyan and co-writer David Fraser, who was credited as a consultant on Egoyan’s Ararat. The plot, which, like the new title, sounds a lot like 2013’s Prisoners, follows  a father looking for his missing daughter in wintertime. Shot by Paul Sarossy, The Captive features Ryan Reynolds, Scott Speedman, Rosario Dawson, Mireille Enos, and a handful of Canadian acting regulars, including Bruce Greenwood.

Previous Cannes appearances: Cannes has given Egoyan a lot of love. In the Palme d’Or Competition, he has debuted Adoration (2008), Where the Truth Lies (2005), Felicia’s Journey (1999), The Sweet Hereafter (1997), and Exotica (1994). In parallel sections, he’s premiered Speaking Parts (1989), The Adjuster (1991), Ararat (2002), and contributed to 2007’s auteur anthology Chacun son Cinéma. Egoyan has also been on two Festival juries: once as President (2010’s Cinéfondation), and another as a member of the Competition jury. Egoyan sat on the jury when fellow Canadian David Cronenberg screened Crash (1996), and Egoyan screened Felicia’s Journey under the David Cronenberg-led jury in 1999. 2014 will see a repeat of 2005, where both Cronenberg (History of Violence) and Egoyan (Where the Truth Lies) pitched for the Palme d’Or simultaneously.

Could it win the Palme? With Jane Campion as President of the jury, Egoyan has an ally: her acclaimed 2013 detective miniseries Top of the Lake centered around a missing girl, and this thematic link could play in Egoyan’s favor. Still the film sounds dangerously similar to last year’s Prisoners (directed by fellow Canuck, the Québécois Dénis Villeneuve), which grossed $122 million worldwide, but won relatively little along the awards circuit. If it isn’t truly exceptional, it may be that The Captive never truly escapes this association, as Prisoners is still so recent. Yet the trailer for The Captive assures that the missing girl plot point may realistically be one of the only things the two films have in common.

Why you should care: While Egoyan’s West Memphis Three drama Devil’s Knot has not yet been released stateside, it was poorly received in Canada, earning a meager 27% on Rotten Tomatoes. But all signs show that Devil’s Knot seemed to be an impersonal project for Egoyan (the director was hired late in pre-production), who is back in the writing chair with The Captive. Everyone loves a comeback story, and the trailer for his latest film is enticing. Egoyan has come very close to winning the Palme d’Or before, and if he does, it will be Canada’s first.

Previous Entries: Tommy Lee Jones

Follow Jake Howell on Twitter: @Jake_Howell

TheFilmFarm_TheCaptive_2013_02

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon