Chloe

Man without God has no chance at all. “Chloe” wonderfully constructs a materialist, sexually-charged and empty world, whose inhabitants lack the moral compass that can only be derived from the Holy Spirit. The film can best be described, in the words of one critic, as “artful trash.”

Director Atom Egoyan introduces us to Toronto gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore) whose husband David (Liam Neeson) is a music professor and opera expert. David is a flirtatious chap, conversing easily with attractive young women. Catherine’s suspicions are thus aroused when her husband misses his own birthday party to socialize with his students—and then lies to his wife about it. She rightfully suspects him of cheating on her.

Catherine hires Chloe (Amanda Seyfried), a young prostitute, to try to seduce her husband. Chloe relates to her client the adultery committed with David in rather explicit terms, and Catherine buys it. Yet, as the plot thickens, we realize Chloe’s true intentions. The film reaches its dark and shocking conclusion with haste and anguish.

The movie exposes the futility of life without spiritual meaning. Catherine and David appear superficially to have a happy and stable marriage, yet the foundations of that marriage are crumbling at the surface. They live in the kind of home most people could only dream of owning, yet their lives are meaningless. Everything from the austere camerawork to the chilling soundtrack conveys this sense of loneliness to the audience.

Yet, that is as deep as “Chloe” probes. It lacks character development, and the character of Chloe herself remains an enigma, even after the denouement. Perhaps that is what the filmmakers wanted, yet it is not a satisfying construction. We yearn for more information about Chloe: who is she, where did she come from, and why did she do what she did?

Perhaps this is due in part to the unfortunate death of Liam Neeson’s wife Natasha Richardson during filming. The screenwriters rewrote the script after Richardson’s death, and Neeson completed his part in just two days after returning. I feel this would have been a more fulfilling movie otherwise, and perhaps we would have been more exposed to Chloe’s psyche.

Not that exposure is a problem per se. “Chloe” contains explicit sexual language as Chloe describes viscerally her adulterous encounters with Catherine’s husband. There are two sex scenes, one of which is lesbian in nature. There is, also, an unnecessary scene of Moore’s character nude in the shower; the camera pans down to her breasts, and then pans up again, during the scene.

I cannot recommend “Chloe” to Christians, or anyone for that matter—there is nothing to be gained, after all, from trash, no matter how artfully it is portrayed.

Violence: Moderate / Profanity: Moderate / Sex/Nudity: Extreme

Learn how to make your love the best it can be. Discover biblical answers to questions about sex, marriage, sexual addictions, and more.

See list of Relevant Issues—questions-and-answers.