Exotica

Just seen this for the second time. First time I saw it (about a year ago), I wasn't really sure what to make of it, but there were scenes from it (when Elias Koteas reveals why his connection to the disturbed and grieving father and the scene with the father and his daughter's babysitter at the end) that have always stuck in my mind.

A very haunting and beautiful movie (even though it gives a very unpleasant view of life), with a haunting snake charm style score and starring the brilliant Elias Koteas (from "Crash") and the lovely Mia Kirshner (from early first season "24" and "The Crow: City Of Angels"). Victor Garber (Sidney's dad in "Alias") also has a couple of scenes. Not to many tastes but very rewarding if you can appreciate it (although it's sense of detachment probably puts off a lot of people).

It seems to me to explore the theme of people trying to connect, in a very insular and ultimately unfulfilling way (the young gay man who goes to the ballet every night and gives away his "extra ticket" for companionship or the grieving father who pays a young girl to "babysit" his empty house so that he can have the illusion his daughter is still around for example), and also the theme of loss (variously of loved ones, innocence, youth, opportunity etc). The Exotica strip club seems such hollow place but at the same time it seems almost understandable that it would draw hapless souls night after night with nowhere else to go. Some of the dialogue seems poetic, cynical and truthful all at the same time. A film that you really need to watch to the end before you really feel you understand it's puzzle (and even then there seems to be something just out of grasp this viewing). A moving portrait of life that will linger in your mind afterwards.

In Toronto is a strip club called the Exotica. Here MC Eric comperes for all the girls including his ex, Christina. One of Christina regular dances is Francis, a tax investigator who has losses and hurts that go back years. The two rely on each other, Francis especially trying to fill the void in his life, however Eric envies this relationship of need and sceptres it. Francis strikes a deal with one of his clients who is breaking the law to take revenge on Eric.

I'm not a huge fan of Egoyan and have often found some of his stuff to be a little inaccessible and occasionally bordering on the pretentious. This is one of my preferred works by him, but that's not to say that it's perfect. The plot here see numerous ill-defined strands that centres not around the club but more around the themes of loss and relationships based on need and baggage. These themes are well brought out even if the back story is pretty weak in most of them. When the strands all come together it isn't a surprise – it has been hinted at all along – but it is a nice low key finish to the tale.

It's hard to judge it as a film because it is too disjointed and abstract to really get into it. It sort of made me want to stand back from it and observe it, rather than get involved – like a picture for example. This distant didn't help me get into the characters but made me watch it from the outside which wasn't as good. The plot is weak but the telling is everything. Egoyan delivers the telling well and weaves an interesting story – told through the characters rather than events.

The characters are delivered well by the actors although some have little to do. Greenwood does very well as Eric and brings a lot out and for my money Koteas is always watchable in anything he does (yes – even Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!). Kirshner was too distant for me and I felt that she carried it too long and rarely let emotion touch her. I suppose her character would need to be like that but it stopped me again from accessing the film. McKellar is really a fringe player and the issues with his relationships and his smuggled eggs are basically lost in the mix in a quite frustrating manner. Happily I thought Greenwood and Koteas really held this together and kept my attention.

The film may be flawed and be too distant and cold to be satisfying but Egoyan's telling is good and avoids being arty for art's sake or being pretentious. It is not a fantastic film but it is different and deals with themes not seen often. I found that I appreciated it rather than enjoyed it – that may be the only way in.

'Exotica' is clearly Egoyan's best film and his most successful presentation of the motifs that have characterized his films throughout his career; these include the presentation of the narrative out of chronological order, the interaction of characters by means of videotape and hidden surveillance, the relationship between parent and child, and the repetition of situation and dialogue. The film's theme involves the superficial barriers-both physical and psychological-that prevent people from making a genuine emotional connection with others; as we watch the film we witness how various people react to these barriers and struggle to break them down. The film's strong emphasis on structure and focus on Thomas' and Francis' parallel 'hunts' for human contact can't help but remind of that masterpiece of medieval literature 'Sir Gawain and the Green Knight' (this is a work that Egoyan was born to adapt to the screen). In my opinion each of the film's six major characters parallels another to compile three pairs. The first pair of characters is composed of Thomas and Zoe. The most obvious similarity between these two is that each owns one of the film's two principle locations. Thomas' pet store and Zoë's strip-club are comparable in that both are businesses whose principle merchandise is living creatures that are excessively displayed so as to persuade the customer to make a purchase. Moreover, while the pet store is lined with glass cages and fish-tanks, the walls of the strip-club are composed of two-way mirrors through which employees can secretly observe the customers. In addition to the life that each openly sells, both also possess hidden life. We see this in Zoë by the fact that she is very pregnant, but must disguise her appearance so as not to remind customers of the possible consequences of the lecherous behavior that her club encourages. Likewise, in the film's first scenes we see that Thomas is pregnant in a different way. Here, he is smuggling exotic bird eggs into the country by strapping the eggs to his stomach in order to hide them from Canadian customs officials. This hidden life also extends to their introverted personalities. To combat their inability to communicate verbally, both try to make interpersonal connections by means of physical contact. In a sense, then, Thomas and Zoë (as the Greek origin of her name might suggest) are givers of life both openly in their businesses and privately in their interaction with others. Next, Francis and Eric are parallel characters because of their mutual obsessions with Christina. Although Christina is intended to be seen as a sex object, neither Francis nor Eric has any interest in her in this regard. Instead, she symbolizes an emotional relationship that both once had, but now have lost. When they eventually discover their real relationship, Francis and Eric find that they do not need Christina and make an emotional bond with each other, which is symbolized by a physical embrace. Lastly, Christina and Tracey can be associated because Francis considers both as symbols of his dead daughter. However, Francis' relationships with Christina and Tracey both fail because he is unable to develop bonds that go beyond their assigned roles as a stripper and babysitter. Therefore, while Zoë and Thomas can be seen as givers of life, Christina and Tracey clearly receive life by taking on the roles that Francis and Eric impose on them. There are also many reoccuring images and symbols that reinforce the emotional isolation of the characters. The use of secret surveillance by two-way mirrors serves both as an invisible yet uncrossable boundary between people who would otherwise be very close to one another and as a way for the characters to make private judgments of those who are being unwittingly observed. In fact, while Eric secretly observes and judges Francis during his nights at Exotica, Francis, because of this job as an auditor, does the same to Thomas during the day. Egoyan reminds us that this relationship can ultimately be extended to include the audience members, who also make private judgments of the film's characters (we've this before in films like Hitchcock's 'Rear Window' and Powell's 'Peeping Tom'). As we watch the film, we too are in a sense reaching out to forge an emotional connection that transcends the barrier of the medium itself. The film's overriding presence of money suggests to the characters that the only legitimate grounds for a relationship is financial, and any time an emotional connection is made the characters feel guilty if they are not paying for it. Finally, the frequent appearance of parrots and their uncharacteristic silence reflects the characters' inability to communicate and overcome the losses of their past. I've really grown to admire this film and Egoyan's work in general. In 'Exotica' he creates a work of complex symmetry and interconnecting symbols while also conveying an atmosphere of lyrical intensity.

Like other Egoyan films, this one starts like an incomplete jigsaw puzzle, with the missing pieces added as it progresses. However, it is not the plot that is the most important part of the film but the intriguing interactions between the characters. There's the auditor trying to overcome a painful past while reviewing the books of the gay pet shop owner. Then there's the lesbian strip club owner, the jailbird stripper, and the DJ who completes the volatile love triangle. There is fine acting by the entire cast, with Greenwood and Koteas specially good. The music by Danna perfectly underscores the sense of mystery. Egoyan masterfully balances the plot lines until the pieces come together to form a nearly complete picture - there are still unanswered questions for the viewer to ponder!

Interesting opening credits. Interesting cast. Interesting use of Leonard Cohen's song. But in totality, just above average. The film deals with a set of characters, each having some sort of a psychological problem. Visually strong, but content-wise very weak.

This is my first Egoyan film. He has evidently some talent to make a viewer sit up and expect the unusual. But why populate an entire film with problem characters? That's not reality.

The most interesting bit was actor Don McKellar who plays Thomas is made to look like the director Atom Egoyan, complete with his glasses. Is that an autobiographical touch?