Page 190 [190]
CANADIAN LANDSCAPES/ PAYSAGES CANADIENS
ÍNTRODUCTION
Atom Egoyan has made significant contributions to Canadian film over the past
few decades, leaving a lasting mark on the countrys cinematic landscape. Ihis
is true even though his positive critical reception seems to have waned in recent
years, giving the impression that the Canadian director’s recent films have lost
some of the high artistic quality of his more celebrated works. Jordan Hoffman
describes The Captive (2014) as “a weird disappointment,” criticising it for “poor
filmmaking,” while Glenn Kenny expresses significant doubts about the direc¬
tor’s abilities, and even asks, “Has this guy forgotten how to direct a film?”
However, it is advisable to approach these reviews with a degree of scepticism.
On the one hand, critics can be wrong, and on the other, if we look at Egoyan’s
earlier films, we can see that the critical response they received was not always
one of acclaim. As Scout Tafoya notes, “The fact that he’s been getting mediocre
reviews for fourteen years might be proof that a director who once set the world
on fire had lost his touch. It’s equally possible that his experimentation in a
popular form is an affront to his reputation as an iconoclast and what he appeared
to stand for during his years in the spotlight.” There are few directors in the
history of cinema who have always been praised by the critics, and there are few
directors who have been able to maintain the same high standards throughout
their careers. With the exception of a few films (such as The Sweet Hereafter and
Ararat), Egoyan himself has usually received mixed reception. And that is almost
natural. When Karoly Makk was asked in an interview by fellow director Janos
Xantus why he could not maintain the exceptionally high quality of Love
[Szerelem] (1971) in his subsequent films, Makk wisely replied that it was like
the sun shining; it cannot be influenced much, not even by the greatest profes¬
sional knowledge or good intentions (35:00).
This is also the case with Egoyan’s recent films. There are more critical
voices than praise, but often it is about expectations of style, while at other
times, he is called upon to cling to a kind of documentary reality that he may
wish to abandon. In addition, Egoyan’s works require a certain amount of in¬
tellectual effort on the part of the viewer, and the layers of his films often only
unfold after multiple viewings. While he addresses contemporary issues, he
does so in a bold, perhaps overly provocative way. It is also true that, although
he explores divergent themes and the films vary in their overall impact, his
distinctive traits remain recognisable in his recent films, which may seem like
a mannerism. Another criticism is that his films are overcrowded in terms of
subject matter, with so much going on that it is as if we are watching several
movies at once, hence the contradiction that they are often described as thrill¬
ers,' although this is only one of the several genres inherent in them.
! See Hoffman, Kiang and Zoller Seitz.
s 188 +