In the film, Vince and Lanny call to mind similar acts like Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. I understand that in the novel on which the film was based, the character of Vince Collins (portrayed by Firth in the film) was American; did you change him to a British actor to avoid any real-life comparisons?

Real life in terms of Lewis and Martin?

Yeah, exactly.

Well, in the book it's based very clearly on Lewis and Martin, and I found that it was interesting, but also really distracting. It worked for the novel, but I just thought it would be kind of ridiculous to try that, to recreate Martin and Lewis on film. It becomes impossible, and also really misleading, because this didn't happen to Lewis and Martin. You would have the audience wondering whether it's based on a true story, so I thought it would be better to create an act which might have been possible, but wasn't based on any existing act.

All of your films, by and large, have a very strong element of mystery to them. This is your first picture, though, that is more about solving the mystery, as opposed to revealing the explicit after-effects of it (although it does deal with that as well).

Yeah, exactly and that's where it is more of a genre piece. I think the mystery in a lot of my other films is kept at a philosphical level. In this case, because it's so strategic, you have to provide certain answers, or else the audience will feel cheated. And that does create a different tone -- although I would say that in the way that the mystery is concluded here, there's a lot of ambiguity. It's all in her mind, right? She needs to believe what she's thinking at that point. That's the reason why he (note: to reveal the character he's referring to would be a spoiler) can walk away so casually; as alarmed as he is by this revalation, he also realizes there's absolutely nothing to support it. In a way, there's that collision between the private and the public - we have this event that everyone sees, this telethon broadcast for millions of people, and then this very private event that occurs in the middle room of a hotel suite. We'll never know exactly what went on there. It's all conjecture. Although it's presented as as a solution, I think it's a lot more open ended.

You and David Cronenberg are well known as Canadian filmmakers, and you both make very distinctive, intelligent pictures. I've always had this notion that it's easier to make such films in Canada, as opposed to Hollywood - is this true in any way?

On one level, there's - hmmm. I don't know. That's a very good question. It's much more difficult to get the film distributed. It's much more difficult to insure that ...compared to the money you can get in Hollywood, you're working at much more modest level. But I also think that if you are able to present your work in a certain way, there's a cultural mandate that is being served, and that does mean that you can have a career that's different than the one you might be able to have in the States. But you are also limited in terms of distribution. I've been very lucky; my films have always been distributed in the States. But there are a lot of my colleagues who haven't had that break, and their films are relegated to festivals and marginal distribution. So the great advantage to making a film in Hollywood is that, if we're talking about a studio film, the film is going to get seen, for better or worse.

You shot parts of this film in Hollywood. Was there a palpable difference between shooting in Los Angeles and Toronto?

It was really challenging, and the production team rose to that challenge, but that's a very good example of one of the ways in which you're limited. Because of the funding, we could only shoot exteriors in LA. So there are all sorts of bizarre, arcane restrictions on how you actually structure the movie. But again, I remain convinced - I mean, if you look at a film like The Sweet Hereafter, which was optioned by a studio and would never have been made as a studio movie, or a film like this one as well; it's great to be able to make the film and then reinsert them into the system, with the satisfaction of knowing that the film could not have been made through that system. But then again, there are a lot of American independents that are trying to find alternate ways to making a film out of Hollywood as well. I think there's a pool of private money in the states that isn't available in Canada. There are many different ways in which movies end up getting made, but the bottom line is that you want distribution, and you want there to be some sort of system in place to allow the film to get out there.

When you look at your work - either in retrospect, or as you're planning a new project - do you ever stop to think about how a given picture fits into your oveure? Do you think about what constitutes an Atom Egoyan film?

Oh, no, I don't have to do that, because I think things just sort of creep in anyhow. which is kind of weird. When I started making this film, I thought this was going to be completely different from anything I'd ever done, but I think it's curious to look at it now and go, 'oh, yeah, the themes are all there!' I think it's dangerous when you start doing that consciously, because you risk self parody. There are obsessions and ways in which you will present material, and certainly tonal aspects which are part of your craft, even when you're in totally new territory like this film is. It's dealing with popular entertainment and noir and all these other genres, but there are things that I can now identify as being unmistakably mine, but I think it would be lethal to pursue that as a matter of course. It's probably better to resist it.

Well, thanks for taking the time to talk to me. Congratulations on the film, and I hope that the film turns out to be a mainstream success...

Well, it's got a major shackle...

The MPAA Thing?

Yeah, but we'll see what happens.