Amanda Seyfried serves up sex and seduction in 'Chloe'

Amanda Seyfried at the New York City press junket for "Chloe"

Doing a nude scene is almost like a rite of passage for movie actresses, since most female film stars (including the majority of Oscar-winning actresses in the past 30 years) have done on-screen nudity at some point in their careers. Even though she says she was hesitant to do it, Amanda Seyfried has now gone through that nude-scene rite of passage with "Chloe," an erotic thriller in which she plays the title character, a high-end call girl in Toronto.

Chloe is hired by gynecologist Catherine Stewart (played by Julianne Moore) to pose as a student and seduce Catherine’s professor husband, David Stewart (played by Liam Neeson), to see if David would cheat on Catherine. At Catherine’s behest, Chloe tells Catherine the details of Chloe’s sexual experiences with David, and Catherine pays Chloe to continue the affair. Chloe and Catherine’s unusual arrangement creates an intimacy between the two women that turns into sexual attraction to each other.

Besides this racy plotline, two other aspects of "Chloe" have received a lot of media attention: the sex scene between Seyfried and Moore, and the fact that Neeson voluntarily returned to work on "Chloe" just days after his wife, Natasha Richardson, tragically died after a skiing accident in 2009. When I sat down with Seyfried at the "Chloe" press junket in New York City, she openly discussed her feelings about taking on the sexually provocative role in "Chloe," which is very different from any other movie she has previously done. Seyfried also set the record straight on rumors that there might be a "Mamma Mia!" movie sequel, and talked about how she’s handling fame as a Hollywood starlet.

Amanda Seyfried in "Chloe"

How much intimidation did you have to overcome to play a role like the title role in "Chloe," since you had nude sex scenes and you played a prostitute?

I almost didn’t want to do the movie. When we were getting close and Julianne [Moore] signed on, I got really scared and I tried to think of a way that I could get out of it. Obviously I didn’t want to, but I was so intimidated I didn’t think I could actually do it.

I have only really gotten by with playing versions of myself, as most young actors do. It was the best opportunity that had ever come up for me, the most complex female character, and I had to do it. It was clearly the riskier choice, but it was also the better choice. And I think the risk factor came with that I might not be able to pull it off and also that the nudity might, I don’t know, create some damage with my American audience. It’s sad to say, but it’s true.

Wouldn’t you rather go down in flames trying something daring like "Chloe" than do "Mamma Mia Part 6"?

Absolutely. God, I really wanted that to happen.

Amanda Seyfried and director Atom Egoyan on the set of "Chloe"

Well, they haven’t even done "Mamma Mia" Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5, so you don’t have to worry about Part 6.

You’re right. I know you cannot go wrong with ["Chloe" director] Atom Egoyan, because he’s his own thing. He never does anything against his instinct and his instinct is always so specific and something so real and he has such passion for everything he does, even when he doesn’t write. I think this ["Chloe" movie] was daring for him, but he felt a connection to it, and that’s even better.

Speaking of "Mamma Mia!," what can you say about rumors that there might be a sequel to the movie?

I think I might have started that rumor. I started sharing a rumor that I heard that there was a "Mamma Mia 2." And then in October, all of these people in London were telling me that there is actually a script and everything. And then in November [2009], my boyfriend ["Mamma Mia!" co-star Dominic Cooper] had talked to Phyllida Lloyd, who directed "Mamma Mia!," and she said that if they do Mamma Mia they are going to use a whole new cast and do a prequel. And then that’s when I said, "No, it’s not going to happen."

And then apparently someone said — this was bullsh*t — that I’d asked for $7.5 million. I would love $7.5 million, but I don’t think it’d be right to ask for that for "Mamma Mia 2." It did make a lot of money, so maybe it gave me some ideas, but it’s just not going to happen. And ["Mamma Mia!" co-star] Pierce [Brosnan] recently said that it wasn’t going to happen either. So sadly, no [there won’t be another "Mamma Mia!" movie], but at least we ended on a high note.

Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore in "Chloe"

What do you take away from all of the amazing women you’ve worked with in your career?

And the reason they’re the best is not only that they are connected to each character that they are, it’s also because they have this level of professionalism and respect for the people that they’re working with. I’m sure you’ve heard of a lot of actors and actresses feeling like they’re higher than the rest, that there’s a hierarchy sometimes in people’s imaginations. But the fact is, you’re just another team member. Maybe you’re financing it, [but] it doesn’t make you any better than the rest of the people. I think you have to know what your job is, not just as the actor, but also as a team member, as a crew member, how to make everybody else’s job easier.

A film set is really delicate, and people treat you very, very well if you’re an actor, because they want you to be as comfortable as possible for you to do your work, but it really is just one in a team of many and usually 100 to 150 people. All that technical stuff, and being professional is just really clearly the way to go and helps you on the road to longevity. Meryl [Streep] is the same way. She separates her life from her work and she just doesn’t take it home with her.

And although I’m younger, and of course I did end up taking my work home with me on some occasions, I’m learning from it. And I think that it’s just a process of making mistakes a little bit here and there, but finally maybe one day getting to the point where it’s just like it is a job. And as fun as it is, as exciting a world it brings you into, it doesn’t make you who you are. And that’s what I think that Meryl and Julianne have proven, and they have their families, and that’s the end all be all. It’s helpful in many ways. It’s beneficial to all of us.

Amanda Seyfried and Liam Neeson in "Chloe"

What did you learn from Liam Neeson while doing "Chloe"? Obviously, he had a difficult time because his wife, Natasha Richardson, died while he was doing the movie.

I don’t know. I don’t know if it was very easy to talk about, especially since it was so new and so of the time. I’m not one to ever bring something like that up, because I’ve never been through something like that. I can’t imagine what it would be like to talk about it or not talk about it, because it wasn’t discussed much.

I do know that from my standpoint, I think it is the worst thing that could happen to anybody in their life — the absolute worst thing that could happen to somebody. I think I would just go away and hide in my work. I really do. I can’t say that’s exactly what happened [with Liam Neeson], but I believe I would’ve done what he did. I just think I would’ve found solace in my work.

Amanda Seyfried in "Chloe"

What did you like most about your Chloe character? Some people may find what she did in the movie to be unsympathetic.

I just don’t see her as an antagonist. In the beginning, she’s creepy, and you don’t trust her at all. And then you start seeing some deeply human qualities and vulnerabilities and the depth that she goes. And then you see this lost girl fall in love with somebody. That’s what made me fall in love with her.

I knew her so well, and I just feel like … it would have been hard not to fall in love. It would have been hard enough not to appreciate her in some ways. She doesn’t have nasty motives. She just felt something and it made her need it, and you become addicted to it, obsessed with it, which was love. She just tried to do anything. That was her only motive, just to have that forever, which is a bit delusional when it comes to having Catherine. It’s completely unrealistic, but [Chloe is] damaged, she’s got a lot of cross wires and it makes sense because she’s had a crap life. Her mother kicked her out when she was 14 — that was written in the script and then taken out — and she never had a father. Everything she does is because she hasn’t had anybody to love her.

Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore in "Chloe"

What’d you take away from "Chloe," in terms of relationships and married couples who have been together for a long time?

You have to reevaluate sometimes, reevaluate yourself and where you are and I think people don’t stop enough, because they get so used to these people. It’s almost like … everything becomes furniture. You’re just used to it being there, and of course it proved that Chloe comes in and puts everything upside down. You don’t take that for granted.

Your career basically exploded after "Mamma Mia!" How have you dealt with that so you don’t become the poster child for ruining your career?

I think "Mamma Mia!" brought me to a new audience. I already had kind of an audience from "Big Love," which was a more serious type of well-written piece of work that if you were getting used to seeing me as Sarah, the daughter in "Big Love." I think that "Mamma Mia!" was a new audience, younger, young kids and older women. So then I had a well-rounded group of people who kind of were familiar with me, and so it wasn’t hard to jump back into something very serious after "Mamma Mia!"

After "Mamma Mia!," I did this really weird, dark movie called "Boogie Woogie." And so I went straight into that and then after that I did a horror comedy ["Jennifer’s Body"]. I’ve just been really lucky with the movies that are coming up. Scheduling is always really hard, especially if you have three really great offers on a movie, on three movies, and they’re all going at the same time. You have to pick and choose and it’s really difficult to do that. I just take what’s best at the time and usually the good ones are always pretty unique.

Sony Pictures Classics Co-President Tom Bernard, Julianne Moore, director Atom Egoyan, Amanda Seyfried and writer Erin Cressida Wilson at the New York City premiere of "Chloe"

And how about not losing your head because of fame?

I think I’m past the age of getting lost. It didn’t happen too early. It’s happened steadily, slowly but steadily and people say, "Oh, well, you’re an overnight sensation. But actually that’s not true at all, because I got into playing a supporting member in "Mean Girls," and then I went to "Big Love," and then I did small movies and then I did bigger movies, then I did "Mamma Mia!" It’s been like seven years, and I feel like it’s not happened too fast. I think that’s another secret, keeping my head on. And obviously, I have really good parents.

What was your most memorable moment on the set of "Chloe"?

Ooh, good question. Well, the love scene [with Julianne Moore]. I’ll never forget that! [She laughs.]

Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore in "Chloe"

What can you say about your movie "Letters to Juliet"?

It’s a romantic comedy.

Have you seen it yet?

No, not really. I’m doing commentary [for the DVD and Blu-ray] … When you do commentary, you just sit there and see it, and you just say, "Oh, this is the scene where I ripped my pants off …" You know what I mean? [She laughs.]

What about "The Girl With the Red Riding Hood"? Are you doing that film?

It’s in negotiations. I can’t say yes or no. I haven’t signed the effing paper, but it’s something I want to do. I think it would be really fun.

Photo credits: Photo #1: Carla Hay. Photo #8: Getty Images. All other photos: Sony Pictures Classics.