Development

Villeneuve conceived of a fantastic element for his story, with a talking fish narrator; he modeled the character on prehistoric fish.^[5]

Director Denis Villeneuve conceived of a story, that would revolve around a car accident:

It's more a film about responsibility and [clarity]. Car crashes are the most dramatic events common and closest to us. That's why I'm very interested in them ... The film is a dark tale. One of its subjects is mythology. There's a strange narrator telling the story from a fantasy world. It's a hyper-realistic film, but it goes very close to fantasy at some points.^[6]

For Bibiane, Villeneuve modeled the character after numerous women he knew, one of whom he described as a "mythomaniac", like Bibiane.^[4] He began making notes on the story in spring 1998, while finishing his film August 32nd on Earth, but set it aside as "too difficult", given its detached heroine. He began working on the Maelström screenplay again later that year, due to his persistent visions of the story.^[6] He began pitching the screenplay, and later said some readers told him it gave them nightmares, and that it was "too dark and heavy", though Villeneuve regarded it as nearly comedic.^[1] Downplaying the dark subject matter, he described the story as "a playful call to be responsible and to be careful".^[7] In his efforts for "balance" in respect to the abortion scene, Villeneuve said he was pro-choice but the operation "should never be taken lightly".^[1]

The inspiration for the narration was a trout he had for dinner, which gave him food poisoning. This led him to choose a fish as the storyteller, which he also liked because it would add "a purely fictional element" to an otherwise realistic story.^[4] He had also contemplated the alternative of a talking dog, based on a puppy his family had recently adopted, but preferred the metaphor of "a fish out of water".^[8] In his story, the fish is being gutted and repeatedly dies only to resurrect and resume narration. Villeneuve explained this, saying, "For me it was the kind of image which was like all the storytellers from the beginning of humanity trying to tell a story, the same story over and over again. I think it's an image that is like my relationship with cinema. And then I think there's a link between storytelling and death".^[9]

Casting

In summer 1999, casting began. Villeneuve sought "someone with a very specific energy" for the lead, and during casting met novice actress Marie-Josée Croze for the first time. He chose her with no pressure from the financiers to choose a better-known star.^[6][10] Jean-Nicholas Verrault was cast with experience in television, while Stephanie Morgenstern was known for appearing in the 1997 The Sweet Hereafter.^[6]

Filming

Principal photography started in Montreal in September 1999, lasting until November.^[6] The fish narrator was portrayed via animatronics; while inspired by a trout, the model was designed to resemble a prehistoric species "with big black eyes and a sad, gaping mouth".^[4][5][11]

Critical response

The review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported that 79% of critics have given the film a positive review based on 38 reviews, with an average rating of 6.7/10. The website's critical consensus states: "A peculiar breach of morality that leads with pretension: Denis Villeneuve guides Maelstrom through teetering absurdity without malicious intent".^[15] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 66 out of 100 based on 18 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".^[16]

Voir critic Éric Fourlanty positively reviewed the photography and direction, comparing it to a dream, but found the writing lacking in places.^[17] The Ottawa Citizen's Jay Stone gave it three and a half stars, and wrote it "aches with allegory" but had humour. Stone specifically noted the film plays "Good Morning Starshine" over the abortion scene and uses the end title "Fin".^[18] For Variety, Dennis Harvey called the first two-thirds " enjoyably idiosyncratic", with a "slightly supernatural, fate-ridden atmosphere".^[19] Vincent Ostria wrote in Les Inrockuptibles that the production initially disappointed, but it featured whimsy and an ironic use of music, and Villeneuve was among the better Canadian directors behind Atom Egoyan.^[20] Stephen Holden assessed it as "a meditation on the disconnection between the glossy surfaces of high-end urban existence and the life-and-death realities they camouflage", with Dadaist elements.^[21] In The Los Angeles Times, Kevin Thomas hailed it as a "stylish, breathless film, very much the dynamic work of a young man [Villeneuve] of talent, passion and brashness".^[22] Slant Magazine's Ed Gonzalez dismissed it as "instantly forgettable".^[23] The Washington Post critic Ann Hornaday called it "beautifully composed" in parts but ultimately disappointing.^[24]

In 2001, an industry poll conducted by Playback named it the ninth best Canadian film of the preceding 15 years.^[25]

In 2017, IndieWire ranked Maelström as Villeneuve's worst film, though not so much "a bad film so much as it is a half-baked one".^[26] The Canadian Press recalled it that year as an "off-beat parable" that "showcases Villeneuve's more avant-garde sensibilities".^[27]

Accolades

Maelström received 10 nominations, more than any other film at the 21st Genie Awards.^[28] It won five, including Best Motion Picture.^[29] Canada submitted it for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, but it did not receive a nomination.^[30] Producer Roger Frappier and Croze, hoping to secure an Academy Award nomination, also unsuccessfully campaigned for a Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film nomination, screening the film for 60 members of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association in Los Angeles in winter 2000.^[31]