Film Review: Cloud Atlas

[shadowkat]

First off, a caveat, I have not read the book by David Mitchell upon which this movie was adapted. So can't really compare the two. I do own the book, was a Xmas gift from my brother once upon a time, but have not gotten around to reading it yet. If the book is anything at all like the movie - I'm in no rush.

Cloud Atlas was directed by the Wachowski brothers (the guys behind The Matrix), and starred Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess, Jim Broadbent, Dona Yabow, and a truly unrecognizable Hugh Grant. They each played six different roles. Must have been a blast for the actors.

The film is rather hard to follow. You are in effect watching six separate films at the same
time. Jumping from one to the next with little transition or warning. And the only through lines are: the same actors in each story, each story is violent or concluded with varying degrees of violence, one of the characters has a comet tattoo (one tattoo that appears in different places on their anatomy), and in each story - someone keeps repeating the theme of the entire film:

we are all connected to each other, we do not really belong to ourselves but to those others upon whom our actions, crimes and kindnesses affect, and what we've done resonates well into our pasts, presents and the time yet to come.

This is repeated various times through the film, by various characters.

And just in case the audience hasn't gotten that point - the three stories that take place in the future or more recent times reference the three stories that took place in the distant past. They underline certain key events and/or have specific characters state - oh, I just had the weirdest sense of deja-vue, referencing that specific event, or they'll shoot of a line or phrase, which becomes a major reality in another story (example: in the 1960s, Cavendish exclaims that Soylent Green is people - as a joke, clearly referencing a movie at the time, while in the distant future, a character discovers that it is more or less true.)

Subtle - this film is not, but then it is by the Wachowiski brothers, who aren't exactly known for deftness or subtlety in their film-making.

Oh, and I almost forgot - the one through line that I liked - the composition of a musical work entitled "The Cloud Atlas", which pops up in three of the six stories, and is described as a sextet - an obvious allusion to the narrative structure of the film (six stories juxtaposed neatly as stanzas within the composition of a 3 hour film) - all informing or building upon each other. That's the intent behind the narrative structure at any rate. Which is sort of cool in theory, but doesn't quite work in practice. I kept getting lost or my attention wandered. The jumping around is bit jarring. I think it may have worked better if they'd gone for a more linear narrative. On the other hand - the plot threads are all rather simplistic. Even when my attention wandered, I was able to get the gist of what was happening, although not always how it connected to the other stories.

While there are compelling bits here and there, segments that I sort of wish were shown as separate little movies in their own right, the film falls into the same trap as Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION, in that it feels the need to have the all the stories center on violent events, or action - as if everyone's life is an action movie. It's not. Or we all have violent events in our lives. We don't. I think this film much like Inception, would have worked better if it intermingled quieter and happier stories within the violent/action oriented ones.

That said, it admittedly has a nifty message. And I agree with the overall theme, even if it is a wee bit on the preachy side of the fence. Also there are three films within the film (it's a sextet, with six films bracketed within the whole) that stand out. The two that stand out are:

* Cavendish's Horrible Experience - an unlikable editor/publisher (Jim Broadbent), who has borrowed money from his brother and slept with his brother's wife - is tricked by his brother into committing himself to a hellish retirement home, run by Nurse Crachit's sister (portrayed by an unrecognizable Hugo Weaving), the brother is portrayed by an unrecognizable Hugh Grant. This is rather humorous in places. But hard to follow because you keep jumping from it to about five other stories - which are in no way similar and not even in the same time period. But it was by far the most fun. Tom Hanks has a rather funny cameo as a nasty writer who throws a critic out a window.

* Frobisher and Sixpence and the Cloud Atlas Sextet - Mr. Frobisher leaves his lover Mr. Sixpence in the 1930s, to pursue a career as a composer. He goes to an old maestro - applying as the man's apprentice, in the hopes of funding his composition. Things go awry and end in tragedy. Like the Cavendish story - this is rather touching, with a great performance by Ben Whitslow, but unfortunately it is cut to pieces by the narrative style. So doesn't quite hold your interest, even though its memorable. Hugh Grant plays a beautiful woman that Mr. Frobisher has an affair with during the story.

The others felt a bit...cliche in places or retreads of other stories I've seen. But overall entertaining, just hard to follow due to the narrative structure.

I think the problem with Cloud Atlas is similar to the problem I had with Time of the Doctor, which is the directors are trying to do too much in a limited time frame, and they are putting theme over story and plot. The whole story is based on what amounts to a narrative gimmick utilized to make a thematic point, and that takes precedence over simply telling the stories. While the gimmick is admittedly clever and I rather like the thematic point -both lose meaning and substance, when the stories fall flat as a result.

Overall? I agree with the critics...nice idea, but flimsy execution. I'm guessing the book may have worked better? It's actually easier to do this in a novel than a movie - less jarring and you have more time to pull it off.

Comments

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

Heh! That was Halle Barry that Frobisher slept with - Hugh Grant could not pull that off! But you illustrate the chief problem with the movie, the makeup and actor reappearances become a distraction, and look pretty awful in some cases. The book is much better, nowhere near as choppy, the stories stand on their own with subtle connections - it's very good. Though like in the movie there were some sections that I liked way more than others.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It was definitely a distraction. I kept hunting Tom Hanks in each segment. And I initially thought that each character, each actor played was linked to all the other characters they played. But no that wasn't the case. Halle Berry's journalist is actually connected to Ben Whitslow's composer as opposed to Jocasta Argos. Which I found confusing and made me wonder why they bothered using the same actors.

While admittedly entertaining at times, Tom Hanks' nasty writer was a nice surprise, it was disorienting. This was a film that was hard to follow - the last thing it needed was distractions.

I'm guessing from what you and mamaculuna state - that this may be one of those books that is unfilmable. Or does not work on film - due to the narrative structure. In a novel - the structure works, in the film, it's jagged, choppy, and gimmicky.

Some things just aren't translatable across mediums.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

I'm a huge fan of David Mitchell as a novelist. The book Cloud Atlas is quite different in structure ( the stories aren't told jumping back and forth. Instead, there's a chapter about each story, going from past to future, the middle chapter is the most future, and then another chapter for each story moving from future to past). There's not the aggravating (to me) conceit of the same actors playing various characters (especially the white characters playing Asians did not work for me). And there's plenty of time, so you don't feel that you've had a bunch of plots and characters pied up in a heap. I really agree with your critique of the film.

I did write my last year's Yuletide about the Son-mi segment: http://archiveofourown.org/works/600430

The movie version of that was the most changed, and the one where I most preferred the novel's version, so my fic uses the novel version. Not all that different, but enough.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Okay, should definitely read Cloud Atlas then. I do own the book - its somewhere on my packed bookcases.

I'm guessing from your comment and ponygirl's that this is just one of those books that does not work as a movie.

Although...if they hadn't attempted to have the same actors play six different roles - it may have worked better. Having the same actors play multiple roles works better on stage then on the screen, mainly because the audience tends to either expect it or it's less noticeable. Here it was jarring - and I don't think it really held things together or linked the stories all that well.

Also, while having the actors switch genders and races - does support the theme that there should be no gender or racial divides and we are one and all connected to each other - it was unfortunately distracting. So agree - it did not work. I think a more subtle approach would have worked better.

This was a rather preachy film - more interested in theme than story. I'm guessing the book was the opposite?

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Yes, the book was much less preachy. And some of the plot was quite different. He's a very good writer, I think, so it might be worth giving the book a try.