Cloud Atlas

[JasonEvans]

Last night, I sat next to a good friend of mine who happens to be a film critic and we watched Cloud Atlas. My friend's name is Matt Goldberg and he is the managing editor at Collider.com. After we saw the movie, Matt was moved to write this editorial titled: Why the Future of Mainstream Cinema Depends on You Seeing CLOUD ATLAS

Daym! That's a pretty bold editorial. The future of cinema depends on all of us spending $10 or so to see this movie? Really?!?! Matt explains why in his column.

Cloud Atlas isn’t an easy sell. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is an easy sell. The Transformers movies are easy sells. Just because something is easy, that doesn’t make it good. If we want to demand films that break the mold, then we have to do our part. For those who groan about “They’ll adapt anything!” or “They’ll remake anything!”, it doesn’t always have to be like this.

I was moved in much the same way Matt was. Here is what I wrote last night on Facebook when I got home from seeing the movie:

This weekend, all of you are going to do the right thing and go to theaters and buy tickets to Cloud Atlas. You will do this because you are capable of thinking and concentrating in a movie, even if the movie lasts almost 3 hours. You will do this because you don't need Hollywood to spoon feed you obvious and simplistic storylines. You will do this because you are smart enough to appreciate the majesty of making a movie with 6 different stories set in 6 different time periods all happening at the same time with the same actors and interwoven together.

But mostly you will do this to stick your middle finger up at the big Hollywood studios and prove to them that they are not the only ones who can make a successful big, budget movie.

Please!!!!!

Maybe I should spend a moment telling all of you about Cloud Atlas. As I said, it is 6 different stories set in 6 different time periods.

1) A young lawyer in the mid-1800s travels across the seas to conduct some slave-trade related business. He gets sick while on the boat back to his family.
2) In 19230s Europe, a young composer goes to work for an aging composer in the hope that the washed-up, but famous man will help him to become famous. The young man tells his story to his homosexual lover through a series of letters.
3) A female reporter investigates a nuclear power plant that may be dangerous in the 1970s in the US.
4) An old publisher/struggling writer in present-day England is on the run from some mobsters and hides out at a retirement home.
5) About 150 years in the future, a clone/genetically engineered woman who is pretty much a servant to a fast food company slowly comes to realize that she can be more than her corporate overlords expect.
6) Another few hundred years in the future, in a world mostly populated by small tribes of people, a primitive tribesman befriends one of the last members of technologically advanced humanity.

That is just a very basic explanation of each story. What makes this movie remarkable is that these 6 stories are told at the same time. Sometimes we spend 10 minutes on one story and sometimes we only peek in on it for 10 seconds before bounding off to another one. The stories unfold simultaneously and are woven together in a truly compelling and complex narrative.

The other remarkable thing about the movie is that the main actors (Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturges, James D'Arcy, Keith David, and others) play a different role in each of the stories -- often buried under piles of makeup and effects to allow them to inhabit different characters. It is a fun game to try to figure out who is who (sometimes they play big roles, sometimes very small ones). Make sure you stay for the credits because they show all the actors and the characters they played in each story and you will catch yourself saying, "wow, I did not see that one!" Here is a look at just some of the characters played by Hanks and Berry.



I cannot imagine what the script looked like with all the interwoven plots! To make matters worse, one of the stories is written in a kind of pidgin English that is sometimes hard to understand. I can certainly imagine what a studio exec would say when looking at the script and hearing that a half dozen actors would have a half dozens roles each in the movie... "thanks, but we'll spend our money on a superhero flick instead." As the NY Times wrote in a recent article about the movie (which was adapted from an award-winning book):

It might be possible to write a novel more unfilmable than David Mitchell’s “Cloud Atlas,” but you would have to work at it.

Hollywood agreed. No studio was willing to take on the costs for Cloud Atlas. So, its directors (The Wachowski sibilings of The Matrix and Tom Twyker who made Run Lola Run) sought independent funding. Ordinarily, it is hard to get even $5 or $10 million for an independent film, even if you have big stars attached. In this case, they needed $100 million... and they somehow got it (mostly from German backers).

So, I think (and Matt thinks) you should go see this movie to prove to Hollywood that daring and complex storylines are worth their investment. But there is another reason I think you should see this film...

I adored it! I was in awe of it. It is the very definition of an epic! It has massive scope and required consummate craftsmanship to make. I liked every one of the stories -- some more than others -- and felt there were compelling themes of truth, spirituality, and love that run throughout each of the stories. It was, as much as any films I have seen all year, cinematic art. I stood up and applauded when the film ended... and I was not alone. The theaters erupted in applause.



All that said, I know... I am certain... some of you will see it and hate it. You will get confused during one of the stories or you will drift off for a second (it is almost 3 hours long) and that will be all it will take to disconnect you from what is happening on the screen. The moment that happens, you will be lost and you will probably walk out mumbling about, "wasting 3 hours of your time on this self-important drek!" I am prepared for this. There are a fair number of critics who do not like it (evidenced by it hovering around 70% on Rotten Tomatoes). I expect it to only get a B or maybe B+ Cinemascore this weekend. This is the consummate "love it or hate it" movie, and some of you will hate it.

But some of you -- almost certainly the vast majority of you -- will feel like me and love it. You will want to talk about it for hours after it is over. I took a friend with me to see it last night and when I woke up this morning I had an email waiting from him that was titled "I can't stop thinking about Cloud Atlas." He is not alone. I can't get the film out of my head either... and I don't want to.

I have rambled enough. I beg all of you, go see this film. It is a tough, almost impossible sell, to the mainstream public. There is no way it becomes a massive runaway success, I fear. Most people simply don't have the attention spans for this to be mainstream popular and it is too complex to explain for most folks to want to see it. So, if smarter, more pensive folks like all of you go see it, perhaps it has a chance to make money. And if it makes money perhaps it will convince other filmmakers to take risks and stretch the boundaries of what moviemaking can be. Perhaps it will even convince the big Hollywood studios to back some of the creative ideas every now and then too.

--Jason "thanks for tolerating me as I speak endlessly about this film" Evans

[DukeUsul]

I'm thrilled to hear this review. I was excited about this film when I saw the trailer so I picked up the novel. I'm 92% through the story according to my Kindle and very disappointed. David Mitchell has done very little to tie these stories together, maybe I'm just dense, or perhaps there's something big coming in the last 8%. It sounds like the film may live up to my hopes.

MINOR BOOK SPOILER

This is minor because you could discern this from reading the TOC. In the novel, Mitchell tells the stories chronologically, starting in the first 1850's time, telling half of that period's tale, then moving forward. He tells half of each story until you are post-apocalyptic, tells that whole story, then moves backward to tell the second half of each, and ends back on the sailing ship. So far with little left to read, there's hardly anything but hints of how they tie together. I hope there's some grand ending in the book that makes the relationship more clear.

Or maybe I'm just dense.

I'm sure the Wachowski siblings realized this format would make an even worse film.

[Jderf]

I also got the chance to catch this film (for free!) at a press event, although personally, I wasn't quite as enamored with the movie as you, Jason. Don't get me wrong, I found it to be fairly enjoyable and it definitely had its moments. I had no problem with it being three hours long, and I'll almost certainly see it again at some point. But ultimately, my first impression was that the movie falls short of what it is aiming to be. It just seemed to lack the necessary intellectual richness to equal the spectacular visuals. I was fascinated by the bizarre casting and make-up, which was successful at some points and distracting at others, but in the end it wasn't clear to me what exactly motivated those daring choices, other than the impulse to be daring for its own sake. The story-arc, taken as a whole, is meant to instill you with a certain sense of grandeur, but I'm not sure what parallels are meant to be drawn from the various plots, unless the point is simply that oppression is bad and freedom is good. Beyond the fact that each plot makes an appearance in another and that various characters share the same birthmark, it is not clear what connects these segments together to bind them all into a single film, rather than a diverse collection of short stories.

Don't let me dissuade anyone from going to see it, as I still recommend that everyone form their own opinion. At the very least, it will be a unique movie experience. And I could very well change my mind after I see it again. But for now, I can't help but be a bit disappointed.

[JasonEvans]

Jderf, I think you fell into a bit of a trap in looking for some central meaning and theme to the film. I think this happens to a lot of folks who see this film. To me, it did not need some overarching connection and theme (though the ad campaign tag line "Everything is connected" tries to convince the audience that such a theme exists). I just sat back and enjoyed all the stories, which were quite diverse and compelling.

It is sorta a cheat to have a movie with 6 stories that are not more connected thematically. Why put them together if they are not to convey some meaning by being together? I don't really have an answer to that except to say it (obviously) did not bother me or sap my enjoyment of the film. That said, I totally understand where you are coming from in your view of the film and I think a fair number of people will share your opinion of it and describe their experience as being underwhelmed by the movie. To me, though, it speaks volumes for the quality of this film that you still think you want to see it again, despite being "disappointed."

Roger Ebert has a pretty good review where he talks a bit about this quandary of trying to explain what Cloud Atlas is and how "everything is connected."

I was never, ever bored by "Cloud Atlas." On my second viewing, I gave up any attempt to work out the logical connections between the segments, stories and characters. What was important was that I set my mind free to play (like a child looking at shapes in the clouds). Clouds do not really look like camels or sailing ships or castles in the sky. They are simply a natural process at work. So too, perhaps, are our lives. Because we have minds and clouds do not, we desire freedom. That is the shape the characters in "Cloud Atlas" take, and how they attempt to direct our thoughts. Any concrete, factual attempt to nail the film down to cold fact, to tell you what it "means," is as pointless as trying to build a clockwork orange.

-Jason "Roger is being a bit melodramatic there, but I think you get his drift" Evans

[BD80]

... Roger Ebert has a pretty good review where he talks a bit about this quandary of trying to explain what Cloud Atlas is and how "everything is connected."



-Jason "Roger is being a bit melodramatic there, but I think you get his drift" Evans

OK. Roger lost me. I am familiar with the novel and movie, but what, in Ebert's context, is a "clockwork orange?"

[bjornolf]

OK. Roger lost me. I am familiar with the novel and movie, but what, in Ebert's context, is a "clockwork orange?"

I'm not quite sure how you build one, but "A Clockwork Orange" was a book by Anthony Burgess and movie by Stanley Kubrik.

[JasonEvans]

I'm not quite sure how you build one, but "A Clockwork Orange" was a book by Anthony Burgess and movie by Stanley Kubrik.

There has been much discussion of what Burgess meant by the title to his book. I found several explanations that say Burgess meant "something that looks alive and living (orange standing for freshness, life, organic) but, inside, is really just a robot-like clock."

--Jason "not sure why Ebert used it in that rather obscure way, but I sorta got what he meant by it" Evans

[CameronBornAndBred]

Eeek! A $9.4 mil opening. Third place behind a crappy Adam Sandler movie. Has Tom Hanks ever opened so badly?

[JasonEvans]

Eeek! A $9.4 mil opening. Third place behind a crappy Adam Sandler movie. Has Tom Hanks ever opened so badly?

3rd place behind a crappy Adam Sandler movie that had already been in theaters for 5 weeks!?!!? Argh! America, I weep for your taste in films!

The weekend was affected by everyone on the East Coast preparing for the storm. Most estimates are that total boxoffice should have been up about 20-30% if not for the storm, but it is still a very weak opening. Obviously, I failed to reach most of the country with my comments

Tom Hanks has opened worse, but not often. That Thing You Do made just $6.2 mil opening weekend in 1995. Bonfire of the Vanities made a paltry $4.2 mil in 1990. Several of his 1980s movies also made less than $9 mil opening weekend... Of course, boxoffice dollars were very different back then. $9 mil was a pretty strong opening, probably equal to a $25 mil opening nowadays.

In 2007, Charlie Wilson's War made $9.6 mil, which is just barely more than Cloud Atlas. It was a pretty good movie and deserved a better fate from moviegoers. The same can be said of Cloud Atlas... in spades!!

-Jason "so, did anyone here see it this weekend?" Evans

[Wander]

I just saw it and thought it was awesome.

Spoilers, but I think I liked every single change they made to the book (which I enjoyed). They cut out characters and scenes that weren't important, gave the post-apocalyptic story in Hawaii a purpose that I found lacking in the novel, and get rid of the silly "the Korean rebellion was all fake" twist.

I do wish they made more of a connection between the Louisa Rey story and the Cavendish story - that was the only pair where I couldn't draw a line between how the previous story affected the later characters (I know Cavendish read the novel, but that didn't seem to change anything).

My favorite moment was the last scene between Sonmi and the interviewer. "What if nobody believes your truth?" "Someone already does."

[moonpie23]

3rd place behind a crappy Adam Sandler movie that had already been in theaters for 5 weeks!?!!? Argh! America, I weep for your taste in films!

sorry to be the bearer of bad news, sir evans, but...america likes MOVIES, and the general public has no "taste in "films"


aside from that, is cloud atlas as good as little big man?

[Jim3k]

I saw it this afternoon and enjoyed it. I did get used to the flashback/forward thing OK. And I must say that the Jim Broadbent story with the seniors is plain hilarious. I remember the first time I tried to figure out how to start a car which didn't have a real key, too.

As for the connection stuff, I found it fairly easy to follow, though the murderous doctor flummoxed me. I wasn't sure where he came from, but then realized he was the gold hunter from the beach.

Thought the Korean future was interesting, stealing a theme from Soylent Green. But the message the girl gives is hardly stuff for the Ages.

Over all, I enjoyed it. It is long, though.

I think we are looking at Oscars for costumes and makeup. Probably not much else, unless Broadbent gets recognized for his comedy. He has been pretty wonderful over the past ten years or so. It's time for him to be recognized. And Halle Berry is pretty swell. Oh...And Halle Berry is pretty swell...Did I say that Halle...

[Jim3k]

Slate has a very insightful audio (with Spoilers) discussion of Cloud Atlas by three critics (Dan Kois, Dana Stevens, and John Swansburg) who have a much better understanding of the overview set up by the Wachowskis than anything anyone has mentioned in the thread.

Ultimately, these critics are not all that impressed with the movie. They think much of it is senseless and provide no paths to a global understanding of the author's concepts. They pretty much laugh at the entire premise. Their judgment: Absurd, but still entertaining. They recommend not trying to follow the Wachowskis' moral/philosophical, and mainly muddled, message. The main suggestion is to follow whatever actor has the comet birthmark. Even that, though, has its limitations.

Plus, the critics point out (as a movie-making factoid), that Hugo Weaving seems to be the Wachowskis' favorite actor--from the Matrix films and V for Vendetta--and here plays a number of heavy parts.

The audio is long (45 minutes), but if you want a better understanding of this movie, it is worth the time.

[roywhite]

Wife and I saw it yesterday; liked it, didn't love it.

One measure of a movie for me is whether it is really sticking in my mind the next day...this one is not.

Though I think we've become jaded somewhat to special effects, I was impressed with how well many of these scenes were shot...I liked much of the acting and enjoyed some of the segments.
Certainly worth the tickets, but just not great in our opinion.

[YmoBeThere]

Watched it this morning, rented from Redbox. I didn't do as the friend of the OP enjoined, I don't go to very many first run movies(The Hobbit in early March in 3D was the most recent.) Much better than I was expecting. I thought it could have been a little easier to follow if some of the parts were pieced together in slightly longer sequences, but altogether I liked the film.

[WillJ]

Watched it this morning, rented from Redbox. I didn't do as the friend of the OP enjoined, I don't go to very many first run movies(The Hobbit in early March in 3D was the most recent.) Much better than I was expecting. I thought it could have been a little easier to follow if some of the parts were pieced together in slightly longer sequences, but altogether I liked the film.

Read the book recently and thought it was great. Not sure either about the unifying theme, but I don't care. They are great, imaginative stories. Looking forward to the movie....I just need a night when nobody else is at home!

[JasonEvans]

Every year, there are movie I see that I am sad more people did not get to see. As you can tell by looking back on what I wrote last fall, Cloud Atlas is at the top of that list, not least of which because I really wanted Hollywood to see that an original, thoughtful film can be worth spending a lot of money to make. Sadly, not nearly enough people saw Cloud Atlas to convince Hollywood that this is the case. On a much more popcorny scale, the same kind of thing happened this summer with Pacific Rim, a film that was original and fun but does not seem to have connected with audiences on quite the scale that the comic book/franchise films do. Sigh... ahh well.

I am glad that folks are getting a chance to discover Cloud Atlas on DVD or some streaming service. Better to see it now than not see it at all.

-Jason "The Wachowskis are going for another original sci-fi story -- they are shooting Jupiter Ascending right now with a July 2014 release date -- Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis star" Evans

[-jk]

Every year, there are movie I see that I am sad more people did not get to see. As you can tell by looking back on what I wrote last fall, Cloud Atlas is at the top of that list, not least of which because I really wanted Hollywood to see that an original, thoughtful film can be worth spending a lot of money to make. Sadly, not nearly enough people saw Cloud Atlas to convince Hollywood that this is the case. On a much more popcorny scale, the same kind of thing happened this summer with Pacific Rim, a film that was original and fun but does not seem to have connected with audiences on quite the scale that the comic book/franchise films do. Sigh... ahh well.

I am glad that folks are getting a chance to discover Cloud Atlas on DVD or some streaming service. Better to see it now than not see it at all.

-Jason "The Wachowskis are going for another original sci-fi story -- they are shooting Jupiter Ascending right now with a July 2014 release date -- Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis star" Evans

So, are you suggesting movies are too "formulaic"? Or is this a new thread?

-jk