As a film critic I would love to have the luxury of
seeing every new film and writing about it. As this is not a paying job for me,
I have to pick and choose what I see, mostly based on personal preference, but
often choosing films that are popular or important benchmarks. The subject
matter of Cloud Atlas hardly
interested me, although the filmmakers involved certainly did. The Wachowski
siblings, Andy and Lana (formerly Larry) brought us The Matrix trilogy, the first installment of which I think is
filled with wonderful vision, a great story, and brilliant use of visual
effects. I found Tom Tykwer deeply intriguing as a filmmaker with both Run, Lola, Run and The Princess and the Warrior, although admittedly I know nothing of
his work in the past decade. Together these three directors decided to bring
David Mitchell’s complicated 2004 novel which involves six stories in different
time periods and characters that exist as alternate versions of themselves across
time and space.
The novel is structured such that five of the stories are
split in half, the first halves laid out chronologically, the sixth presented
in its entirety as the centerpiece, followed by the second halves of each of
the other five in reverse chronological order. A summary of the various stories
is not really the point, but it’s the connecting themes that are of greatest
interest. Most involve, in one way or another, a kind of imprisonment and
attempted escape. The first takes place in the mid-19th century,
mostly on an ocean-bound ship, where a young man who’s come into a recent
fortune is slowly poisoned by a doctor looking to rob him. The second is
Cambridge in the 1930s with a young composer working as an amanuensis to a
renowned composer. He also has a secret love affair with another young man. In
San Francisco in the early 70s, a journalist is about to uncover a major oil
company scandal. In the present day, the most whimsical of the tales has an
elderly man tricked into becoming an imprisoned resident of a retirement
community. In a Korean dystopia around the mid-22nd century,
engineered clones are used as service workers and callously disposed of.
Finally, in the far distant post-apocalyptic future, humanity has been reduced
to warring primitive tribes on the Hawaiian Islands.
Tykwer and the Wachowskis hit upon the idea of using the
same cast members across multiple stories. So the likes of Tom Hanks, Halle
Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, and Hugh Grant appear in all six stories,
crossing ages, genders and ethnicities. Additional cast members include Jim
Broadbent and Ben Whishaw (5 story appearances); Susan Sarandon, Keith David,
and James D’Arcy (4); and Doona Bae (3). The protagonists of each story are connected
by a comet-shaped birthmark, worn through the ages by (in chronological order)
Sturgess, Whishaw, Berry, Broadbent, Bae, and Hanks. They play supporting roles
in the other stories. Some of these actors were so well hidden behind makeup,
wigs and CGI that I was shocked to discover their true identities in the
closing credits. There are connections to be found and explored among all the
characters as well as broad character arcs that stretch from 1849, where Hanks
is a petty thief and murderer, through the final story in which his character
learns courage and sacrifice. On the flip side, Hugh Grant’s characters
progress from a charming Reverend to a literal cannibal without moral
compunction.
I knew fairly early in the film that I would need to see
it again to understand the story’s flow and the character connections. By the
film’s end, I knew a second viewing might not add a great deal and also that I
had no interest in devoting any more time to it. The directing trio (who also
wrote the screenplay) lifted the stories from the novel without alterations,
but they have meddled, to great detriment, with the overall structure. They
felt that audiences couldn’t sit for 90 minutes to see a story end only to have
another one begin. Makes sense and I think they’re right. But if they had
retained the novel’s precise ordering of chronology, you would be waiting with
bated breath for each story to resume so you can put the pieces together.
Instead they have edited together a jumbled mishmash that is exceedingly
difficult to follow. As the film progresses, the jumping around from story to
story becomes faster and more staccato. Every time I found myself in a new time
period staring at different characters (but the same actors) I had to think for
a moment about the year and what happened previously in the story. With a
structure more in line with the book, five of the stories would be broken at
only one point, making it far easier to follow the thread.
You absolutely can not fault Tykwer and the Wachowskis
for lack of vision and ambition. This is one of the more audacious film
projects I can think of in recent decades. From everything on the screen it is
clear they’ve put their hearts and souls into it and made an intriguing and
very fine looking picture. I have no doubt there are riches to be unearthed
within the nitty-gritty of this film, but not only do I found its general New
Agey-ness a major turnoff, I just don’t think I could summon the patience to
sit through Cloud Atlas again.
No comments:
Post a Comment