David Matthew’s novel Cloud Atlas was an ambitious undertaking: six somewhat loosely connected stories spanning continents and centuries, the first five of which stop in the middle of the action (one stops in the middle of a sentence) and after the conclusion of the middle (sixth) story, the first five pick up where they left off, in reverse chronological order. (Briefly: the diary of a American lawyer (1849) falls into the hands of a British composer (1936), whose letters and music fascinate an American reporter (1973), whose life is turned into a novel edited by a publisher (2012), whose life is made into a movie that fascinates a clone (2144), who, “106 years after the Fall,” becomes an object of worship in a post-apocalyptic 24th century.) Did I mention that each story is in a different genre (thriller, SF, comedy of manners, adventure), told in a different voice and a different style (epistolary, first-person narrative, omniscient)?
So screenwriter/directors Andy and Lana Wachowski (the Matrix Trilogy) not only had the task of shaping Cloud Atlas into a movie but they and co-director Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) decided to make things really interesting by, through lots of makeup and prosthetics, having their actors play multiple roles regardless of sex, age, or ethnicity.
So, how did they do, pulling all this off? Quite well, thanks for asking.
The directors/screenwriters did three very clever things. First, they told all six stories concurrently, rapidly cutting back and forth between them. And no story segment lasted longer than five minutes or so; sort of like you’re channel surfing, trying to watch two programs (okay, six programs)at the same time: just as you get hooked on one storyline, they switch you to another—which you were also interested in—then another—so your interest is constantly piqued.
Next, there is constant movement; the closest thing to a static shot is something like a ship sailing, and even then, if no one or nothing is moving on the screen, the camera is moving, and even then, there are voiceovers when there’s no dialogue. There are no pure “beauty shots” where the director does something just to make you say, “Look how pretty that is!” No time for sightseeing here.
Finally, they don’t tie things up in a bow for you: just like in the book they tell you what the characters think is happening but it’s just their opinion, not necessarily the absolute, omniscient narrator’s “truth.” You’re left to decide What It All Means.
Now, with six stories to work with, how much of them made it onto the screen, even with a three hour running time? (Unless you’re wearing Depends, do not buy that tanker-size soft drink!) I’d say about… 70-80 percent of the book made it to the screen. Whole subplots (and the characters in them) were dropped, events were combined and compressed. If you’ve read the book, you’ll know what’s missing, if you haven’t read the book, you won’t really miss it. (But some things you might question, like one scene that is beautiful but taken out of context as it is, you might find it puzzling.) I think they did a good job except for three things:
*There was a deliberate anachronism thrown in for 21st century audiences
*There was a reveal that was better in the book (I can understand why they did it for the movie, but it kind of steps on the punchline)
*There was a bit of “Disneyfying,” in that some of the characters are “nicer” than they were in the novel (and have happier endings).
But one nice surprise (if you can call it that) was that the (occasional) acts of brutality in the movie are… brutal, not the stylish choreographed mayhem we are used to. It sort of helps keep such a wild premise grounded in “reality.”
Don’t let the difficult-to-follow hype put you off. Cloud Atlas is a beautifully photographed, wonderfully acted and surprisingly uplifting experience. Definitely one of the best movies of 2012.
Replies