David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas is among my favorite literary works. With the exception of Moby Dick, no novel has ever transported me to another place (other places) and time (times) more completely than this 6-part interconnected epic.
The film adaptation of Cloud Atlas received mixed reviews. Ebert loved it. Many others did not. The film was generally unpopular -- a flop. I read reviews that decried the film's chopped up and confusing plot, its unnecessary length and the directors' poor choices in utilizing one small cast and a lot of prosthetics for multiple roles. Always a skeptic of people who make their living critiquing the work of others (I don't make my living doing this, I just do it for myself), my experience with the novel led me to conclude that filmmakers wouldn't be justly adapting to the novel to film if it wasn't difficult to follow and lengthy. To read Cloud Atlas, one must be patient and invested. I'd expect nothing less for the film. As for the prosthetics -- I didn't have a preconception either way.
The business of everyday life prevented me from seeing Cloud Atlas in the theater, much as I wanted to. Then a long delay if DVD release (likely due to poor reviews) and more business of everyday life extended my delay in watching this film until these past two nights in my Man Room. The verdict: I liked it. The obligatory: it's not as good as the book.
Unlike many adaptations, the Wachowskis and Tykwer were extremely faithful to the literary work. Modifications were made and necessary (Cloud Atlas could only truly be adapted faithfully as an 11-part television miniseries), but any cuts or creative turns remained with the spirit of Mitchell's story.
Visually the film is stunning -- my favorite being the landscapes of the Big Isle. Never a fan of CGI porn, the neo-Seoul world is pleasant and terrifying. Subtly but just as important are the pleasures of set design, like the first still frame of Luisa Ray's 1973 apartment -- exact down to the wicker chair.
The cast was well-chosen. Tom Hanks ultimately succeeds as Zachry and Dr. Henry Goose, which are his most important roles in the film. Hanks' failure as Dermot Hoggins is forgivable given the greater point of the movie (see a few sentences below). Halle Berry played Meronym differently than I'd imagined while reading and brought Luisa Rey off the page exactly as I expected, and both were effect. I was not bothered (as others were) by Caucasian actors put through extensive make-up to play Korean characters nor was I given pause by Doona Bae as a 19th century Victorian-American wife. The make-up was imperfect and unbelievable -- Hugh Grant as a blood-thirsty cannibal???? But believability wasn't the point -- the utilization of actors from different ethnic backgrounds in a variety of roles was to emphasize interconnectedness and suggest reincarnation. Whereas Mitchell uses some interestingly placed comet-like birthmarks for the same end, this plot device is too subtle for a movie that has so much else condensed into three hours. My feeling is that anyone who is bothered by the make-up and prosthetics in Cloud Atlas should never see a live theater performance because her or his willing suspension of disbelief is broken.
As for fragmentation, the directors' choice to jump between six story arcs on a moment's notice was brave and addative. If the novel had been structured this way, it'd be unreadable (a horrible Pynchonesque nightmare). But if the film had been structured like the novel (5 half-arcs surrounding the crucial Big Isle arc on either side), it would have been slow-moving without momentum. I enjoyed the juxtaposition; as an avid fan of the book, I found myself wondering how certain specific snippets of the story were chosen to be linked.
Cloud Atlas, both novel and film, are beautiful and frightening, hopeful and sad. I like a good story. I love a story that let's me escape my daily routine. I highly regard a story that refocuses my daily consciousness to truly important issues rather than simply dwelling on occupational minutiae.
Cloud Atlas is placed in the Richard Roundtree Circle. It's not a perfect film, but it's beautiful, captivating and based in literary triumph. My advice: read the book first, watch it over two nights and wait till the kids are in bed to start it.
![Cloud Atlas Poster.jpg]()
The film adaptation of Cloud Atlas received mixed reviews. Ebert loved it. Many others did not. The film was generally unpopular -- a flop. I read reviews that decried the film's chopped up and confusing plot, its unnecessary length and the directors' poor choices in utilizing one small cast and a lot of prosthetics for multiple roles. Always a skeptic of people who make their living critiquing the work of others (I don't make my living doing this, I just do it for myself), my experience with the novel led me to conclude that filmmakers wouldn't be justly adapting to the novel to film if it wasn't difficult to follow and lengthy. To read Cloud Atlas, one must be patient and invested. I'd expect nothing less for the film. As for the prosthetics -- I didn't have a preconception either way.
The business of everyday life prevented me from seeing Cloud Atlas in the theater, much as I wanted to. Then a long delay if DVD release (likely due to poor reviews) and more business of everyday life extended my delay in watching this film until these past two nights in my Man Room. The verdict: I liked it. The obligatory: it's not as good as the book.
Unlike many adaptations, the Wachowskis and Tykwer were extremely faithful to the literary work. Modifications were made and necessary (Cloud Atlas could only truly be adapted faithfully as an 11-part television miniseries), but any cuts or creative turns remained with the spirit of Mitchell's story.
Visually the film is stunning -- my favorite being the landscapes of the Big Isle. Never a fan of CGI porn, the neo-Seoul world is pleasant and terrifying. Subtly but just as important are the pleasures of set design, like the first still frame of Luisa Ray's 1973 apartment -- exact down to the wicker chair.
The cast was well-chosen. Tom Hanks ultimately succeeds as Zachry and Dr. Henry Goose, which are his most important roles in the film. Hanks' failure as Dermot Hoggins is forgivable given the greater point of the movie (see a few sentences below). Halle Berry played Meronym differently than I'd imagined while reading and brought Luisa Rey off the page exactly as I expected, and both were effect. I was not bothered (as others were) by Caucasian actors put through extensive make-up to play Korean characters nor was I given pause by Doona Bae as a 19th century Victorian-American wife. The make-up was imperfect and unbelievable -- Hugh Grant as a blood-thirsty cannibal???? But believability wasn't the point -- the utilization of actors from different ethnic backgrounds in a variety of roles was to emphasize interconnectedness and suggest reincarnation. Whereas Mitchell uses some interestingly placed comet-like birthmarks for the same end, this plot device is too subtle for a movie that has so much else condensed into three hours. My feeling is that anyone who is bothered by the make-up and prosthetics in Cloud Atlas should never see a live theater performance because her or his willing suspension of disbelief is broken.
As for fragmentation, the directors' choice to jump between six story arcs on a moment's notice was brave and addative. If the novel had been structured this way, it'd be unreadable (a horrible Pynchonesque nightmare). But if the film had been structured like the novel (5 half-arcs surrounding the crucial Big Isle arc on either side), it would have been slow-moving without momentum. I enjoyed the juxtaposition; as an avid fan of the book, I found myself wondering how certain specific snippets of the story were chosen to be linked.
Cloud Atlas, both novel and film, are beautiful and frightening, hopeful and sad. I like a good story. I love a story that let's me escape my daily routine. I highly regard a story that refocuses my daily consciousness to truly important issues rather than simply dwelling on occupational minutiae.
Cloud Atlas is placed in the Richard Roundtree Circle. It's not a perfect film, but it's beautiful, captivating and based in literary triumph. My advice: read the book first, watch it over two nights and wait till the kids are in bed to start it.
