I saw a
screening of CLOUD ATLAS. I wanted to read the book first but when I tried to
get it at one of my bookstore signings, it was sold out. Funny, there were all those Arnold books left
on the shelf. I could have gotten it
somewhere else, but before I knew it the screening date came and I didn’t want
to pass up an opportunity to hear the three writer-directors speak about this
unusual project.
The Wachowski
brothers wrote and directed The Matrix together, one of my favorite films.
Along the way, one of the brothers became a sister and changed her name to
Lana. She’s attractive and funny and actually the most interesting and
articulate one of the bunch. The evolution of this major project started
because the Wachowskis admired the work of
Run, Lola, Run director Tom Tykwer and tried to meet him in Germany. After a
few misses, they connected and felt like kindred spirits. So they went in
search of a film they could shoot together. The book came their way and they
felt the unusual structure would allow for multiple directors. They planned to
shoot with two units, the Wachowskis directing scenes together, as they
typically do, while Tykwer was also filming other scenes.
They worked
on the screenplay adaptation for FOUR years. That is an incredibly long time,
but the unusual structure of the book was a challenge. They got top actors on
board like Tom Hanks, Hugh Grant, Halle Berry and Susan Sarandon, as well as
Hugo Weaving, James Broadbent and others. Even with this package, they could
not get a studio to sign off on it so they had to get a large number of
investors (I think 30). Then Warners picked up the North American distribution.
They had snags with foreign sales, and could not sell it to England or France.
The budget
was one hundred million dollars, huge for what is essentially an independent film.
The production values look it look even higher. Since the actors play multiple
roles in different centuries, the makeup and period settings added to the
budget.
Like the
book, there are six storylines set in various times from the past to the future
and the film-makers wisely chose not to follow the structure of the book which
has 60 pages of one story, then another, etc. because it would mean introducing
new characters 100 minutes into the film (the running time is roughly 3 hours).
Instead, there is extensive editing and jumping around. Your mind has to work overtime to make the
connections just to follow each storyline. The language used in the future is
hard to understand at times, and that adds another layer of difficulty. I am
one of those viewers who loves a challenge, but I can see where some of the
general public may not feel the same way.
The
enthusiasm that the directors have for this project does make you want to
forgive any elements of the film that don’t quite work. For a three-hour film,
you are not bored, and that is saying a lot. You may not believe all of the
stories, and some stories may feel more fresh than others, but it is easy to
find elements to love. I particularly liked the two future stories (a fabricant
and Zachry after the fall, both mainly directed by the Wachowskis), as well as
the deeply emotional composer’s story (directed by Tykwer).
One of the
devices that tie together the book is that each story is revealed to be read or
seen by the main character in the next segment. This element is tossed into the
stories in ways that are not particularly clear or satisfying. My overall
disappointment in this film is that there is no major revelation for the
audience, an aha moment where you feel all that you’ve witnessed adds up to a
greater whole. Words that worked on the page to unify disparate elements have
less weight when heard in this context. The project is ambitious, and the
passion of the filmmakers commands admiration, but it could have been so much more.
The
filmmakers stated they wanted this film to be viewed as a piece of art rather
than a product. They are aware that the tone changes are an issue (they worked
to smooth those out). They also make no apologies for any prosthetics that
weren’t believable. The three want the viewer to accept juxtapositions that may
not make sense in a traditional film. In that regard, they succeeded. Your mind
will be exercised and challenged to find the connections they’ve set up by
casting the same actors as different characters in different time periods, set
in entwining stories of contrasting tones. Go into the film with this mindset,
and enjoy what you see.
Beautiful
quotes from Cloud Atlas the novel here.
The author,
David Mitchell, on the film here.
5 comments:
So looking forward to this. I loved the book.
I'm mixed on this; I'm definitely more intrigued after reading what you wrote, but 3 hours of art kind makes me balk (same as Tree of Life). I enjoy some arty films but this one read more big-budget blockbuster to me after I watched the extended trailer. Maybe I was way off. A friend just lent me the book so I may read it before seeing.
I never read a book before seeing a movie, if o know there will be a movie. books are almost always better. and I don't want to be disappointed.
Stephsco, you are right, parts of this look like a big-budget blockbuster, with high-production values and moments that are a nod to conventional filmmaking (the 70s thriller segment, for example). But if you do see the film, you'll immediately get the sense that is is definitely not that.
I was going to watch the movie (still am) but didn't have any plans on reading the book. Then happened to see the book at a book store, bought it more out of curiosity, almost put it down after the first chapter, got confused how the entire story line changed in chapter two, again in chapter three, am hooked at chapter five.
I have no idea how in the world this book could be made movie and it's supposed to get even more twisted as I keep reading?
I'll be watching the movie, hoping it does the book justice.
Post a Comment