Cloud Atlas

2012

Directors and Writers: Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski

For a film of such scale and ambition as well as having such a large big name cast, the fact that Cloud Atlas has had a relatively muted impact is quite surprising. When the directors believe the best way to promote their film, a time travelling, genre-hopping fable on the nature of existence, is to release a 6 minute extended trailer then you know at the very least it’s going to be something pretty interesting. Much of what was shown focused on the vast and varied visuals, along with some voiceovers attempting to convey the philosophical nature of the film’s content as well as internal references to its literary nature and background as an adaptation of a novel by David Mitchell. However, the miss-marketing of the film which struggled to advertise such a difficult product as well as some of the most polarised reviews in a long time could go some way to explain the lack of a response it has had from the public.

Cloud Atlas intercuts between six storylines all taking place in different times and places but edited together to feel like they’re running simultaneously. The earliest focuses on a lawyer travelling across the Pacific after a business trip and his changing world view after his meeting with a stowaway slave and his descent into increasingly life-threatening illness. The next is set across England and Scotland in 1936 and follows the life of Robert Frobisher, a budding composer engaged in a secret homosexual relationship, who begins work as an amanuensis to a famed musician, allowing him time to develop his own masterpiece. Then we meet Luisa Rey, a journalist in 1973 San Francisco investigating a conspiracy in a nearby nuclear reactor and a company resorting to increasingly criminal methods to keep its secrets hidden.

The fourth concerns publisher Timothy Cavendish in 2012 and his retreat into hiding after receiving threats from an imprisoned client. On the run, he finds himself bizarrely trapped in a tyrannical old people’s home, where we witness his and other inmate’s attempt at escape. After we jump to the future: 2144 and Neo Seoul, Korea where cloned waitress Sonmi-451 is alerted to the world beyond from which she has previously been prevented from seeing, one which is oppressive and self-destructive. Finally there is the distant post-apocalyptic future, and the encounter between a primitive tribe and a technologically advanced race seeing something hidden in the wilderness.

It’s a helluvalot to take in and you do find yourself spending a good half an hour/first third of the film simply trying to work out who everyone is and how everything pieces together. One of the biggest selling points of Cloud Atlas is the ensemble cast all playing multiple roles across the six stories, each of them even playing different ages, races and genders in the hope of expressing one of the film’s biggest themes of the connectedness of human beings and the nature of the human spirit in reincarnation. Whilst some reviewers have had issues with this device and the heavy use of prosthetics and make up to transform them all, personally I quite liked it, at least in terms of the novelty of it; although it can be fascinating to see how these characters pop up in different places, how they’ve changed or stayed the same, how they’re linked or related to each other. Plus you can get the sheer weirdness of seeing Tom Hanks play an Irish gangster, Jim Sturgess a Korean freedom fighter or Hugo Weaving a Nurse Ratched-type villain. One problem is you do find yourself spending time distracted from the diegesis whilst you attempt to guess who’s playing who or marvelling at who’s just appeared in a completely new appearance.

A lot of big themes are discussed in this: the cyclical nature of existence and how this is tied into religious and philosophical notions of reincarnation and transmigration of souls, as well as the appearance of déjà vu and how no matter what or who is involved, history is bound into repeating itself. It’s about human nature and the capabilities for people in any situation for good or evil, love and compassion or greed- how history can be changed by moments of sacrifice. Occasionally it feels like it’s trying to take on too much, when it tries to justify the overall content with the odd montage here or there at pivotal moments in the stories, all edited together with heavy cross-cutting and voiceovers talking existential nonsense. Yet these themes give Cloud Atlas a greater sense of purpose, at least compared to a lot of other spectacle-driven blockbusters. The recurring links between stories- the half-finished diary, a piece of music, love letters- are a nice touch, although it would have been better if some of them could have been extended to take on more major roles.

One thing I liked particularly about this film was the level of compassion one ends up feeling for the major characters. It may just simply be the length amount of time we see each on screen but watching the developing relationships between each of them is genuinely engaging and in some cases almost quite touching, such as that between Sonmi and Hae-Joo Chang or Frobisher and Sixsmith. There’s even time for some lighter moments, like Cavendish’s odyssey of escape which is a lot of fun and his memories of his childhood love. There are plenty of captivating setpieces too: a hoverbike chase through Seoul, the breakout from the retirement home, the assassination attempts.

It all looks bloody good too. The production design on this is excellent and frankly it needed to be- with all the jumping around through time, each story needs its own distinct look to enable us to keep up. You can tell a lot of thought and care has gone into creating each one. I especially liked the murky and monochromic look of 1970s San Francisco, which looks nice and distinct from the other parts. Some recognition should also be given to the beautiful soundtrack, which uses repeated motifs to better express the unity across the entire film.

The problem is that despite all the stories and characters and developments, it frankly doesn’t have that much to say. First of all, at nearly three hours, it is definitely too long. Not that what was onscreen was ever boring, but it could have been more concise which might have helped clarify what it was trying to say- although that is one of the problems with adapting such a difficult novel. It’s just when you look at each of the six stories in themselves, you realise that not a great deal actually happens overall.  The four middle parts work the best; the first is let down by a rather dull narrative and lack of development which is accentuated when compared with the other parts, whilst in the last the characters speak a heavy sort of pidgin English which is hard to understand plus the context itself is much more unrelatable and therefore less engaging. The 1936 part works best as a story in itself, one about forbidden love and battling against different sorts of oppression. The 2012 part is definitely the most fun. The 2144 story gets all the most memorable scenes. But many of these stories end up relying on different sorts of generic clichés to formulate their identities, which is a little disappointing.  And overall by the end, despite all the action that has happened, it feels like not a great deal has been said. Sure we’ve had plenty of moments displaying the overall links between different times, places, and people but in the end, not much has really changed. Each story ends, and that’s it; no overarching revelations or developments, just the reinforcement of those big ideas over and over again, which frankly, isn’t enough.

But still, I found myself thinking about this film for days afterwards. Plenty of the scenes and characters are memorable and help to distinguish this from many other big budget films. There certainly is a lot to admire about Cloud Atlas. Whilst I understand a lot of the criticisms that have been levelled at this film, it doesn’t seem fair to be just so loathsome about it. It’s refreshing to see a film which tries to be at once entertaining and thoughtful, one which is open to exploring deep themes and philosophies and making it engaging and accessible. Of course, the Wachowskis did a far better job of that with The Matrix, but this film isn’t the complete failure that some have made it out to be. Yeah it’s messy and it’s definitely flawed, but it’s exciting to see something so ambitious and original being explored and personally this sort of thing should be encouraged. But following the less than rapturous response this has received, that looks increasingly unlikely. Sure we’ll still have some nice thoughtful art films and plenty of big budget action flicks, but why must they always be so distinct? It’s risk taking like this that keeps cinema fresh at a time of zombified franchises and endless sequels, so here’s hoping this would have had a bit more of an impact for some people than others, to galvanise some spark into film.