'Cloud Atlas' - The Movie!

[Serge]

I bought my first issue of Empire magazine in years today[nb]I'm really missing 'Word' magazine.[/nb] and I was surprised to see that some crazy fool has gone ahead and adapted David 'Not That One' Mitchell's 'Cloud Atlas' into a film. The crazy fool in question is Tom Tykwer, with the backing of the Wachowski....er...brother and sister team. The preview in the magazine - the film's not out until early next year - says that the Russian Doll structure of the novel hasn't been retained, but doesn't say exactly how the stories will connect in the movie.

But the one conceit I'm excited about is the fact that several of the actors in the film play more than one character, with Tom Hanks and Halle Berry looking like they pop up the most, but Hugh Grant and Jim Broadbent definitely seem to appear more than once in the trailer (which is well worth checking out - it looks like the visuals are going to be great.) Basically, any film which features Hugh Grant looking like this:



And Tom Hanks looking like this:



...surely has to be seen?

[kidsick5000]

It the best for contender for Schrodinger's movie .
It could either be brilliant or awful.
The race conversions have already caused some problems.

[copylight]

Hugh Grant looking like this:

I wonder if he's the

Spoiler alert

ass raping savage

[close]

as mentioned in the book. Looks a bit chinless there, mind.

[goldrush almighty]

Is there any reason for the long delay between the UK release (March) and the US (October)? I thought we were very much in the era of piracy-evading, simultaneous screen-bursts?

I'm trying to avoid trailers (following the whole Prometheus debacle) but it's reassuring to know that the visuals look impressive. For me, the power of Cloud Atlas lies in the strength of Mitchell's writing style, and the credible rendition of the very different voices in it, rather than any hugely engaging plot lines (which always felt a bit, dare I say it, flimsy). That kind of mix isn't generally a profitable basis for a big budget film so, like Serge, I was slightly dumbfounded to hear this had ever gone beyond anyone's wish-list. The potential for fuck-ups seemed endless, at every stage. 

That said, I hope it works and that they do it justice (although, even now, I can't really imagine what that might entail). I have to say, those stills look faintly comical to me which, surely, can't be the effect they were hoping for? Might just be general bemusement at seeing Hugh Grant plastered in slap, of course.  And what the fuck is going on with Hanks' ear? Or is that a foetus attached to his head? I don't recall that being an issue when I read the book. 

[selectivememory]

It the best for contender for Schrodinger's movie .
It could either be brilliant or awful.

Ha, I like that. My opinion is the same; it could go either way, but to try and make a film of this is hugely ambitious, and just for that I admire them, but the potential for a massive fuck up is enormous. I'm going to have to see it however it turns out, but I think I'll enjoy it as long as they don't underplay the oddity and weirdness of the book.

I'm guessing that what with the significantly differing tones of each of the little stories, there are going to be parts of this film they do well and others they don't, what is going to be interesting is seeing how they try to marry it all together into a coherent and satisfying whole. I think Mitchell pulled it off with an admirable lightness of touch, but judging from the trailer this is one big and explosive production that might preclude such subtlety. I hope they don't ram home the inter-connectedness of the stories, but when we hear that several actors are playing multiple roles, it again seems like it could go either way, and that might either be a touch too far or something that'll compliment the narrative nicely - I guess in large part it'll be down to how well the actors pull off the switches between roles.

[Mister Six]

I wonder how they'll handle the metatextual stuff? From what I recall, some of the passages in Cloud Atlas were fictional within the fictional world. The crime thriller section, for example, was a book read by one of the other characters in the next nested story (and, I suppose, the preceding chapters were also part of that fiction-within-fiction, although I recall the book complicating that a bit).

[CaledonianGonzo]

Long article on it here:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/09/10/120910fa_fact_hemon

And adulatory review:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/09/08/movie-review-cloud-atlas-is-overwhelming-odd-and-utterly-completely-amazing/

[kitsofan34]

On the other hand....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/sep/09/cloud-atlas-review-toronto

[Dark Sky]

I wonder how they'll handle the metatextual stuff? From what I recall, some of the passages in Cloud Atlas were fictional within the fictional world.

Not just 'some'; every section was being read by a character in the next section.  And then each character goes back to reading the rest of the story as the book closes up the Russian dolls back into each other.

I didn't really get Cloud Atlas.  It's a collection of short stories with a gimmick which ultimately didn't pay off for me.  I was hoping that the different stories would have an impact on each other, but they don't, meaning the whole structure just seemed like a pointless gimmick.

God I'm being grumpy today, ain't I.

[phantom_power]

Not just 'some'; every section was being read by a character in the next section.  And then each character goes back to reading the rest of the story as the book closes up the Russian dolls back into each other.

But some of it was diary entries and the like rather than works of fiction, wasn't it?

[easytarget]

Kenny Powers' older, thinner, brother.

[Hangthebuggers]

Not just 'some'; every section was being read by a character in the next section.  And then each character goes back to reading the rest of the story as the book closes up the Russian dolls back into each other.

I didn't really get Cloud Atlas.  It's a collection of short stories with a gimmick which ultimately didn't pay off for me.  I was hoping that the different stories would have an impact on each other, but they don't, meaning the whole structure just seemed like a pointless gimmick.

God I'm being grumpy today, ain't I.

No, you're quite right. One or two of the stories could have easily worked on their own, yet were slotted into each other (with no real overriding reason - unless I missed it).

I'm dubious about the film.

[Sam]

Not entirely related, but the architect's speech in the 2nd Matrix is the most atrocious bits of dialogue ever written.
Anything the Wahshitskas touch after that will be eternally soiled.

[Dark Sky]

But some of it was diary entries and the like rather than works of fiction, wasn't it?

No, you're right, but the diary entries are still being read by a character in the following story.

No, you're quite right. One or two of the stories could have easily worked on their own, yet were slotted into each other (with no real overriding reason - unless I missed it).

I missed it too.  I really didn't understand the book, to be honest.

I mean, with something like Italo Calvino's If on a winter's night a traveller... which is about a reader dipping into fragments of stories, then it makes sense to have that kind of structure, because it's a work examining reading and the nature of reading and the second person narrative and unusual structure ties into that theme.  Whereas in Cloud Atlas the structure just seems like a gimmick with no reasoning behind it.  I'm not saying there isn't a reason for it, but if there is I'm ignorant of it.

[Dark Sky]

Not entirely related, but the architect's speech in the 2nd Matrix is the most atrocious bits of dialogue ever written.
Anything the Wahshitskas touch after that will be eternally soiled.

I don't like any of the Matrix films at all, but Speed Racer and V For Vendetta were both well done, I thought!

[Mister Six]

Not just 'some'; every section was being read by a character in the next section.  And then each character goes back to reading the rest of the story as the book closes up the Russian dolls back into each other.

Yes, but while most of the stories turn up in the next section as diary entries, or correspondence, or biographies or something, the thriller sequence is unambiguously a fictional novel within the following story. Which suggests, if you want to think about it hard enough, that all of the tales leading up to that one are also fictional (existing in the world of the thriller's protagonist and not within the world of the person reading the thriller).

I'm sure it's just a little metafictional joke that Mitchell threw in, but it bothered me a little.

I was hoping that the different stories would have an impact on each other, but they don't, meaning the whole structure just seemed like a pointless gimmick.

I haven't read it in ages so I don't want to argue the point, but I'm sure it meant more to Mitchell than mere gimmickry.

[Mister Six]

I mean, with something like Italo Calvino's If on a winter's night a traveller... which is about a reader dipping into fragments of stories, then it makes sense to have that kind of structure, because it's a work examining reading and the nature of reading and the second person narrative and unusual structure ties into that theme.

I'm tired (it's 2.15am here) and just rambling off the top of my head, but isn't the common theme in Cloud Atlas about pure, creative force breaking out of restrictive, solid forms? And the idea that the raw essence of humanity cannot - and should not - be captured in text or any permanent form? But also that humanity's drive to try to make sense of, and record, the world around it means that this struggle will continue eternally...

The pianist

Spoiler alert

who cuts off her finger rather than be bound to an impossible-to-play piece for the rest of her life

[close]

, the publisher who finds himself on the run after trying to write a gangster's biography, the clone

Spoiler alert

recording her life story before she is to be executed

[close]

, the post-apocalyptic future, where nobody can write but the oral tradition remains...

And, of course, the two souls that inhabit the various characters in the book, reincarnated over and over, meeting each other throughout time: human spirits that cannot be bound by crude, physical flesh. Even the title: how do you base an atlas on something as impermanent and uncontainable as a cloud?

So the nested stories both allow the characters to 'break' in and out of their stories, and escape the confines of their tales, backwards and forwards in time. Plus the reincarnation thing - these are not a series of discrete tales, but a single epic about two continuous souls.

I dunno, sleepy. But there's something there, I think. Ah, to be doing my English degree again...!

[Santa's Boyfriend]

...V For Vendetta were both well done, I thought!

But if you read the book you realise it's a bit pooey compared to what it could have been!  Well in my opinion anyway.

[Dark Sky]

I'm tired (it's 2.15am here) and just rambling off the top of my head, but isn't the common theme in Cloud Atlas about pure, creative force breaking out of restrictive, solid forms? And the idea that the raw essence of humanity cannot - and should not - be captured in text or any permanent form? But also that humanity's drive to try to make sense of, and record, the world around it means that this struggle will continue eternally...

The pianist

Spoiler alert

who cuts off her finger rather than be bound to an impossible-to-play piece for the rest of her life

[close]

, the publisher who finds himself on the run after trying to write a gangster's biography, the clone

Spoiler alert

recording her life story before she is to be executed

[close]

, the post-apocalyptic future, where nobody can write but the oral tradition remains...

And, of course, the two souls that inhabit the various characters in the book, reincarnated over and over, meeting each other throughout time: human spirits that cannot be bound by crude, physical flesh. Even the title: how do you base an atlas on something as impermanent and uncontainable as a cloud?

So the nested stories both allow the characters to 'break' in and out of their stories, and escape the confines of their tales, backwards and forwards in time. Plus the reincarnation thing - these are not a series of discrete tales, but a single epic about two continuous souls.

I dunno, sleepy. But there's something there, I think. Ah, to be doing my English degree again...!

Hmm.  Interesting.  Maybe I should read it again.  I never even considered the idea that it's meant to be the same two people throughout all the stories.  This is probably the massive, obvious thing I completely managed to miss.  I'll have to read it again before I say another bad word against it because I obviously didn't get it.

But if you read the book you realise it's a bit pooey compared to what it could have been!  Well in my opinion anyway.

I have read the book, though I can't say I was obsessed with it.  I thought the film was a pretty good adaptation!  No doubt you'll tell me some massive thing the film got wrong which I again completely missed.

[Edit] Maybe I only like watching the film because you get to see Stephen Fry bludgeoned to death in it?

[Santa's Boyfriend]

I have read the book, though I can't say I was obsessed with it.  I thought the film was a pretty good adaptation!  No doubt you'll tell me some massive thing the film got wrong which I again completely missed.

No doubt!

[Edit] Maybe I only like watching the film because you get to see Stephen Fry bludgeoned to death in it?

You are Ann Widdicombe and I claim my five pounds.