“What is the ocean,” a character toward the end of Cloud Atlas replies to the charge that he is about to waste his life on a cause that can’t make a difference, “but millions of drops of water?” It is this idea more than anything else – the interconnectivity that makes life greater than the sum of our parts – that enables Cloud Atlas to make such a bold, successful transition from novel to screen.
The 3-hour epic by the writing/directing team of Lana & Andrew Wachowski (The Matrix, Bound) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) is a stunning accomplishment of incredible ambition. It is a flawed film, and there are certainly moments and elements in which the film’s ambition exceeds its grasp, but its flaws are understandable – because this is a film that swings for the fences in every capacity.
Based on the novel by David Mitchell, Cloud Atlas interweaves 6 stories spanning centuries, beginning with a Pacific sailing vessel in the mid-1800’s and reaching to the far future, “106 Winters After The Fall,” when humanity is only the barest, primitive remnant of itself.
The novel itself would seem unfilmmable for its complexity, but where the filmmakers succeed is by drawing certain thematic elements of the novel to the surface – such as outsiders disrupting the system and the slow, often failed, search for redemption – and letting that guide what becomes a meta-narrative about the idea that each life is greater than its personal, mortal existence.
Like the 6 stories themselves, the film feels choppy and hard to connect at first, but gradually as the film progresses, the editing becomes smoother and more elegant, until the stories seem to almost melt in to one another. It is masterfully constructed and edited.
Unlike the novel, which gives each story 2 chapters except the 6th (a structure which would not translate to film) Cloud Atlas continually interweaves the stories, at times spending several minutes on a single narrative, at others dwelling only for a line or two.
Certain storylines take to this, such as the one in the furthest future and – in particular – the early-1900’s tale of Robert Frobisher, a young man who moves in with an aging composer in the hopes of finding artistic and commercial success. Others, while still entertaining, suffer for it; in particular, the story of Luisa Rey, a journalist in 1973 San Francisco who stumbles upon a terrible conspiracy within the energy industry – a storyline which ends up feeling rushed and incomplete.
The story of Sonmi – a clone in servitude who gradually becomes the face of attempted revolution in Corprocratic 2144 Seoul – is the most exciting and visually arresting thread. It could easily be its own film, and would probably be a tremendous commercial success. But this is not a film that strives to be merely “successful.”
Each of the principle actors plays several roles throughout each narrative storyline, and for the most part, they succeed. The casting of actors in multiple roles can be, of course, a most hackneyed gimmick. In this case, however, by doing so – and doing so across age, racial, and gender lines – the story becomes one of transmigration of souls and the Kantian idea that redemption and growth can take more than a single lifetime – centuries, even. And this is where the film’s ambition really comes together. The filmmakers take their time with this central notion, letting it evolve and manifest naturally rather than throwing it at us through awkward exposition. This is a film that trusts the intelligence of its audience; that wants you to be an active participant.
And again, this is a flawed film, but its flaws lie within the details of its attempts at greatness. There is nothing safe or mediocre in the film. This notion of our lives being drops that make up an ocean may not be in and of itself revolutionary, but the execution of it is. It is, in many ways, a singular achievement. It is exciting, it is funny, it is fun, it is thought-provoking. It is a film that I cannot imagine leaving and not having something to say about.
The Byronic Man 
October 28, 2012 at 7:01 am
Just one question: How did you manage to take in a movie with a newborn at home? Impressive.
October 28, 2012 at 7:38 am
It was our anniversary, and my parents baby-sat. I know, it seems inconceivable, doesn’t it?
It’s also entirely possible I dreamt the movie while trying to rock the baby back to sleep.
October 29, 2012 at 7:10 am
Happy belated anniversary!
October 28, 2012 at 7:26 am
Ooo, yay! Hopefully I’ll convince the hubby to see this one with me. It sounds as expansive and complicated as “Vanilla Sky” and “Beloved” — two other “flawed” films that we really loved.
Thanks for the review. Really looking forward to seeing it.
October 28, 2012 at 2:30 pm
It’s funny, because interweaving stories can relatively straight-forward seeming, like Love, Actually or something – but when done like this it’s pretty remarkable.
October 28, 2012 at 7:28 am
I’m with WSW. I was trying to figure out how you got free for a 3 hour movie? I have been trying to carve out the time all weekend to see this movie and I have no children at all never mind a newborn. Byronic Woman is a saint I tell you , a saint!
October 28, 2012 at 7:40 am
Oh, no – she was there too. What? You think 2 weeks is to soon to leave a child to look after themselves? I don’t know, you can’t coddle them forever. It’s a tough world.
Actually, it was our anniversary, so we got some parental babysitting so we could go to dinner and a movie, then collapse in to bed, muttering ‘H’ppy ‘Nversry.”
October 29, 2012 at 5:34 am
Good for you guys, ’tis needed no matter the age of the child. Happy Anniversary.
October 28, 2012 at 8:59 am
Thank you for the review! I saw the previews the other week when I wasn’t fast-forwarding through commercials on the DVR and it looked interesting. DH saw the previews as well and now we’re in the “see it at the theatre or wait for it to come out on disc” mode.
October 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Well, it’s a pretty grown-up movie so there’s no a lot of texting/talking/etc, plus it’s pretty visually arresting. I’d say worth the theater.
October 28, 2012 at 3:21 pm
That’s what I needed to know! My 27″ flatscreen won’t cut it… 😉
October 28, 2012 at 10:06 am
Good for you and Byronic Mama! My brother-in-law and his wife’s oldest daughter was born ON their anniversary so that has made for very interesting celebrations. I’m so glad you reviewed this movie! I have seen the trailer but would not have wasted my time had I not read your review. Hmm, and I thought I only read your blog for entertainment.
PS I’m also impressed that both of you stayed awake during the movie!
October 28, 2012 at 11:12 am
That sounded a little weird – I meant that before I read your review, I thought this movie would have been a waste of my time. LOL – sorry, I’ve been reviewing budgets for 2 weeks straight and now can only communicate through numbers…..
October 28, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I knew what you meant, thanks. I’ve been trying to do reviews for a long while now, but it’s tough to get to the theater, and opening weekend is usually awful.
October 28, 2012 at 10:14 am
Very nice review! And I see from the comments I owe you a belated Happy Anniversary!
I’m completely intrigued by the idea of actors playing multiple roles. I also have to give credit to anyone who takes on the weaving together of story lines like this; that is not easy. Most days I can barely string together 6 sentences.
October 28, 2012 at 2:36 pm
You should trying interweaving the 6 sentences. So at first people think you’re nuts and babbling, and then suddenly, WHOA, all six sentences come together!
October 28, 2012 at 10:48 am
This reminds me of the film Being Human, which was not well executed, but thematically similar (if I remember correctly — it’s been a LONG time).
Great review, regardless. I’m going to share it. 🙂
Happy anniversary! Ours is today.
October 28, 2012 at 2:35 pm
It is thematically similar – wow, I haven’t thought about that movie in a long time. It was a good idea but, you’re right, not well executed.
And Happy Anniversary to you, too!
October 28, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Lots of October anniversaries here in our corner of the blog world – ours was Oct. 6. Congrats on yours! And especially congrats on getting out & about just 2 weeks after your new addition! Very tough for some people to do. And it’s great you have the support of grandparents to allow you to get away!
October 29, 2012 at 6:21 am
While I know it’s sacrilege, I’m going to have to wait till it comes out on DVD. 3 hours in a dark theater will have me sleeping in no time, regardless of how incredible the movie might be.
October 29, 2012 at 7:14 am
I second the notion. “It is carried”. I have to be able to PAUSE
October 29, 2012 at 6:37 am
Thanks for this helpful review! Not sure if I’ll catch the film in theaters, but it’s on my ‘maybe’ list.
October 29, 2012 at 7:09 am
It sounds like one I would have to think about while watching. Will I need to take notes too? 🙂 I haven’t read the book.
October 29, 2012 at 7:18 am
Even if it may be a bit flawed, I still want to see it. I’ll probably wait for it on DVD, though. Maybe I can read the book first in the meantime.
October 29, 2012 at 8:16 am
The book is also very, very good. I think it probably makes the movie much clearer, even though it leads to the inevitable “Oh no! How could they leave out ______?”
October 29, 2012 at 8:30 am
I’ll have to read it then. And I suppose if they left everything in, it’d be a five hour movie.
October 29, 2012 at 9:17 am
Thanks for the thought-provoking review. I may actually get up off of my Barcalounger and go to the theater for this.
October 29, 2012 at 9:29 am
How come your posts never show up in my “Reader”? (It’s rhetorical – I assume you don’t know). I’ve un-followed and re-followed a couple times, then you’re there for a while, and then vanish.
October 29, 2012 at 10:15 am
I’ve asked the WordPress gods several times about this, and they can’t find anything wrong. Meanwhile, my stats continue to circle down the drain. Of course I haven’t posted in over a week so… yeah, my fault there.
Hope you are getting some sleep with your adorable, brilliant (War and Peace? Really?) bebe.
October 29, 2012 at 11:13 am
Well, you’re not alone in the dwindling stats department… I know it’s happening to a lot of people, but I’m still taking it personally.
October 29, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Dad and I really enjoyed Cloud Atlas when we went to see it yesterday. I’m curious: what are your thoughts on the use of makeup to portray a character of a certain race though the actor is of a different race, particularly in Neo Seoul?
October 30, 2012 at 11:39 am
Well, as a general rule I’d say “Oh God, NO,” since it’s almost impossible to do A) convincingly and B) without looking like a racist caricature.
In this case, however, because the film is about migration of souls and our lives extending beyond our selves, I liked it. I almost would have preferred they skip the make-up and basically “tell” us that Hugo Weaving is a Korean man, or whatever – but I get that that would require more explanation than it’d be worth.
October 30, 2012 at 5:25 pm
So this is a film for an educated audience. And here I was looking forward to the next Star Trek.
November 2, 2012 at 12:23 am
Wow! When I first heard of this film, I was not too sure. Now that I’ve read your review though, I’m totally on board! This sounds most intriguing.
November 3, 2012 at 3:18 am
Just saw this today and will go back again and again. So much there to glean. So much visual lusciousness.