Posted By Steve Harcourt on March 4, 2013

Much like Life of Pi, Cloud Atlas has been labelled an unfilmable book, with its multi-layered narrative, spun across six separate time frames.  It is therefore quite commendable that the Wachowskis (The Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run) have been able to bring something to the screen, but the question is, was it successful, or just a huge folly?

Describing the film’s plot is problematic, but Cloud Atlas is essentially a portmanteau film, in six parts, with the connecting devices being conceptual, as well as specific characters or objects; most obviously, the ‘Cloud Atlas Sextet’ itself, as a piece of music, recurs.  In comparison to the book, I’m told the film has a slightly different approach to presenting the differing stories from David Mitchell’s source material, with a much more segmented structure, which jumps between the strands quite often.  In each section, the main cast, which includes Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, Doona Bae, James D’Arcy, Ben Whishaw, and Jim Sturgess, each take on a role, so you could end up seeing one actor playing 6 different characters.

The first section occurs in the mid 19^th century and revolves around a son visiting an antipodean island to conclude a business deal for his father, but after a slave saves him, events lead to him becoming an advocate for the anti-slavery movement.  In the second section, set in the 1930s, a young musician in a gay relationship, agrees to be an assistant to an older established composer, but is blackmailed by this mentor, while the third section deals with a conspiracy concerning a 1970s Nuclear reactor, with a standard 70s thriller plot.  The fourth section is the most recognisable, as it is set in 2012, and tells the story of a publisher, who after some success with an autobiography of a London gangster (unbelievably played by Tom Hanks), has to go into hiding.  Leaping forward to the mid 22^nd century, the fifth section is a piece about cloned servants in an oppressive regime, while the sixth section is set in a post-apocalyptic, barbaric future, with divided cultures; one scientific and one primitive and superstitious.

Some of these stories are more effective than others, with the better ones either being more understandable or less convoluted than the others, or at least not having glaring, distracting problems.  Interestingly, it is not a clear division between whether Tom Tykwer or the Wachowskis are directing that shows the good sections from the bad, with each having problems on some sections and success with others.  In particular, the modern era story set in 2012 falls flat, with not only some poor performances, but also an unfunny sequence in a retirement home, that comes across like an episode of Last of the Summer Wine (a BBC TV show about 3 old men, that ran for 31 series and invariably ended with them barreling down a Yorkshire hillside in a bathtub, or somesuch).  A similarly clunky section is the post-apocalyptic world, which comes across as a sort of ‘Mad Max meets Forrest Gump meets The Hunger Games’, but with added hokum.

These separate stories have multiple themes running through them, such as the cyclical nature of life, which is probably the filmmakers central theme, as they try to show how things happen again and again throughout history; this is typified by the appearance of some form of slavery or oppression in each story, followed by emancipation of some sort.  Sometimes, however, what some of their message may be is so obscured by the hodge-podge of some poor characterisation, clunky storytelling and almost pseudo-spiritualism, that you are just left confused as to what they are trying to say.

The decision to have the same principal cast take on different roles in each time period also has some good points and bad points.  In some instances there are some great performances; Hugh Grant for instance plays well in a couple of sections, but when covered in make-up in the 2012 era, he is weighed down and comes across badly.  Jim Broadbent is excellent throughout, even with poor material, as is Doona Bae, and Hugo Weaving has some good moments, although he may like being almost unrecognisable as ‘Nurse Noakes’.  One of the biggest errors with this decision is shown up by choosing Tom Hanks to play a London gangster, which is both a makeup and acting misstep. (The accent alone has to be heard to be believed.)

Visually, the film is very well done though, with some excellent cinematography, art direction and set decoration, as well as Visual FX.   This aspect of the film is a great success and those artists should be congratulated on a job well done, especially in these troubled times for the Visual FX community.

It is a shame that such a brave artistic endeavour doesn’t really work as a whole, and you are left discussing dodgy accents and prosthetic noses, rather than a good story.  This is disappointing, as I’m sure there is a good story with some fine points in it underneath it all, but I haven’t read the book, and it’s not apparent from the film alone, even with its exceptionally long 3 hour running time.

Ultimately, it was indeed a folly, and like the Wachowskis The Matrix, this is not as deep or profound as some people would like it to be, or think it is, but it was a fine effort.

Related posts:

Categories: Movies, Reviews
Tags: accent, Andy Wachowsk, book adaptation, Cloud Atlas, Doona Bae, folly, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, James D'Arcy, Jim Broadbent, Jim Sturgess, Lana Wachowski, portmanteau, scifi, The Matrix, Tom Hanks, Tom Tykwer, VFX