Cloud Atlas - A Review in Three Metaphors

'Cloud Atlas', the film directed by the Wachowski siblings and Tom Twyker, based on the book by David Mitchell, is a remarkable film. Nothing like this has ever been attempted before, on many levels, and it is likely that nothing close to this will be attempted for some time to come. It is as much a 'paradigm shift' as the first "Matrix" was, and is perhaps best compared not to other movies, but to something like "Faust" in that it is grand, operatic, and yet fundamentally an exploration of the human condition.

Cinema legend tells us that when Darren Aronofsky saw "The Matrix" in 1999, he... "walked out of The Matrix with Jared and I was thinking, 'What kind of science fiction movie can people make now? The Wachowskis basically took all the great sci-fi ideas of the 20th century and rolled them into a delicious pop culture sandwich that everyone on the planet devoured. Suddenly Philip K. Dick's ideas no longer seemed that fresh. Cyberpunk? Done." Feeling challenged the director collaborated with Ari Handel, to toss around ideas for a new film they would eventually call "The Fountain".

I loved The Fountain - it was the one film Cloud Atlas reminded me most of. And Mr Aronofsky? Looks like the ball is back in your court, sir... the Wachowskis have raised the bar. Again!

It is impossible to describe this movie in regular terms. I cannot commit the atrocity of trying to "summarize" the plot. I cannot give you a dramatis personae because it is beside the point. Having not yet read the novel I cannot put forth a tirade on the literary underpinnings and compare the book and the movie. If I was being crude, I'd describe it as the love child born out of an orgy that V for Vendetta, Pulp Fiction, The Fountain, Blade Runner, Faust, and Mutiny on the Bounty had, because it has DNA from each one of them... and yet. Yet. This is a whole new ballgame.

Nor does this movie play the game of regular terms. It will likely not be a box office hit, and one is heartened by the fact that it was made independently. Even if it makes a loss, it is good to know that there are people (despite the knuckleheaded corporatised studios) that spend money on good art. It deserves (but may not win) an Oscar or twenty. It is almost three hours long, but was never dull for me.

I think it is also impossible to review this movie - although Roger Ebert has reliably done a beautiful job of it by employing the Churchill quote about Russia; "it is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma". Let me then attempt to review this movie, without spoilers, and not in the usual way. Perhaps fittingly, here follows a review in three metaphors...

Part 1: The Faberge Egg

Have you ever imagined, written, composed, experienced, or built something that is somehow greater than the sum of its parts, and that you cannot imagine as anything but the final complete form? Like an intricate Faberge egg, this is something you cannot imagine putting together, because even if the process and components are described to you, you find yourself wondering how the final product could possibly have been imagined beforehand, and you are certain that you lack the imagination to have conceived it, as well as skill to assemble it...

Listen, I dabble in writing. I've written multi-thread, multi-timeline converging stories that end in one hopefully surprising 'convergence' (to borrow a word from Steven Erikson). Tarantino attempted that as well with Pulp Fiction. Mani Ratnam did a bad knockoff of the technique in "Yuva". This movie however, takes a reasonably intricate narrative structure from the book - six stories set in various eras, nested together so that the novel begins and ends in the 1850s, with the interceding chapters taking us on a tour de force from the 19th to the 24th century (and back) - and deconstructs it!

Suddenly, all six tales are being told in parallel. The audacity is breathtaking, because now the script can use none of the hooks and lines that the novel relied on. Timing is everything when telling such an intricate tale with many mysteries and interconnections, and the script balances revelation with foreshadowing brilliantly. It gives you plenty to take in on the first viewing, and constantly reminds you that a second, third, fourth viewing is essential and will have its own distinct rewards.

Ergo, the comparison to an Faberge Egg. This is a brilliant tale that you cannot imagine putting together, and that you will keep coming back to as you notice more and more intricacy in its indulgent design.

Part 2: The Degustation Menu

A tasting menu is the hottest thing in fine dining these days. Course after course from cocktails and entree to dessert assail (and if done well, delight) one's palate and by the end you are stuffed and sated, but certain you will return. Not unlike me at the end of Cloud Atlas.

This movie has everything. Drama in spades, high science fiction on an epic scale, an urban punk vibe reminiscent of Blade Runner, ambitious - almost conceited - commentary on humanity, art, the politics of liberty and insurrection, slapstick humor, elements of proper horror, some gore, high strung action, intimate and tiny events that come together in a grand - even grandiose - tapestry.

One of the more memorable lines in the movie concerns individuals and their insignificance as a cynical man tells an idealist that he is but a drop in an ocean. Pat comes the reply: "Yet what is any ocean but a multitude of drops?"

This movie then is a multitude of stories, genres, characters, plot-threads, easter eggs, interconnections, and, ambitions, all packaged into a tasting menu for the refined palate. Approach it with patience and ample intellectual hunger, and you will be rewarded. If you had a heavy breakfast and are already late for a 2 o clock meeting, don't bother.

Part 3: An a-capella Melody

One of the central leitmotif's in the movie is a melody, composed by a character in the early part of the Twentieth century, that is itself a sextet - six intertwined solos arranged in a manner reminiscent of the way the threads of the six part plot are. To be honest, while I liked and noticed the melody whenever it played, it isn't something I rushed to download or anything, and may well be the one failure in the movie. Its description and concept far outstrips its reality.

Yet the movie itself is like a soulful a-capella chorus. Yes, there is plenty of embellishment - special effects, amazing visuals, good photography, frantic action - but what stays with you as aftertaste are the characters and some brilliant acting. The likes of Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Ben Whishaw, Jim Broadbent (aka Prof. Slughorn, from the Potter movies), Susan Sarandon, Bae Doona, Hugh Grant, and Hugo Weaving all voice a multitude of characters across time and gender boundaries. After the first half hour, I found myself marveling at each new character when it was introduced, and sometimes that turned into a guessing game to see which actor was playing it. When you are confused between whether a given character is Hugh Grant or Hugo Weaving, you know you're watching a movie that makes its audience work as hard as the actors!

If there was an Oscar for Best Ensemble Cast, this movie is a shoo in. When it comes to individual performances, I have a hard time picking a clear winner - Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, and Hugo Weaving, have all turned in performances of a lifetime. Hanks in particular seems to have relished playing characters that are downright evil, real arses, or have shades of grey, which is not his usual thing. The ever reliable V/ Agent Smith/ Elrond has put in a performance in one of the stories (this character is comparable to Mephistopheles) which, while hammy, pins you down in your seat and sends a shiver up your spine every time he's on screen.

And through it all, you can feel all three director's and the original author's voice adding a bass background to the whole thing. Without even reading the book I can be confident that this movie is a completely differnt beast compared to the book. Yet, I'm also somehow certain they share a soul - much like the many characters in the tale share the same actor.

Coda

It has been a long time since I fell head over heels in love with the movie the first time I saw it. Yet, as I and K were leaving the movie hall, each lost in our thoughts as we digested what we had just experienced, all around us was a nervous hilarity mixed with confusion.

"What the fuck was that?" a bepimpled teenager giggled looking askance at his mates to make sure they all agreed with his bewilderment and skepticism. A married couple clearly still hadn't recovered from some depictions of sex (and homosexuality - zounds!) in the movie. There must be people turned off by some of the foul language, others who couldn't take scenes of violence and gore. Every time one of the characters smoked anything on-screen a public service message popped up in one corner helpfully telling us cigarettes caused cancer...

Look, this latter stuff is understandable. If drug use, sex, violence, foul language turn you off, fair enough. Don't watch the movie.

What breaks my heart is when people refuse to open their minds to something that transcends entertainment and is clearly art. There is something fundamentally wrong with a world where people sit patiently through all three and a half hours (211 minutes) of Kabhie Khushi Kabhie Gham and cry at the end and line up a second viewing, but consider Cloud Atlas a circus freakshow.

Ah well... so be it. Happy to be a drop of oil in an ocean of water. Whether I float or sink, time will tell.

Another freak-show for me, please, bartender!