Cloud Atlas (4/5)
Cloud Atlas is
that rare Hollywood artifact: a big budgeted
work of art that also happens to grapple with cosmic level questions at the
center of human existence. The film is
absolutely sincere in the sense that these questions of how we fit in the
universe and what we mean to each other are clearly foremost on the mind of the
directors. And the plurality of the word
director is important, since it took no less than three people helming this
monstrosity in order to bring it together: Andy and Lana Wachowski of The Matrix fame and Tom Tykwer who is
most known for Run Lola Run. The result is the kind of film that we
haven’t quite seen before and most likely (judging by its box office numbers)
will never see again.
Cloud Atlas follows
six separate storylines across the millennia, and each narrative is nearly rich
enough to stand on its own. In
chronological order, we follow a young lawyer, Adam Ewing, who is making a trip
back from a slave plantation in the Pacific; a gay composer, Robert Frobisher,
who plans on making his mark in the world of music by working for an aging
curmudgeon; a muckraking journalist from the 1970s, Luisa Rey, who is working
on uncovering what might be another Three Mile incident on the West Coast; a
desperate editor, Timothy Cavendish, who becomes caught up in continually
escalating series of troubles; a clone, Sonmie, who, living in a future
dystopia, slowly learns to question the world she has been programmed to
accept; and a tribesman in a post-apocalyptic world who must escort Meronym, a
woman from a more advanced people, up a mountain to a nearly forgotten
cathedral of sorts.
Naturally, this is a lot to fit within a single movie, and
the film has an overstuffed running time of three hours. And yet, the story never felt like it
dragged. As you might guess, the film
does not run through each story in sequence (this is the tact of the novel the
film is based on), but instead each story is interwoven with the other,
creating a much larger tapestry that engulfs any single thread. Where the novel makes drastic stylistic shifts
according to each section, because of the way the stories are cross stitched
onto one another, the film doesn’t make similar visual transformations. But there are clearly delineated genres for
each section. The story of the
muckraking journalist has the feel of an era appropriate political thriller
like Three Days of Condor, where the
dystopian world of clones and dark cityscapes owes a lot to cyberpunk (a genre
that the Wachowski’s worked in previously for their most famous creation). But the directors all come together to make
sure that we move nearly seamlessly from one narrative to the other, and we
pass through moments of tension in one world only to have it relived by an
action sequence in another until we are finally pulled back into a scenario
where our nerves have tightened up. In
other words, this film must have been hell to edit.
There is no doubt that the film is an incredible technical
accomplishment, but many viewers might ask, what’s the point? There are a number of curious choices that
will leave audiences scratching their heads.
Perhaps the most distracting will be the reuse of most of the principal
actors. From big Hollywood stars like
Tom Hanks and Halle Berry to lesser knowns like Ben Whishaw and Doona
Bae, the film is sprinkled with a number of major and minor actors who take up
a different role in each story. While
this is an interesting theory in practice, the result is a lot of awkward
makeup jobs. It’s difficult to take a
story seriously when it looks like a character’s face might fall off at any
moment (although, it is nearly worth it see Hugo Weaving don a wig and play a
Nurse Ratched type nursing home tyrant).
The poor makeup is a clear sign that the weight of this project nearly
crushed its directors, and it’s no surprise that it took three principal
artists to carry this thing to completion.
While some might (justifiably) critique the film for how the
makeup really shows its seams, others have decried Cloud Atlas for promoting New Agey bull. And I admit that there are moments where I
thought the film was starting to become too granola, but by the end of the
movie it had made an end run around my defenses, and I was won over. There are moments in the film that suggest
that these characters are experiencing a form of reincarnation. But I don’t think the film limits itself to a
spiritual reading. As someone who is
skeptical of religious message movies, I don’t think I would have enjoyed this
film if could only be read through a spiritual lens. Recycling actors is more about simultaneously
freeing and entrapping these characters in their race and gender. On the one hand, because the characters
switch race and gender throughout the film, it shows ways in which our bodily selves
are physical entrapments and social constructs.
The body becomes ephemeral. But
these characters are also socially limited and segmented because of their race. The 19th century lawyer, Adam
Ewing, has to defy his class and gender position in order to establish a
friendship with an escaped slave, for example.
Similarly, characters influence each other through real
material objects that seem to skip their way down the centuries.
The diary of Adam Ewing ends up in the hands
of the composer Robert Frobisher.
In
turn, the love letters that Frobisher wrote to his paramour, Rufus Sixmith, are
passed down to Luisa Rey, the investigative journalist.
Texts and works of art filter down through
the ages, each time providing the current owner a glimpse into the inner lives
of others.
The readers of the different
texts are drawn to them because they recognize a little of themselves.
The transference of art across the centuries
reminded me of the Hindu conception of time.
Where modern Westerners conceptualize time in relatively small chunks—looking
at discrete decades or centuries—Hindu beliefs conceive of time on a much
larger scale.
Hindu religion gives us
the idea of the
kalpa, or a single
aeon that lasts for 4.32 billion years.
By expanding how we look at time, it also, paradoxically, can change how
we see our place in the world.
Instead
of viewing ourselves as insignificant, we might ask how small events millennia ago,
events we might not have direct knowledge over, affect our present day.
In this sense, our impact on the world might
very well outstrip our time living on it.
If
Cloud Atlas can
be defined by any sort of genre, then it is the “everything is connected”
movie.
But where others of these films
have little more to say than the simple fact that there are a lot of
coincidences and event impact disparate people,
Cloud Atlas asks us to consider our place in the universe, to
completely reconceive of how we look at history, and how art might transcend
our subjective realities.
Not every
character accomplishes what he or she sets out to do, but rather than being
failures, their accomplishments become the inspiration for those who come after
them.
When one particularly evil
character belittles Adam Ewing’s wish to become a suffragist, calling him
nothing more than a meaningless drop in the ocean, Ewing responds with, “What
is an ocean but a multitude of drops?”
Tykwer
and the Wachowski’s seem to be telling us that despite our insignificance, we
matter.
This is an important message,
and one that deserves a retelling.
While
some critics have been dismissive of
Cloud
Atlas, there is no doubt that the film, like the letters and manuscripts
passed down in the movie itself, will live on, and it will no doubt gain its
place as either a cult classic or a lost masterpiece.