Review: Cloud Atlas

This week I went to the movies to see a movie that I have anticipated the most this year (yes, more than Django Unchained, Lincoln or the final installment of Nolan’s Batman) and that is for one reason and one reason only: Cloud Atlas, the 2004 novel by David Mitchell is my favorite work of contemporary fiction. I could qualify that by saying that I am not a big fan of fiction and am more of a non-fiction historical type, but nonetheless I would recommend this book above any book not written by Erik Larson. For those who have not read the book I will attempt to summarize it as concisely as possible.

Cloud Atlas is a delicately crafted novel in which the author tells six separate stories in strikingly convincing and widely varied styles, all the while weaving grand themes and spectacular lessons subliminally into characters who are connected despite spanning several centuries. The story takes the form of an artichoke heart, the reader is given the first half of the first five stories, then the sixth story in full (the heart) and finally the second halves of the stories. Upon first reading the book, the switching between the stories is very abrupt, precisely because the author is do adept at writing in radically different styles from flowery 20th century to post-Apocalyptic pseudo-English garble. While this sounds troubling this is one of the qualities that makes the book so enjoyable. It is an insanely satisfying read that then culminates in succession, and if delivered in any other format the lessons that the book seeks to deliver could never be as fulfilling.

The Bad

For this reason I start my critique of the movie on that very subject: the format. Unlike the book, the movie’s directors (Tom Tykwer and the Wachowiskis) decided to tell all of the stories at once, rapidly leaping from story to story in clips that ranged in length. Most people who have read the book considered it “unfilmable” and the screen adaptation survives by changing the way the story is told, climaxing each tale around the same time, which is vastly different from the experience of the book. As a result the user is not allowed to get as deeply invested in each story and much nuance is lost. On top of this the stories are dramatically cut short, with mounds of details omitted (obviously for the consideration of time; the movie was still nearly three hours). That these stories contain so many rich details and that the user reads significant portions of each story before moving to the next are the two qualities that make the book so good, and both of these factors are lost in the way that it is adapted for screen. It is not a clear adaptation of the book: the cast is recycled throughout the stories to crudely recreate what Mitchell accomplishes in the book which is far more subtle than caking layers of makeup on Halle Berry until she looks like an Korean man (in all honesty the makeup is a little over the top and comical at times).

The Good

But don’t let my critique scare you… I loved this film. The world that is created in the film is at least visually on par with the audaciously imaginative book. The special effects in “An Orison of Sonmi~451” are breathtaking, although I wish the story had been given a lot more gravity. Some stories are told better than others in the film version, and I was very pleased that my favorite story, Letters from Zedelgham, is the best delivered part of the film. The cast isn’t perfect, but doesn’t disappoint (Doona Bae was incredible as Sonmi, Hanks was hit or miss as many characters throughout, James D’Arcy is perfect as Sixsmith, Halle Berry is merely satisfactory throughout). Regardless of your opinion of the acting or the adaptation the story is thoroughly entertaining because it is a feast for the eyes: there is gore, sex (oh yes… there are tits), raging special effects, and diverse locations and settings (think Inception on speed).

It is sad that this movie could not deliver the same satisfying and intricate message that the book delivers but I am convinced that this was not for lack of effort, but more because such a goal was unattainable from the start. If I were to grade this movie on how well it succeeded in delivering Mitchell’s story in movie form I would have to grade it poorly, the only way to experience the true brilliance of the masterpiece is the old fashioned way. But If I were asked to grade this story on how well it took the essence of this film and adapted it into an enjoyable (semi) digestible work of art, then it was a raging success. I can understand how the author came to approve this adaptation knowing full well that the general public would get a watered down rushed version of his masterpiece, and I assume that he, like I, is hoping that this film might inspire more people to actually go back and read the book (although some of the greatest twists in the plot would have been ruined already by the film). It is for this reason that I make my final grade and recommendation for this film:

Grade: B+/A-

It will take me seeing the film again to ultimately decide if it was closer to a B or an A, but I’m leaning toward giving it an A. If you have read the book then you will enjoy this film, if you have not read the book then you could possibly emerge thoroughly confused and unsatisfied. For this reason I would recommend anyone who has not read the book to start reading it and watch this film when it comes out on Blu Ray. I promise you it will be so much better that way. As for me I am going to start re-reading the book in my spare time and I too will see the film again when it comes out on Blu Ray, as it is certainly going to be added to my collection.