Comments on: Top 12 of 2012: “Cloud Atlas” (“Co-Review” by the Sitzchowski Brothers)

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 19:51:12 +0000

Hey Jake,
Thanks for the comment.
After walking out of the movie, one of the first things I thought was “I wonder how people will feel about that if they haven’t read the book…”, so it’s good to hear your perspective. What I liked about it was that it DID take the information from the book one step farther, and they used the medium to intertwine the stories in a way that would have been almost impossible in literature because you can’t differentiate between words the way that you can between images. I thought the visual aesthetic they used was consistent throughout (it all felt like the same movie) but they were all entirely distinct to the point that you can pretty much recognize exactly which story you’re seeing within the first shot of each cut. It’s a pretty amazing technical achievement, especially considering they were all shot and directed by different people.
In terms of Eisenstein, though, I wasn’t concerned as much with the style of the editing (I’ve never necessarily thought Eisenstein was about “look what I can do!”) but more that they used the cut to enhance the meaning of the images by juxtaposing them against each other. Eisenstein was generally of the thought that there was life between the images when you make a cut, and the only real meaning comes when you put the two together. While the editing in Cloud Atlas was often a little flashy, they were also able to create more emotion between the shots and the scenes than there was originally just by smashing them together.
And about the makeup, I agree in part. Some worked and some didn’t so much, but I often liked that it wasn’t spot on because the game of “spot the actor” actually allows you to latch on to each individual actor’s journey through the timeline. Hugo Weaving, for instance, starts out as a horrible plantation owner, goes farther to the dark side as an assassin, and keeps sliding farther and farther until he’s actually the devil. Tom Hanks, on the other hand, starts out as an evil doctor on a boat, throws a guy off a building in the middle, and slowly works towards becoming better until he finally is the hero at the end. While this way of looking at the story doesn’t always work, it’s just another way that souls are transformed through time in this movie.
Thanks for the comment! Let me know if you read the book.

By: Deuce

Deuce — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 15:04:47 +0000

More importantly, I could’ve been watching movies! Geesh!

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:49:22 +0000

I didn’t know ol’ Broadbent was in Harry Potter! Guess I should speed up my own reading and Harry Potter watching!

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:48:35 +0000

Wow, do you mean it actually took you 48 hours to read? Now I feel bad; you should have used that time doing something productive like tracking down criminals. It worked for Nick Nolte and Eddie Murphy.

Anyhow, sorry it was so long, but thanks for toughing it out!

By: Deuce

Deuce — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 06:25:35 +0000

I loved Jim Broadbent as Professor Slughorn in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. I really want to see Cloud Atlas, now, actually.

By: Deuce

Deuce — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 03:37:56 +0000

This review literally took me 7 attempts and 2 whole days to read. Of course, I read at about a 2nd-grader’s level.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 19:58:46 +0000

Hey Jake!

Thanks for your comments (and for making it through our review!). I can understand all of your sentiments, although I do hope you give the book a chance sometime in the future. Then maybe re-watch the movie and see if it changes anything, haha…

I don’t think you have to have read the book to enjoy it, but it’s hard to be certain about that because I DID read the book, and you can’t go back, as they say. But I do think it’s one of those rare movies where the movie adaptation is as interesting or more so than the original material.

I do wonder if, in a parallel universe, the Wachowskis decided to do a series of 6 short movies, structuring them similar to the book. I wonder how that would have worked out. The stories are compelling by themselves, but become much more interesting when they’re intertwined, especially as that really brings out the themes. But I guess we’ll never know, unless that’s one of the things they let you do/see/know/experience when you die (I’d also like to know about Jesus and JFK, what the most amazing hamburger ever REALLY tasted like, and how many times I’ve hiccuped).

Anyhow, thanks again for your thoughts!

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 12 Jan 2013 17:46:35 +0000

Wow! This thing is epic! I’m still in awe at the work and thought you guys put into this. Fantastic work gentleman! The weird thing when talking to people about this movie is, the people who have read the book LOVE it where those who haven’t, either hate it or are indifferent. I’m in the second camp. I didn’t loathe it, but it definitely wasn’t my favorite (I think I placed it at 26th best for 2012). It’s almost as if reading the book is a prerequisite for seeing the movie. It’s the only time I’ve felt like that during a movie. It made me dislike the movie even more because it was almost pretentious, like, “oh you haven’t read the book, then we didn’t make this movie for you.” What I did love about it was the scope and insane amount of imagination and work that went into it. You could really tell that the filmmakers respected the material and truly wanted to make a great movie out of a complex book (one that I continually see on “unfilmable books” lists). It was as if I respected the movie more than liking it (which in turn sounds pretentious on my part).

I actually found the editing to be distracting instead of impressive. I actually wish the story kept to how Ryan said the book was (and I must say your “chalupa” analogy is one of the best things I’ve ever heard). Each time I would get invested in a character or story, the film would cut to another story. It made me stop caring for anything going on. I was never confused in the movie, I would just forget why a character was in trouble or danger because it would switch to a story in which the character is not in danger. The Eisenstein comparison on Paul’s part was apt. In his movies he drew attention to the editing like “look what I can do” when editing is an art that shouldn’t be noticed in the film, in my opinion at least. It made sense when making films in the 1910’s and 20’s but that was when the medium was still new. A hundred years later it just becomes obnoxious when I see a movie drawing attention to itself in editing.

I agree with both of you guys about it not being racist in the slightest. I think ignorant people claim it is racist because Hollywood has a history of casting white actors as Asians (ie Charlie Chan and Breakfast at Tiffany’s). The thing that bothered me is that the makeup did not work. The white actors looked horrible as Korean, especially standing next to a real Korean person. No matter how hard one tries, white people cannot look Asian and vice versa (Doona Bae looked almost alien as the white daughter of Hugo Weaving). The movie almost became a “spot the famous person” as I was watching it.

I would still like to read the book at some point, but I feel the movie actually ruined it for me. I fear I will continually compare the two. I wish I could pull an Eternal Sunshine and erase my memory of the film, read the book, and watch the movie for the first time. I think I would love it as much (if not more) than you guys.