Cloud Atlas (Movie)

[Eddie Teach]

I eagerly await reviews because there's no way in Hell I'll go see a Wachowski Brother-Sister-It film sight-unseen.

Nice transphobia there with the "it" reference. You redneck piece of crap. The only thing that qualifies as the collection of "its" is the gene pool you crawled out of.

Lighten up, faggot.  Nobody gives a fuck about your fruity ass politics this early in the morning.

Well, he's right. In spite of the hormone treatments and surgeries, Wachowski is still a man, not a beast. 

[Malthus]

It does look and sound absolutely awesome.
These reviews however scare me.

I dunno. To my mind, I find the reviews encouraging. The project could easily have been though by all to be completely crap. The book is one that many did not like, so it was never going to be one that would make a universally popular movie no matter how it was made. The fact that some reviewers raved about it I find very encouraging; the fact that some panned it as pretentious crap does not worry me that much.

[Malthus]

I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.

That's very flattering.  But I gotta warn you - the book is not universally loved either.

Basically, it deals with the interactions between six wholly different stories in different genres and set in different times. The "fun" is in seeing exactly what these connections consist of. There are at least three different layers of connections - one is simple: the recording (in whatever form) of one story features, if tangentally, in another (a character in the 1920s reads a journal written by the 1840s character, that sort of thing); another is that it is possible that the characters are reincarnations of earch other (in the book at least, this is dealt with as a mere suggestion); but more importantly, they are connected thematically - the stories all consist of variations on a theme. This is referenced in the title, which is the title of a piece of music written by one of the characters in one of the stories - the "Cloud Atlas Sextet".

It really is quite clever and I think works surprisingly well. But some find it confusing and/or overly pretentious. It would not have worked were it not for the fact that the writer makes the individual stories both unique and interesting (while still keeping thematic unity) - at least, in my opinion. 

One thing I think everyone who reads it would agree on, is that it would not be easy to make it into a film.

Personally I enjoyed the stories in their own right as novellas and didn't worry too much about connections between them.

They are all, in themesleves, very easy to read and not at all pretentious. They are genre pastiches - noir, dystopia, C19th travelogue etc.  Mitchell has mixed success with these - some are average but others (particularly the Brave New World rework) are outstanding.

I've read all of Mitchell's published work and Cloud Atlas is typical. Easy to read, interesting, fizzing with ideas but flawed mainly because he tries too much. As he matures as a writer I think he will settle down.

I never fault a writer for trying too much, as long as he or she holds my interest.  As I said, I don't think the book would work at all if the individual stories were not well done.

I also think that many slap the "pretentious" label indiscriminately on anything that tries to be a little playful or creative in structure. To my mind, something is only "pretentious" if the playfulness or creativity is not really original and doesn't in fact entertain.

[Malthus]

I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.

That's very flattering.  But I gotta warn you - the book is not universally loved either.

Basically, it deals with the interactions between six wholly different stories in different genres and set in different times. The "fun" is in seeing exactly what these connections consist of. There are at least three different layers of connections - one is simple: the recording (in whatever form) of one story features, if tangentally, in another (a character in the 1920s reads a journal written by the 1840s character, that sort of thing); another is that it is possible that the characters are reincarnations of earch other (in the book at least, this is dealt with as a mere suggestion); but more importantly, they are connected thematically - the stories all consist of variations on a theme. This is referenced in the title, which is the title of a piece of music written by one of the characters in one of the stories - the "Cloud Atlas Sextet".

It really is quite clever and I think works surprisingly well. But some find it confusing and/or overly pretentious. It would not have worked were it not for the fact that the writer makes the individual stories both unique and interesting (while still keeping thematic unity) - at least, in my opinion. 

One thing I think everyone who reads it would agree on, is that it would not be easy to make it into a film.

Don't know why or whether this actually makes sense but my thought after reading your description: this sounds like devised by someone with a mentality shaped by computer and/or pen-and-paper roleplaying games. I had the same feeling when reading Song of Ice and Fire. This is a total departure from the old fashioned storytelling and I can see why people who are used to it find it familiar (i.e. like it) and people who aren't used to it, hate it. What do you think?

I dunno. Certainly, the book is concerned with the manner of storytelling, and plays with it structurally (for example, in each of the stories the literal authenticity of the previous story is challenged). I do think that those used to rollplaying type games would be more at ease with this, but I don't know if it was inspired by that mentality or not.

[garbon]

I also think that many slap the "pretentious" label indiscriminately on anything that tries to be a little playful or creative in structure. To my mind, something is only "pretentious" if the playfulness or creativity is not really original and doesn't in fact entertain.

Well pretentious labeling also hops in when you have works where the authors/creators are positing it as high art but it isn't.

[Malthus]

I also think that many slap the "pretentious" label indiscriminately on anything that tries to be a little playful or creative in structure. To my mind, something is only "pretentious" if the playfulness or creativity is not really original and doesn't in fact entertain.

Well pretentious labeling also hops in when you have works where the authors/creators are positing it as high art but it isn't.

I can see that when you put something in an art gallery. If you put something in a gallery you are clearly stating it is "art" (whether it is an intricate oil painting or a can of the artist's poop).

But how can that apply to a book or a movie? The creators rarely put in the ads or on the cover "this is high art". They don't control whether a book or movie is viewed as high art or not.

[garbon]

I also think that many slap the "pretentious" label indiscriminately on anything that tries to be a little playful or creative in structure. To my mind, something is only "pretentious" if the playfulness or creativity is not really original and doesn't in fact entertain.

Well pretentious labeling also hops in when you have works where the authors/creators are positing it as high art but it isn't.

I can see that when you put something in an art gallery. If you put something in a gallery you are clearly stating it is "art" (whether it is an intricate oil painting or a can of the artist's poop).

But how can that apply to a book or a movie? The creators rarely put in the ads or on the cover "this is high art". They don't control whether a book or movie is viewed as high art or not.

Interviews with them? I mean in these days, it is fairly rare not to hear statements out of directors/writers as far as what they were trying to do.

And then really (though of course subjective), the degree to which one perceives the creator to be attempting to create something groundbreaking/visionary compared to their earlier workers - and especially for movies when it is in a genre/format that could garner critical awards (e.g. "oscar bait").

In fact, I'm not sure presence in a gallery necessarily means that it is "high" art - as there are certainly works that are frivolous/fun but not aiming to be masterpieces.  I'm thinking a lot of photography falls there / though I also think photography is an art that ends up with a lot of pretentiousness.

[Gups]

I don't think unusual story structures have anything to do with the fantasy genre or role playing (or that GRRM's novels are particularly unusual in that sense.).

There's been a steady movement way form conventional first or third person past tense narratives over the last 30+ years. For example - Bright Lights, Big City by Jay McInerny (sic?), If on a Winter's Night- Calvino,  Wolf Hall -  Mantel etc.  Lots more unreliable narrators (Notes on a Scandal), child narrators (Room, The Curious Incident...) etc.   

Writers and publishers are willing to experiment more than they used to (c.f. the rise and influence of creative writing courses and of magical realism).  Nothing to do with whether they played D&D when they were teenagers.

[Habbaku]

I eagerly await reviews because there's no way in Hell I'll go see a Wachowski Brother-Sister-It film sight-unseen.

Nice transphobia there with the "it" reference. You redneck piece of crap. The only thing that qualifies as the collection of "its" is the gene pool you crawled out of.

2/10.  Needs more shrill, emo wrist-slashing to be complete.  Go have a good cry.

[grumbler]

I never fault a writer for trying too much, as long as he or she holds my interest.  As I said, I don't think the book would work at all if the individual stories were not well done.

Agree with the last, but disagree with the first.  Not all of the stories are very well-done, and I founf the

I also think that many slap the "pretentious" label indiscriminately on anything that tries to be a little playful or creative in structure. To my mind, something is only "pretentious" if the playfulness or creativity is not really original and doesn't in fact entertain.

In my mind, something is "pretentious" if the author undertakes it unsuccessfully, for the sake of forced inventiveness.  I thought the structure of the book was interesting but that it ultimately proved meaningless to his message, and that he chose styles he hadn't mastered (like the letter-writing chapter and invented language in the middle section) also seemed to me to be pretentious.  That I thought the Somni-451 portion boring is probably not a real criticism, since others found it excellent.

I think the book was pretentious.  Though it was interesting in spots (and maybe brilliant in other spots) doesn't save it, in my eyes, from being a failure mostly brought on by trying to be overly clever and overly reliant on writing skills that Mitchell hasn't fully mastered.

[Malthus]

I never fault a writer for trying too much, as long as he or she holds my interest.  As I said, I don't think the book would work at all if the individual stories were not well done.

Agree with the last, but disagree with the first.  Not all of the stories are very well-done, and I founf the

I also think that many slap the "pretentious" label indiscriminately on anything that tries to be a little playful or creative in structure. To my mind, something is only "pretentious" if the playfulness or creativity is not really original and doesn't in fact entertain.

In my mind, something is "pretentious" if the author undertakes it unsuccessfully, for the sake of forced inventiveness.  I thought the structure of the book was interesting but that it ultimately proved meaningless to his message, and that he chose styles he hadn't mastered (like the letter-writing chapter and invented language in the middle section) also seemed to me to be pretentious.  That I thought the Somni-451 portion boring is probably not a real criticism, since others found it excellent.

I think the book was pretentious.  Though it was interesting in spots (and maybe brilliant in other spots) doesn't save it, in my eyes, from being a failure mostly brought on by trying to be overly clever and overly reliant on writing skills that Mitchell hasn't fully mastered.

Well, all I can say is that I do not agree.  The style was absolutely central to his message, which was (basically) about thematic repetition and the effect of one action on another; and I don't think Mitchell lacks mastery of writing skills. Given that the book has won multiple literary awards and was shortlisted for the Booker prize, I think I'm on safe ground that it has some writerly quality.

That being said, I can't recall any relatively recent book that I've heard you praise. What's your preferred poision among modern writers, literature-wise?

[grumbler]

Well, all I can say is that I do not agree.  The style was absolutely central to his message, which was (basically) about thematic repetition and the effect of one action on another; and I don't think Mitchell lacks mastery of writing skills. Given that the book has won multiple literary awards and was shortlisted for the Booker prize, I think I'm on safe ground that it has some writerly quality.

We can agree to disagree on whether it was essential to have six (no less!) styles of writing in the book.  I think I am on safe ground that the book has some writerly quality.

That being said, I can't recall any relatively recent book that I've heard you praise. What's your preferred poision among modern writers, literature-wise?

How many books have you heard me talk about at all?  Damned few, I'd bet.  I'd say the books I have enjoyed most in modern fiction are magical realism ones, or ones that include elements of surrealism.  That's one of the reasons I read Cloud Atlas - it looked like that kind of book.  Fortress of Solitude and A Soldier of the Great War are a good examples of books I like.

[Malthus]

We can agree to disagree on whether it was essential to have six (no less!) styles of writing in the book.  I think I am on safe ground that the book has some writerly quality.

To my mind, having six stories written in different genres and styles was essential. The theme was that, while the style and medium may be different (journal, letters, novel, TV show, futuristic "orison", and camp-fire conversation), the human dilemmas faced remain the same.

How many books have you heard me talk about at all?  Damned few, I'd bet.  I'd say the books I have enjoyed most in modern fiction are magical realism ones, or ones that include elements of surrealism.  That's one of the reasons I read Cloud Atlas - it looked like that kind of book.  Fortress of Solitude and A Soldier of the Great War are a good examples of books I like.

Never read Fortress of Solitude. I like Helprin's book a lot. Great stuff. 

[Syt]

Personally I enjoyed the stories in their own right as novellas and didn't worry too much about connections between them.

They are all, in themesleves, very easy to read and not at all pretentious. They are genre pastiches - noir, dystopia, C19th travelogue etc.  Mitchell has mixed success with these - some are average but others (particularly the Brave New World rework) are outstanding.

That's roughly where I come down on it. I've finished the book recently - still have to watch the movie. I liked the trailer which I watched only after reading the book.

Anyways, I enjoyed reading the book. I didn't think it was overly pretentious, but a bit too preachy in the second half ("Humans are evil, greedy bastards that will destroy the world as we know it!"). I liked the genres and allusions for the most part, though Luisa Rey dragged quite a bit for me, because I'm not a huge thriller fan. In fact crime stories and thrillers are about the genres that interest me the least.

There's a lot of recurring motifs (the number 6, the "cloud atlas" being referenced all the time, the comet shaped birth marks . . .) but also recurring themes, most notably one person defying power/greed:
- Adam Ewing against the colonialist attitudes of other White Men and the ship's captain/crew
- Robert Frobisher against the famous composer and his parents
- Luisa Ray against the nuclear lobby
- Timothy Cavendish against the retirement home (and by extension society who have no use for the old)
- Sonmi-451 against the Consumerist Dictatorship
- Zachry against first Meronym, Old Georgie and finally against the savage Kona (which harks back to the slave holding Maori of Adam Ewing)
As such it's also the recurring theme of people having power over other people and keeping them subjugated. I think most characters in the books can be put on a linear scale between "wielding absolute power" and "total subjugation".

My favorite bit was by far the Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish which reminded me in tone of the (movie versions of) Clockwork Orange (the witty narrator) or Trainspotting. A real tragicomic joy to read.

Letters from Zedelghem reminded me a lot of Goethe's Werther - the emo, self absorbed young man who kills himself over an unrequited love. It also features the IMO least likable protagonist of the six stories.

Sonmi-451 was IMO a by the numbers dystopian bit with strong allusions to Huxley. However, I thought the ending had me rolling my eyes (the resistance being a ploy by the government to strengthen their position).

In terms of interconnection of the stories, I have to group them. The first three flow from one another - Frobisher finds Ewing's diary. The addressee of Frobisher's letters features prominently in Luisa Rey. To that point it feels like "reality" in terms of the story confines. However, in Cavendish we learn that the Luisa Rey bit is in fact a piece of fiction submitted to Cavendish for publishing - which pulls into question whether the first parts are true or also part of the Luisa Rey fiction (the first hint at Luisa Rey being fictitious is of course the clearly fictional Buenas Yerbas setting - much more obvious than the obscure South Pacific or the rural Belgian setting).

This effect is increased again when we learn that the Timothy Cavendish bit is a movie that Sonmi watches. Cavendish gives directional advise for the movie in his bit - but is it a movie based on fact or fiction?

That leaves Sonmi-451 and Zachry's bit as "firm fact" of the narrative. It's rather curious as these are the only purely spoken bits.

My view is:
- Ewing: Fiction
- Frobisher: Fiction
- Luisa Rey: Fiction
- Cavendish: Unsure
- Sonmi-451: Fact
- Zachry: Fact

Does it make any difference? Is a story less real to us because it's identified as a piece of fiction within another story? In my opinion no, but it was rather disorienting at first to learn that the first three bits were not "real" in the story universe but rather stories within the story.

Because of the break between fact/fiction in the story I don't see the reincarnation aspect as strong as some people do.

All in all I was well entertained by the book. It wasn't too pretentious, and the stories flowed well enough into each other, I thought, except the transition Sonmi => Cavendish where she asks as her (final?) wish to finish watching the movie. As said a bit preachy and anvilicious in the second half, but still entertaining.

[derspiess]

I didn't even know "transphobia" was a word until this thread  

And were it not for Marti's screeching I would've guessed it was something Bloomberg and his ilk were suffering from.