Well, it has premiered at TIFF over the weekend, and the reviews are ... are absurdly polarized. I've never seen such a division. Half the reviewers are raving about how this movie single-handedly revitalized movie-making, and the other half think it is unmitigated crap.
Insanely positive:
Quote
I walked out of Cloud Atlas utterly overwhelmed. Days later I'm still processing it. It's a movie I could write about for days, the kind of film where each shot, each transition, is worthy of discussion and dissection. I haven't even touched on the way that the telling of stories - through letters, memoirs, movies, manifestos - is used to speak about our endless human connection. There are so many aspects of the film I've only brushed past in this review, giving scant words to magnificent things.
I can't wait to see it again. Until I do I'll hold on to the feeling this movie gave me, an incredible sense of hope for the future of cinema. And the future of humanity. How many movies give you that?
http://badassdigest.com/2012/09/08/m...etely-amazing/
Insanely negative:
http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2...2-cloud-atlas/
Quote
"What is an ocean," one character asks smugly, "if not a multitude of drops?" And what's Cloud Atlas if not a multitude of terrible details and unwatchable moments? When Hanks throws a walking cliché of a stuffy British critic of literature from the rooftop terrace of a high-rise, I very seriously considered walking out; by the time Hugo Weaving shows up in drag as a nursing home bully, I was ready to renounce film criticism altogether and take up a less emotionally or psychologically taxing occupation, like the operator of an emergency suicide hotline (in fact, I could have made use of one myself by the end). The problem isn't that this is one of the worst films I've ever seen in my life; the problem is that it's seven of the worst films I've ever seen in my life glued together haphazardly, their inexorable badness amplified by their awkward juxtaposition. Tom Tykwer and Andy and Lana Wachowski wanted to make a movie unlike any other, and they certainly did: Cloud Atlas is a unique and totally unparalleled disaster.
Ebert gives it a very positive 'non-review', compares it to 2001:
Quote
I know I've seen something atonishing, and I know I'm not ready to review it. "Cloud Atlas," by the Wachowski siblings and Tom Tykwer, is a film of limitless imagination, breathtaking visuals and fearless scope. I have no idea what it's about. It interweaves six principal stories spanning centuries--three for sure, maybe four. It uses the same actors in most of those stories. Assigning multiple roles to actors is described as an inspiration by the filmmakers to help us follow threads through the different stories. But the makeup is so painstaking and effective that much of the time we may not realize we're seeing the same actors. Nor did I sense the threads. The actors Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Hugh Grant and Jim Sturgess together portray 14 different characters, and not even sex is a clue because some of their roles cross gender categories. The end credits, which go by a little too fast, will surprise a lot of audience members. Sat what? Hugo Weaving plays Nurse Noakes? "Cloud Atlas" has locks on Oscar nominations for best makeup and costume design.
The stories, much adapted and retold from a David Mitchell novel, include characters, times and locations as diverse as a 19th century sailing ship, a futuristic Korea, Aboriginals, young gay intellectuals at Cambridge, a nuclear scientist, a slave, a classical composer and others. There is a good deal of narration, most of it about the nature of human life (and some of it about lives of fabricants). There are chase and action scenes as good as than the best work by the Wachowskis (the "Matrix" films) and their friend and collaborator Tykwer ("Run, Lola Run"). Moment by moment, scene by scene, story by story, I was enthralled.
What did it sum up to? What is the through line? I can't say. Not today, anyway. Not yet. Maybe there isn't one. What will its first audiences get out of it? My mind travels back to the first public screening of "2001: A Space Odyssey," the film the Wachowskis says made them filmmakers, and inspired this one. As Rock Hudson walked out in the middle of the second half, I heard him quite audibly ask, "What the hell was that about?"
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012..._ive_seen.html
Interestingly these are all by reviewers who quite evidently have not read the book.
I'm certainly interested in seeing it.
I just cannot imagine the people who made Matrix Reloaded and whatever the third Matrix film was called as creators of a visionary film. I can see them fooling some into thinking that their shit is shinola, though.
The cast looks good, though.
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 10:00:59 AM
I just cannot imagine the people who made Matrix Reloaded and whatever the third Matrix film was called as creators of a visionary film. I can see them fooling some into thinking that their shit is shinola, though.
The cast looks good, though.
I read the book awhile ago and loved it (on the recommendadtion of Gups actually) - it is one of my all-time favorites. This makes waiting for the movie version particularly nerve-wracking. A film adaptation of a favorite book (widely thought to be unfilmable)? By the Matrix crew? Great potential for disaster.
However, I did really like the (massive 6 minute) trailer. The thing certainly
looks good in that. The fact that some critics who have not read the book seem to like the film gives me hope.
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2012, 09:44:27 AM
Interestingly these are all by reviewers who quite evidently have not read the book.
I'm certainly interested in seeing it.
Haven't read the book either, but just watched the "extended first look" on its website.
Don't need to read the book to recognize a pretentious, over-produced film targeted specifically for the masturbatory Timmay Assburger demo.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2012, 09:44:27 AM
Interestingly these are all by reviewers who quite evidently have not read the book.
I'm certainly interested in seeing it.
Haven't read the book either, but just watched the "extended first look" on its website.
Don't need to read the book to recognize a pretentious, over-produced film targeted specifically for the masturbatory Timmay Assburger demo.
Well, it has an Asian hottie who is also a slave who works in a fast-food joint in one of the stories. That part should be right up
your 'demo', so to speak. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2012, 10:45:49 AM
Well, it has an Asian hottie who is also a slave who works in a fast-food joint in one of the stories. That part should be right up your 'demo', so to speak. ;)
I wasn't too impressed.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 10:47:34 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2012, 10:45:49 AM
Well, it has an Asian hottie who is also a slave who works in a fast-food joint in one of the stories. That part should be right up your 'demo', so to speak. ;)
I wasn't too impressed.
Hey, I'd join her in the "comfort hives". :D
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3026103040/nm0046277
Pretentious and overproduced? This may be my bag.
But when you say the Tim demographic... there's not a presidential cyborg riding a dinosaur into battle against the apes,* or some shit, is there?
*A novel coming soon to a book store near you. Fucking probably.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2012, 11:38:47 AM
Pretentious and overproduced? This may be my bag.
But when you say the Tim demographic... there's not a presidential cyborg riding a dinosaur into battle against the apes,* or some shit, is there?
*A novel coming soon to a book store near you. Fucking probably.
Not unless the adaptation from the book was rather ... too free. :hmm:
I eagerly await reviews because there's no way in Hell I'll go see a Wachowski Brother-Sister-It film sight-unseen.
I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.
Quote from: Syt on September 10, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.
I'll be interested in your opinion. I thought it was an interesting failure, myself.
Quote from: Syt on September 10, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.
That's very flattering. :blush: 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.
Sounds like a Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Pretentiousness.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 02:45:57 PM
Sounds like a Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Pretentiousness.
:lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on September 10, 2012, 11:38:47 AM
Pretentious and overproduced? This may be my bag.
Pretentious films can be alright, as long as they're not too confusing and they don't drag.
http://www.empireonline.com/features/guide-to-cloud-atlas/p2 (http://www.empireonline.com/features/guide-to-cloud-atlas/p2)
The main actors and all the characters they play.
This is Tom Hanks as a mobster:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fcloud-atlas-guide%2F3-tom-hanks.jpg&hash=642487dd1d805739210e95902b5ccb062ee737dd)
This is Halle Berry as a white woman:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fcloud-atlas-guide%2F1-halle-berry.jpg&hash=ceb7da061b9f23b650553a5c6821dfe18a38cc57)
This is Hugh Grant as a weirdo from a dystopain future:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fcloud-atlas-guide%2F1-hugh-grant.jpg&hash=a6ac041cce315d9bbb6d117aa78dbb669a419972)
This is Hugo Weaving as a female nurse:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fcloud-atlas-guide%2F1-hugo-weaving.jpg&hash=4c22b89c04e83b852500d38b19aa3b1eda31ee8a)
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 10:00:59 AM
I just cannot imagine the people who made Matrix Reloaded and whatever the third Matrix film was called as creators of a visionary film. I can see them fooling some into thinking that their shit is shinola, though.
The cast looks good, though.
I think you are correct.
Quote from: The Larch on September 10, 2012, 03:00:33 PM
http://www.empireonline.com/features/guide-to-cloud-atlas/p2 (http://www.empireonline.com/features/guide-to-cloud-atlas/p2)
The main actors and all the characters they play.
This is Tom Hanks as a mobster:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fcloud-atlas-guide%2F3-tom-hanks.jpg&hash=642487dd1d805739210e95902b5ccb062ee737dd)
This is Halle Berry as a white woman:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fcloud-atlas-guide%2F1-halle-berry.jpg&hash=ceb7da061b9f23b650553a5c6821dfe18a38cc57)
This is Hugh Grant as a weirdo from a dystopain future:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fcloud-atlas-guide%2F1-hugh-grant.jpg&hash=a6ac041cce315d9bbb6d117aa78dbb669a419972)
This is Hugo Weaving as a female nurse:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.empireonline.com%2Fimages%2Ffeatures%2Fcloud-atlas-guide%2F1-hugo-weaving.jpg&hash=4c22b89c04e83b852500d38b19aa3b1eda31ee8a)
No question, they had fun with the concept. The issue is going to be whether that translates into fun for the audience!
The way the book is describes it kinda sounds similar to The Years of Rice and Salt, which I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
Quote from: Caliga on September 10, 2012, 05:09:23 PM
The way the book is describes it kinda sounds similar to The Years of Rice and Salt, which I thoroughly enjoyed myself.
:x :x :x :x :x
:mad:
Quote from: Caliga on September 10, 2012, 05:20:48 PM
:mad:
Can't help it. Not a good work and once the author came in to talk to my class, I liked it even less.
So he's not the best promoter for his book, eh?
Quote from: Caliga on September 10, 2012, 05:57:58 PM
So he's not the best promoter for his book, eh?
He may be a great promoter. His target audience is people who, unlike garbon, hadn't already read the book. :contract:
It looks like it could be a good film...but then I thought the same thing about "The Fountain", and this appears almost similar.
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 02:38:50 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 10, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.
I'll be interested in your opinion. I thought it was an interesting failure, myself.
Will do.
Malthus I skipped your post; I want to go into this book with little preconceptions, if possible. :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 10, 2012, 06:09:50 PM
It looks like it could be a good film...but then I thought the same thing about "The Fountain", and this appears almost similar.
I will cop to liking The Fountain.
But you put Rachel Weisz in a movie, and I will watch it. Has something to do with her amazing ass- I mean, her amazing talent.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 10:24:12 AM
Don't need to read the book to recognize a pretentious, over-produced film targeted specifically for the masturbatory Timmay Assburger demo.
How did I get tagged as a fan of pretentious films? :huh:
My tastes are famously low class.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 10, 2012, 02:18:03 PM
I eagerly await reviews because there's no way in Hell I'll go see a Wachowski Brother-Sister-It film sight-unseen.
Stay classy, bro.
Though in substance you've got a point.
Quote from: Scipio on September 10, 2012, 11:26:54 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 10, 2012, 06:09:50 PM
It looks like it could be a good film...but then I thought the same thing about "The Fountain", and this appears almost similar.
I will cop to liking The Fountain.
I really liked The Fountain. One of the saddest Goddamned movies I've ever seen.
It's fatal flaw, however, is that Rachel Weisz' book is complete shit. It does well enough as one leg of the Fountain tripod, but next time you see it, imagine it as a standalone work. :bleeding:
Ugh. Gonna have to find time to see it myself. Unfortunately, most movie-watching for me happens with S and her parents, who thought The Rum Diary was too "boring" (re: pretentious and confusing).
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 12:09:23 AM
It's fatal flaw, however, is that Rachel Weisz' book is complete shit. It does well enough as one leg of the Fountain tripod, but next time you see it, imagine it as a standalone work. :bleeding:
I quit watching during that part. The conquistadors looking for the fountain of youth bit was alright, but then the near future bit with Weisz and Jackman and some tree dragged on forever...
THE FUTURE TREE WAS THE BEST PART.
It wasn't the tree itself that annoyed me, it was mostly them talking in a kitchen I think. I just remember that the tree had some great unknown(to me) significance.
I actually liked The Fountain. I like it when movies sometimes defy rational analysis (think 2001 end sequence).
Quote from: Ideologue on September 11, 2012, 12:05:49 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 10, 2012, 02:18:03 PM
I eagerly await reviews because there's no way in Hell I'll go see a Wachowski Brother-Sister-It film sight-unseen.
Stay classy, bro.
Though in substance you've got a point.
Google Lana Wachowski and suffer.
It does look and sound absolutely awesome.
These reviews however scare me.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 10, 2012, 02:18:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2012, 02:43:26 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 10, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.
That's very flattering. :blush: 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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2012, 02:43:26 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 10, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.
That's very flattering. :blush: 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?
Problem with that is movies generally don't have enough time to devote to a dozen different threads. The result tends to be confusion and shallow characters and underdeveloped plot lines. There are exceptions; Sin City springs to mind. But you really have to hit the ground running.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 10, 2012, 11:30:24 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 10:24:12 AM
Don't need to read the book to recognize a pretentious, over-produced film targeted specifically for the masturbatory Timmay Assburger demo.
How did I get tagged as a fan of pretentious films? :huh:
My tastes are famously low class.
Because you're a sucker for gimmcky movies, like some moron native enamored and hypnotized with trinkets and baubles and boomsticks offered for trade by colonial Michael Bay types.
Quote from: Martinus on September 11, 2012, 04:10:01 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 10, 2012, 02:18:03 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 11, 2012, 06:40:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 11, 2012, 04:10:01 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 10, 2012, 02:18:03 PM
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. :homestar:
Quote from: Tyr on September 11, 2012, 01:15:35 AM
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.
Quote from: Gups on September 11, 2012, 04:14:24 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2012, 02:43:26 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 10, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.
That's very flattering. :blush: 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. :D 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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 11, 2012, 04:14:28 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 10, 2012, 02:43:26 PM
Quote from: Syt on September 10, 2012, 02:26:12 PM
I'm intrigued and have ordered the book. If Gups and Malthus recommend it, it's good enough for me.
That's very flattering. :blush: 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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 08:08:17 AM
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.
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 08:18:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 08:08:17 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 08:23:32 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 11, 2012, 08:18:45 AM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 08:08:17 AM
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. :D
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 11, 2012, 04:10:01 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on September 10, 2012, 02:18:03 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 08:08:17 AM
I never fault a writer for trying too much, as long as he or she holds my interest. :D 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
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: grumbler on September 11, 2012, 12:37:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 08:08:17 AM
I never fault a writer for trying too much, as long as he or she holds my interest. :D 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
QuoteI 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?
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2012, 12:54:59 PM
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.
QuoteThat 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.
Quote from: grumbler on September 11, 2012, 02:15:08 PM
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.
QuoteHow 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.
Quote from: Gups on September 11, 2012, 04:14:24 AM
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.
I didn't even know "transphobia" was a word until this thread :lol:
And were it not for Marti's screeching I would've guessed it was something Bloomberg and his ilk were suffering from.
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
I didn't even know "transphobia" was a word until this thread :lol:
And were it not for Marti's screeching I would've guessed it was something Bloomberg and his ilk were suffering from.
You probably could have guessed if you thought about it for a few moments.
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2012, 03:19:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
I didn't even know "transphobia" was a word until this thread :lol:
And were it not for Marti's screeching I would've guessed it was something Bloomberg and his ilk were suffering from.
You probably could have guessed if you thought about it for a few moments.
Perhaps. But it's still a stupid term.
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2012, 03:19:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
I didn't even know "transphobia" was a word until this thread :lol:
And were it not for Marti's screeching I would've guessed it was something Bloomberg and his ilk were suffering from.
You probably could have guessed if you thought about it for a few moments.
My guess would have been fear of crossing something. Like a bridge or a road. It's sort of a sloppy word since "trans" is Latin and "phobia" is Greek.
Not out till March here. February in the UK. Bahhhhh.
Looks very cool. Watched the trailer again today. Bae Doona is cute.....
Quote from: Razgovory on December 12, 2012, 05:50:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2012, 03:19:44 PM
Quote from: derspiess on December 12, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
I didn't even know "transphobia" was a word until this thread :lol:
And were it not for Marti's screeching I would've guessed it was something Bloomberg and his ilk were suffering from.
You probably could have guessed if you thought about it for a few moments.
My guess would have been fear of crossing something. Like a bridge or a road. It's sort of a sloppy word since "trans" is Latin and "phobia" is Greek.
So is "sociology" but who cares?
Cause it reflects poorly on who ever coined it. At least "Logia" is found in Latin. This something you picked up on Pink News or something?