Cloud Atlas is an epic. The nearly 3 hour film is directed by 3 different filmmakers, The Matrix helmers Andy and Lana Wachowski and Run Lola Run‘s Tom Tykwer. The film is packed with an equally impressive cast including Tom Hanks, Hugo Weaving, Halle Berry, Susan Sarandon, Jim Broadbent and Hugh Grant. But even with a deck stacked this heavy, is it enough to make Cloud Atlas an instant masterpiece?
The film spans roughly 400 years and follows a massive 6 story-lines in each period. The connecting through lines are the spirits (or souls) of each of the characters. The message is simple. Some spirits are destined to always find one another, resulting in a multitude of continued experiences, whether it be fall in love or be eternal enemies. The concept is great… but sadly it just doesn’t work well as a film. Or at least as this film.
The film is often difficult to follow, not unlike Richard Kelly’s equally complicated Southland Tales. And at 3 hours, its unlikely that I will dedicate any more of my life to viewing it again in the pursuit of further clarification.
As a film lover, a film doesn’t always have to be great. But for me to commit 3 hours to a film it had better be at least good. Cloud Atlas falters where so many student films falter – it doesn’t appreciate the length of time available to tell a story. 3 hours divided roughly evenly into 6 stories means that each story has about 30 minutes to get its message across. Slightly longer than a typical short film but not quite long enough for me to develop a deep connection with any single character, the majority of Cloud Atlas‘ storylines fall prey to falling just short of their intended goals. And ultimately the question that I had upon leaving the film was ‘why do I care?’
One of Cloud Atlas‘ own verbalized questions became resoundingly appropriate. “What is the ocean but millions of drops of water?” Perhaps the filmmakers hoped that the film, although not necessarily effective in each of its parts, would create a tapestry that would create a stronger and clearer whole. And maybe they’re right. If the film were told in a linear narrative it would easily fall apart and its parallel themes would be lost. Meanwhile, the dangers of having a non-linear storyline become a tool for projecting a deeper meaning but without the clarity to see it through can become an equally bad idea.
Aesthetically, both Tykwer and the Wachowskis nail the look of the film’s many narratives. Tyker took over the contemporary filmmaking and from what I understand handled four of the story lines. His vibrant and kinetic style is apparent in many of the film’s vignettes. His overall style is something to get lost in and I often forgot that I had been sitting for over 2 hours watching something with no real story to speak of. Meanwhile, the look of The Wachowskis’ futuristic dystopian city and world building are definitely Wachowski-esque. Of all of their credentials thus far, I’d say that the aesthetic energy most on display was most reminiscent of Speed Racer, as was the storytelling (for both good and bad).
It is not impossible to weave a huge number of storylines and characters together masterfully. Filmmakers have been attempting the Herculean task since D.W. Griffith’s Intolerance. But it would seem that Cloud Atlas would have been better left as a book or in a singular filmmaker’s hands. The film has 6 very distinct and interesting worlds each with its own aesthetic that each needed the ability and attention to be explored on their own. Unfortunately, Cloud Atlas seems to have too many moving parts, both in and behind the scenes, parts whose muddled movements result in one weighty and uninteresting epic.