Making the Case for Cloud Atlas

Stevee at Cinematic Paradox has started a blogathon on films that are being overlooked this awards season, or films that won't be nominated for Oscars they deserve. The subject, in her own words, is: "Making a Case for Movies that Probably Won't Get Any Awards Recognition this year". So, let's jump in.

Best Picture Oscar nomination:

In a polarizing year for movies, the new film from the Wachowski siblings and Tom Tykwer is a prime example of a movie with divided response. Critics have praised, ridiculed, and excused it, but the hate has been far more popular than the love. For instance, this film was recently named the worst film of 2012 by Time magazine. And that's fair enough.

For me, it's a sprawling epic filled with solid performances, ingenious use of multiple genres, technical brilliance, and a score that still gives me chills. It could be a film in which anyone can find something to embrace, but it's been presented by some critics as a film that no one should even see. For cryin' out loud, shouldn't the film be given a chance?

Granted, this is a very ambitious film. It's nearly three hours long, features six intercut storylines, and, thus, has continuous shifts in genre and tone. In addition, the main actors play several roles of different races. While it might sound like a challenging film, it's really just a lengthy one that asks only the courage of the audience to follow along. Though, most people don't want to sit through a three-hour film that isn't The Lord of the Rings.

In addition, the film isn't without its controversy. Some find the film's depiction of race offensive. Specifically, the portrayal of Asian characters by Caucasian actors. In the context of the narrative, this decision is completely justified, as many of the actors must play multiple roles to establish the characters' connection across time and space. Not everyone feels this way though.

Let's face it: this film is probably not winning any Oscars. At best, it's a contender for nominations in Best Production Design, Best Original Score, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, and Best Visual Effects. But where is Best Picture? Sadly, nowhere.

And where were audiences? Again, nowhere. When its theatrical run concludes, it could very well be under $100 million grossed worldwide. In this case, that's a flop! Mismarketing, a bloated running time, the material itself, or the potentially fading stars of its cast could have factored into its failure at the box office, but why should that knock it out of Oscar contention?

Oscar has recognized ambitious and controversial films before, and I suspect they will in the future. This is the group that stood behind controversial (at the time) films like Citizen Kane, Midnight Cowboy, and A Clockwork Orange. Meanwhile, ambitious projects such as Lawrence of Arabia, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and even last year's The Tree of Life have been nominated at the very least.

So I ask: Why can't the Academy honor the Wachowski's and Tom Tykwer's ambitious, controversial film this year?

"Our film isn't on the nominees list, dear boy."

Review: Cloud Atlas (2012)

The Wachowskis and Tykwer deliver.

Directed by Andy & Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer
Produced by Stefan Arndt, Grant Hill, Tom Tykwer, and Andy & Lana Wachowski
Written by Andy & Lana Wachowski, Tom Tykwer (screenplay); David Mitchell (novel)
Starring Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Doona Bae, Ben Whishaw, James D'Arcy, Zhou Xun, Keith David, David Gyasi, Susan Sarandon, and Hugh Grant

****

This might just be the cinematic event of the year. As another divisive film from 2012, the story alone is likely to turn many away, if not the running time. It is incredibly difficult to summarize in a few sentences, but here's an extremely basic rundown of the six storylines in the film. One focuses on a sick lawyer (Sturgess) recovering on a ship, and another looks at a young composer (Whishaw) in a homosexual relationship. Meanwhile, a journalist (Berry) uncovers a conspiracy, and a publisher (Broadbent) is imprisoned in a nursing home. In addition, a clone (Bae) rebels against the government, and a tribal member (Hanks) must deal with the downfall of his homeland. All of these intercut tales occur in different times and places, forming the massive film that is Cloud Atlas. (Thanks to IMDb for helping me make brief sense of these multiple storylines.) 

Helmed by three directors, this epic is ambitious, exhilarating, and preposterous, yet it still resonates. It seamlessly switches from action to sci-fi to fantasy to thriller to drama, without wasting its bloated running time. Though the film is almost three hours long, it never slows down, as the story keeps building and building until the film's fitting conclusion. Still, some may criticize the film's numerous shifts, which can be jarring at first. Also, the film could be seen as a clear attempt to show that we really are, all of us, connected across time and space. The film doesn't shy away from this theme, and I, nevertheless, found it captivating. At times, it can be overindulgent and blatantly obvious, but, ultimately, it was an uplifting, strange cinematic experience that I am eager to have again. In the midst of all that's going on in the film, the cast deserve praise for fully committing to the material. Of course, the technical aspects of the film are excellent, and the score is quite wonderful as well. Essentially, it's a blockbuster with ideas, which is most welcome. This might not be an awards movie, but it's one of the best I've seen this year. 

Oscar Potential: Best Production Design, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Makeup and Hairstyling, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects

CLOUD ATLAS

CLOUD ATLAS
Written and Directed by Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer
Starring Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Ben Wishaw, Xun Zhou and Susan Sarandon.

Vyvyan Ayrs: What is a critic other than one who reads quickly, arrogantly but never wisely?

I must be missing the deeper meaning in CLOUD ATLAS, a film so massive in scope that it required three of the most visually innovative directors working today to tackle it properly. I watched six separate stories span centuries and unfold in spectacular fashion before my eyes, and understood pretty early on into its gargantuan 164 minute running time, that all of these stories, although seemingly completely unrelated, were in fact all connected. I’m sure there has to be so much more symbolically going on underneath all the heavy handed imagery and crushing weight of all the prosthetics used in this film, but if there was, it never surfaced to the movie I was watching. CLOUD ATLAS is surprisingly engaging, and at times extremely satisfying, but it insists you invest in it with every fiber of your being at all times, so it can also be exhausting to get through. And by the time I reached the end of this epic journey, I did not find the revelations to be all that worth the effort.

Where to begin when talking about a story that is meant to demonstrate that all stories are connected throughout time? Honestly, I don’t know and thinking about it is making my head hurt. This is my job though so I must attempt this, no matter how convoluted the directorial team, made up of the Wachowski siblings and Tom Tykwer, try to make it for me. A man (Jim Sturgess) takes a stand against slavery and is unknowingly poisoned while on a ship at sea, circa 1850. Another man (Ben Wishaw) writes a sextet that no one will ever hear in 1931. A woman (Halle Berry) tries to take down a nuclear company up to no good in the 70’s. An older gentlemen (Jim Broadbent, the film’s shining star) is tricked into a nursing home prematurely in present day. A genetically engineered woman, known as a fabricant (Xun Zhou), serves food and wonders if there is anything more to life in a dystopian near future (in what I found to be the most compelling of the stories). And finally an old man (Tom Hanks) tells a campfire story in the far away future about when he was young and what it was like to live just after humanity fell. All of this is tied together by the suggestion that each of these stories contains a character that once lived in another time, in another one of these stories.

From what I hear, the book which CLOUD ATLAS was based upon, written by David Mitchell, is even more dense. From what I hear, it also does a better job at showing how cyclical all of our history and connectedness truly is. Having not read it, I cannot confirm this, but a novel does provide a better foundation with which to base this elaborate and ambitious undertaking. The visual adaptation here is more a spectacle than an emotional or meaningful exchange. Even the interconnectedness of it all has to be spelled out to us by having all the actors play several different parts (with varied results). While the three directors are all on the same page visually, seamlessly jumping back and forth between the Wachowski’s future and Tykwer’s past and present, they are all amiss when it comes to tying together the actual feelings that humanize us all throughout time. When they are in the moment, they often get it right, but CLOUD ATLAS, isn’t about just one moment; it is about them all and this is just too big a picture to behold all at once.