I wish the crappy stories weren't in this

Lord of the Rings, I think is different. I'm not talking about necessary movie length (in other words: I agree with your point that some movies must of necessity be longer in order to tell the full story). What I mean to say is that the "story structure" suffers somewhat in Cloud Atlas. Again, I'm talking about a minor thing and I don't mean to say that Cloud Atlas is a bad film, just that it isn't perfect and this is its only really substantive flaw.

Basically, when you think about story structure in general and how the finest tales are crafted, I think Cloud Atlas doesn't quite have the peaks and valleys in all the right places. I think the story feels longer than it needs to be to tell the story effectively, not that stories need to be 2 hours long. I feel the same way about Casino Royale and, to a lesser degree, Skyfall. Both those Bond films are brilliant and I love them dearly, but both have pacing issues and seem overlong.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. For me, Cloud Atlas was just the right length, but if time had to be cut, I'd rather lose a scene or two from each story rather than lose a whole segment. Besides, fans of the book wouldn't have been pleased if a whole story was cut out.

I agree about Casino Royale, it definitely dragged in parts. Skyfall I thought was perfect up until the final 3rd of the film set in Scotland, that's where it started to overrun. Overall though, I think I preferred Skyfall to Casino Royale. It just felt more like a Bond film to me.

I'm fascinated by the book's structure. I feel like I should go read it. It makes me think about all the movies that are told in a linear, traditional manner, and all the ones that are told out of sequence. I wonder what they would look like scrambled, straightened out, or structured differently. Just as I'd like to see Cloud Atlas chronologically straight, I'd also like to see it structured ala the book. I like the intercut method, too.

It's nice that this story is intriguing enough to make me want to see it different ways. Most movies I see them once and don't want to watch them again, even if they were decent films.

You definitely should read it. It's a wonderful book. I watched the film first, and personally, if I had to choose between the two, I'd probably plump for the film. But, as you say, it's great that the story is interesting enough to make us want to see it presented differently.

The book is different to the film in certain ways, and I think that's why I prefer the movie (maybe because I saw it first). In the book we only seem to be following one souls journey, whereas in the film we get to see multiple souls evolve/devolve. Here's a list of differences between the book and the film.

1. The birth mark.

In the film, the birth mark is used to indicate who is the protagonist of each story, and to show us that this particular soul is destined to change the world, directly or indirectly. All the birth marked souls connect together in some way or other.

In the book, the birth mark is used to indicate that this is a reincarnation of the previous barer of the birth mark. You see, in the book, the reincarnations work differently. Adam Ewing is reborn as Robert Frobisher, Frobisher is reborn as Rey, Rey then becomes Cavendish, then Cavendish becomes Sonmi, before finally, Sonmi is reborn as Meronym (in the film the birth mark was placed on Zachary)... This is where the book failed for me, as none of these characters are alike. I mean, I find it hard to believe that the morally decent Adam Ewing becomes the selfish Robert Frobisher. And I find it even harder to believe that someone as talkative as Cavendish becomes Sonmi, who is somewhat quiet and soft spoken... This didn't work for me.

2. Story changes.

I don't want to spoil it for you so I won't elaborate too much, but here are a list of some of the changes in each story.

Adam Ewing's story is longer in the book than it is in the film. It adds characters that I felt weren't really needed such as a young cabin boy on the ship who is being raped and abused by the other crew members. I didn't think this was needed and I understand why it was cut from the film... Also, Ewing doesn't meet Reverend Horrox until the second half of his story, whereas in the film he met him in the first scene.

Robert Frobisher's homosexuality isn't as clearly defined in the novel. It's never actually confirmed that he and Sixsmith are lovers... They also excluded Eva from the film, who is Vyvyan and Jocasta Ayrs daughter. I thought she was a good character and would have made an interesting addition to the film... Another change is that Frobisher never falls for Vyvyan in the book, he instead falls for Eva... This was the only story in the novel I preferred to its film version (which I thought was kind of boring in parts).

Luisa Rey's story is much, much larger in the book. In fact, I thought it was a tad too large. There was just too many antagonists and villains in this story. They made it seem like too many people were in on Hooks' plan for his reactor to fail.

Cavendish's story was more or less the same. The book version was slightly darker, but that's all.

I don't want to say too much regarding Sonmi's story because most of the changes in that would spoil it for you. I can say, though, that Hae Joo and Chang are too separate characters (in the film they were merged into one). Sonmi pays a visit to Papa Song's (incognito) after escaping. She also spends a large portion of time at a university.

Zachary's story is similar in most ways. The only differences are that Zachary is younger in the book, and his and Meronym's relationship never goes beyond friendship.

3. How the stories connect to one another.

This is where the book is superior to the film. I love how each story connects to the one that follows it... In a way, the same method was used in the film, but I think in the book it's executed much better.

Adam Ewing's story is just picking up pace when suddenly the story stops mid-sentence. I thought at first I'd received a bad copy of the book (a conclusion most readers jumped to, apparently), but then I relaised that wasn't the case. The story lurches forward to Robert Frobisher, who is irritated by the fact that he only has half of Ewing's Pacific Journal. That's right, we're reading what Frobisher has been reading, that's why we've only read half of Ewing's story... Then, at the halfway point of Frobisher's story we cut to Luisa Rey. The reason why Frobisher's story has been interrupted is because Luisa only has half of the letters he sent to Sixsmith. Then when Luisa's story stops after she is forced off the bridge by Bill Smoke, it's because Cavendish has only read half of her manuscript. Then Cavendish's story pauses because Sonmi has only seen half of his film. As with the others, Sonmi's story stops abruptly half way through and we move on to Zachary... Then, after the final story with Zachary concludes, his children and grandchildren view Sonmi's final speech, thus we are thrown back into her story... When her story ends, and with her execution impending, her final request is to watch the second half of The Ghastly Ordeal of Timothy Cavendish, hence we are catapulted backwards in time to Timothy's story in the rest home. Then, once his tale is done, he finishes reading Luisa Rey's manuscript, so back we go to Luisa... After her and Napier's deadly encounter with Bill Smoke is over, Luisa meets Sixsmith's niece, Megan. Instead of Luisa giving Megan Frobisher's letters (as she did in the film), Megan is the one who gives Luisa the final letters Frobisher sent to Sixsmith. So, we move further back in time to Frobisher... His story ends the same as it does in the film. However, before committing suicide, Frobisher reads the second half of The Pacific Journal of Adam Ewing (which he'd found at Ayrs mansion)... And so, we finally go back to where the book started, as the novel ends where it began... Yes, we're all the way back to Adam Ewing and the treacherous Dr Goose... It plays out practically the same way as it does in the film, the only difference is the ending, where Adam doesn't actually confront his father in law, Haskell Moore, he just imagines how his upcoming confrontation with him will play out. Ending, of course, with Adam stating, "What is an ocean, but a multitude of drops?"

It's beautiful the way the story's connect together, simply beautiful... It's like watching a whole universe expand before your eyes, before slowly condensing back to its original size... You see, this is why I couldn't cut Ewing's story from the film, because evidently Mitchell put a lot of faith into Ewing's story. To begin and end the book with Ewing shows that Mitchell had particular confidence in that story... The decision makes it seem, to me, that Ewing was the most important character. If I had to choose who was the main protagonist of Cloud Atlas, I'd say it was Adam Ewing. However, in the film, I'd say it was Zachary, as he was given the honor of having the first and last scene.

I do, overall, prefer the film, but I highly recommend you read the book as well.

reply share

add reply

formatting help