Not sure I understand

The film is not about one big plot. As I understand it; it's about e.g. life after death. Your soul lives on because of your actions, determining the fate and events of generations to come. (That's only one aspect to this film, of course.)






The box... you opened it, we came.

It's not in your face as in an "a-ha" moment, but it should be pretty clear.

Ewing writes his journal about his ordeal. Frobisher finds a copy of the journal and is reading it while at Ayer's house, and remarks about it in his letters to Sixsmith. Luisa Rey comes across copies of Frobisher's letters to Sixsmith (who also plays a role in her story) and also searches out Frobisher's Cloud Atlas Sextet at the record store, and at the end Luisa's neighbor Javier talks about writing a story of her adventures. Cavendish, a book editor, is given a copy of Javier's manuscript about Luisa Rey which he reads during his Aurora House ordeal, and in the end he talks about how his story ought to be turned into a movie. His story is eventually turned into a movie and centuries later is viewed by Sonmi 451 and serves as an inspiration to her to stand up for her rights. Centuries from that, Sonmi's own recollections of her rise and fall to the orison become the basis of a religion practiced by the islanders in Zachry's story.


Regarding the birthmark and souls and such. There's been a lot of talk about reincarnation, and the filmmakers and actors themselves really didn't diffuse it themselves, but I think such talk is overdone. I don't believe that the characters are intended to be literal reincarnations of one another by virtue of either the birthmark or the same actors playing the different characters in the stories.

Rather, I think the birthmark signifies a re-incarnation of theme and not person, and the holder of the birthmark is the central person to each story and how that person dealt and stood up to oppression and cruelty from others.

The filmmakers decision to re-use the same actors from different stories brings home the overall feeling of "recycling" across the centuries, but the viewer shouldn't be forced to assume that one character is literally a reincarnation of the other simply because he or she was played by the same actor.

Completely agree. I like to think of the actors playing different characters to just be emphasizing the whole 'connected' angle, as well as showing how unimportant superficial barriers (sex, race, etc.) are.

Looking at it as the same souls reincarnated doesn't really make much sense when you get down to it, as most of the characters journeys wouldnt make sense. In addition, it undermines the while point (any one person can make a difference) if that one person is always the same person reincarnated.

Idk if I'm making much sense here, but I agree with you, and think that the reincarnation angle makes the film a lesser film. At least to me. It's much note meaningful and impactful if you look at it from a different perspective.

Me too, that's where this film falls short I think, as far as box office success. I really wanted a bigger payoff or some genetic link to the people or something, I don't know exactly, I'm no writer. Maybe it was just a bit long.

It was kind of obvious how the idea festers, and how an illusion or thought can drive the entire world in a certain situation.

Should have read the damn book first, I've had it for what feels like a long long time and never pick it up because I've seen this movie. Even though I know it will be better, it's an undertaking too, I don't really think I could finish that one in a week, plus I kind of spoiled it.

[deleted]