To the off-world colonies that were mentioned in the previous segement.
The connections between the stories were on at least three levels - literal, thematic, and (as it were) karma or reincarnation (which is more hinted at than outright stated).
Literally, each segment was connected to the one before by a survival in some medium or other - respectively, a journal, letters, a draft novel, a TV show, and a legend that became a diety/an “orison” of Somni’s confession.
Thematically, the stories each show in different ways the same struggle between the essential philosophy of barbarism and civilization - between the strong nakedly preying on the weak, and helping others to survive.
The reincarnation notion is hinted at by using the same actors to play different roles in each segment - so in effect making up a new “story” that connects all the stories: the journey of various souls over time. Some remain, basically, barbarians; others remain, basically, civilized; and one (the characters played by Hanks) goes from one to the other. Again this is more implicit than express.
This was a lovely, inspiring, and ambitious movie. That said…
A lot of the makeup didn’t work and was distracting, though I thought the Asian makeup worked well. The Asian actress also really failed spectacularly to speak without her natural accent. And the future lingo was hard to grok at times.
I think I’d also have to watch again to understand the reincarnation themes. The movie seems to implying on the one hand that the same actor plays the same “soul” but on the other hand also contradicts this by implying the person with the comet birthmark is the same. I think only the latter was implied in the novel (?), and in any case makes any sense. While Agent Smith was often evil in every lifetime, the disposition of the other characters did not seem related to their choices in previous lifetimes. Tom Hanks especially seemed to vary between good and evil somewhat arbitrarily.
I’m also wondering whether the Cloud Atlas Sextet piece used in this movie bears any resemblance to the original piano piece the novel was inspired by, Toshi something (or whether the music itself inspired the author, or just the title). It doesn’t seem to be on iTunes.
I also found myself wondering if the tragic end of the musician was related to him not being able to find the second half of the journal. If he had read the happy ending, he might have been inspired to do something other than take his own life.
We saw this over the weekend and loved it. I looked up the reviews afterwards to find out why the critics didn’t like it, and they mostly seem to indicate that the film was “boring” and “confusing”, two adjectives I cou;ldn’t imagine applying to this flick. I found the future argot perfectly comprehensible.
One other adjective that is suggested (although I haven’;t found anyone actually saying it) is “banal”, which I could understand – nothing in this film is a Great Revelation. But how often is that the case? It was beautifully shot and put together, the connections between the different segments were cute, and the storytelling was clear, even though it switched back and forth over six individual storylines. As for the same actors playing multiple [parts or using lots ogf makeup – when has that ever been a cause for complant? I can’t recall any critics taking Peter Sellers to task over it the many times he’s done it. No one complained about Alec Guiness in Kind Hearets and Coronets, or lambasted heavily made-up actors in The List of Adrian Messenger.
So, I haven’t read the book, but I’m trying to remember how each story connects, at least in the movie’s version of things.
The lawyer writes his journal on the boat
Composer guy reads the journal while working on his sextet, and writes letters to Sixsmith
Sixsmith helps Louisa with her article and she reads his old letters
The old guys plot their daring escape from [del]prison[/del] the retirement home
Sonmi watches a movie apparently inspired by the old guys’ escape and does her Revelation
Sonmi is worshiped as a god in the post-apocalypse.
So what is the connection between Louisa’s story and the old-folks home?
In the book Timothy Cavendish is a vanity publisher who frets that he really hasn’t accomplished anything with his life while he’s in the retirement home. Early in his story a writer gave him a book about Luisa to publish. He held onto it and after he escaped he realized the book was good enough that could work with the author as an editor in order to have the book published in the mainstream press. This gives him enough motivation to write his own memoirs which are eventually turned into the movie Sonmi watches.
The detective novel written by the kid who is Louisa’s friend, which is implied to be a part of a series by the title.
ETA: beaten to it by Frazzled and CalMeacham.
Haha! That was me exactly. Just read it recently. I thought the book was clever but just okay. We’re seeing the film today (Saturday), as it’s just opened in Bangkok.
I’ve heard that fans of the book considered it unfilmable, but really, I didn’t get that.
I haven’t read the book and I liked the film. I thought the three 20th/21st century segments were the strongest. I didn’t have any problem following the stories but did find the future argot hard to understand.
And we did watch it today and were quite pleased. The wife had no trouble keeping up with the stories, and I thought they transferred the book quite well. Odd that they altered some of the years just a bit. 1931 in the book became 1936 in the film, I guess to throw in the remark about Germany and the Jews. But why change 1975 to 1973?
One of the laugh-out-loud sequences for me was Jim Broadbent running past the dining room full of staring seniors, yelling “Soylent Green is made of people! Soylent Green is made of people!” I would not have expected Cavendish to know that movie, so it added to the characterization.
Just saw it myself. I actually began the book, but quit. However, I quit the book due to being too busy and having to read some other books for work(I teach 7th grade).
Anyway, I really liked the movie. In fact, I was quite touched at several moments.
What exactly did Zachry and HalleBerry(future) discover at the top of that mountain? Was it an old satellite dish that:
a. received clone-girl’s message
b. contacted humans on other planets to come get them.
Why hadn’t any of the people whose skeletal remains were in the structure on the top of the mountain not sent that signal themselves? What did Meronym (I think that was the name of Halle Berry’s character) do/know that they didn’t?
What happened at the observatory was made up for the movie. That’s not at all what happened up there in the book, and the Tom Hanks character is recounting the story while on the neighboring island of Maui. But mostly, the movie stays true to the book.
But we did see clone-girls’ message briefly playing in that satellite building.
Are we supposed to believe that the clone-girl’s broadcast lead eventually to “the fall”…like it lead to civil and world war?
The lady busy sending the message calls up a broadcast of clone-girl’s message for the benefit of Ton Hank’s character. It was available at the station because the station folk clearly had some sort of religion or movement inspired by clone-girl (they have a statue of her).
