or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cloud Atlas - Page 5

post #121 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

The book has a completely different story structure. It's been described as a "Russian nesting doll" format. It starts in chronological order, telling half of the first story. Then stops and tells half of the next story, stops and tells half the one after that, etc. Until it gets to the final story, which it tells all the way through, then reverses direction and tells the back-half of each story in reverse order until getting back to the first story again.

Thanks. I'm starting on the book now but found the writing style on the first 2 chapters challenging.

Mulholland Drive was much easier to digest than this movie.
post #122 of 301
Worth watching. But I think the Fountain was much better. This is a case of too much. Six stories is just too much to keep tract at once. I think if they trimmed it down to 3 or 4 stories it would have been much better.

The worst part of the movie was the constant switching between the 6 stories. I wish they would at least give us 10-15 minute chunks instead of switching every 2 or 3 minutes. The constant switching does not allow the watcher to be drawn in. i understand quick switches near the climax of the movie once the 6 stories have been developed.

As far as the Asian faces. i just laugh at people who said they were not offended. Excuse me, are you Asian? If not, shut the hell up. Personally I think they were in bad taste and were awful. The only thing that made it less disturbing is that other actors were portrayed as different races also. But none of them made them look like ugly ALIENS. Imagine if a movie made a white person look black and exagerrated their features in 2013? Outrage. But hey, making Asians look like Aliens is okay.
post #123 of 301
This movie makes inception look like a childs play.

Will be watching and re-watching till I can figure this bugger out.
post #124 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Worth watching. But I think the Fountain was much better. This is a case of too much. Six stories is just too much to keep tract at once. I think if they trimmed it down to 3 or 4 stories it would have been much better.

The worst part of the movie was the constant switching between the 6 stories. I wish they would at least give us 10-15 minute chunks instead of switching every 2 or 3 minutes. The constant switching does not allow the watcher to be drawn in. i understand quick switches near the climax of the movie once the 6 stories have been developed.

As far as the Asian faces. i just laugh at people who said they were not offended. Excuse me, are you Asian? If not, shut the hell up. Personally I think they were in bad taste and were awful. The only thing that made it less disturbing is that other actors were portrayed as different races also. But none of them made them look like ugly ALIENS. Imagine if a movie made a white person look black and exagerrated their features in 2013? Outrage. But hey, making Asians look like Aliens is okay.

Just a random article: Cloud Atlas a surprise hit in china

Based on your reasoning, if one's not asian, he should just shut up, so it should go both ways, whether you're offended or not.
Were you offended seeing Doona Bae as a redhead with freckles? Or Halle Berry as a caucasian female or a male doctor?... I wasn't, just like the asian faces did not offend me. Watching the movie, for me, the story was more important than the makeup. Because the asian faces were not the only ones to be unconvincing. But the reason they used the same actors for all these different parts becomes so obvious that I don't see why it is even an issue. And it looks like asian audiences agree.

Regarding the 6 stories, yes at the beginning it's kinda confusing, but as they unfold, it's easier see the connections between them and in the end, somewhat rewarding. This film has a immense replay value; I liked the Fountain too, but I enjoyed Cloud Atlas even more. And makeup aside, the film's visuals are splendid.
post #125 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Just a random article: Cloud Atlas a surprise hit in china

Based on your reasoning, if one's not asian, he should just shut up, so it should go both ways, whether you're offended or not.
Were you offended seeing Doona Bae as a redhead with freckles? Or Halle Berry as a caucasian female or a male doctor?... I wasn't, just like the asian faces did not offend me. Watching the movie, for me, the story was more important than the makeup. Because the asian faces were not the only ones to be unconvincing. But the reason they used the same actors for all these different parts becomes so obvious that I don't see why it is even an issue. And it looks like asian audiences agree.

Regarding the 6 stories, yes at the beginning it's kinda confusing, but as they unfold, it's easier see the connections between them and in the end, somewhat rewarding. This film has a immense replay value; I liked the Fountain too, but I enjoyed Cloud Atlas even more. And makeup aside, the film's visuals are splendid.

That's my point. If you are not Asian you cannot say people should not be offended by the aweful asian makeup.
And lets be frank. Doona was given makeup but not rubber forehead/eyes/nose to make here look like an alien.
At least when other actors had a race change they still looked human.

Ignorance again with the link article. China DOES NOT EQUAL Korean. Seriously.
post #126 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

That's my point. If you are not Asian you cannot say people should not be offended by the aweful asian makeup.
And lets be frank. Doona was given makeup but not rubber forehead/eyes/nose to make here look like an alien.
At least when other actors had a race change they still looked human.

they still looked human, well yes, but they looked weird. Just like the asian makeup... Anyway, I get your point... But these are not things that distracted me and kept me from appreciating the films' many qualities.
Quote:
Ignorance again with the link article. China DOES NOT EQUAL Korean. Seriously.

And that's why I talked about "asian audiences", which is what chinese and koreans are if I'm not mistaken. Apparently these guys were less offended than american audiences, go figure.
post #127 of 301
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post
Apparently these guys were less offended than american audiences, go figure.

 

Just because a movie is a hit, does not mean it was not offensive. They could have dismissed it as anothe stupid American thing.

post #128 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

Just because a movie is a hit, does not mean it was not offensive.

Agreed. But in the case of Cloud Atlas, I didn't find this whole "asian makeup issue" offensive sorry.
Quote:
They could have dismissed it as anothe stupid American thing.

They could have, but from what I've read (and I'm not just talking about the link I posted), they haven't.
post #129 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

This movie makes inception look like a childs play.

Will be watching and re-watching till I can figure this bugger out.
Yep.
post #130 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Agreed. But in the case of Cloud Atlas, I didn't find this whole "asian makeup issue" offensive sorry.
They could have, but from what I've read (and I'm not just talking about the link I posted), they haven't.

Are you Korean? If not your opinion if the asian makeup was offensive or not does not matter.

Blackface and yellowface are ugly things which I though were over in Hollywood. This movie is just proves that's not the case. Again just imagine if a white actor was given black makeup, a large nose, and huge lips to make him look like the ugly sterotype. Do you think their would be an outrage? Of course.
post #131 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Are you Korean? If not your opinion if the asian makeup was offensive or not does not matter.

Blackface and yellowface are ugly things which I though were over in Hollywood. This movie is just proves that's not the case. Again just imagine if a white actor was given black makeup, a large nose, and huge lips to make him look like the ugly sterotype. Do you think their would be an outrage? Of course.

You must be korean then cause you seem pretty pissed and offended about it.

tongue.gif

AGAIN: just as I didn't really have a problem with Halle Berry as a white person, or Doona Bae as a white person, or Hugo Weaving as a "woman"(!), I didn't really have a problem either with the asian makeup. Were the asian audiences offended by it? I don't know but FROM WHAT I'VE READ SINCE THE FILM CAME OUT, they didn't seem to be... That's all. Was the goal to appear 100% convincing? Maybe not, we'd have to ask the filmmakers. This whole makeup thing throughout the film just seemed odd at times, nothing more nothing less - imo. Does it make it a lesser film? No.
post #132 of 301
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

This movie makes inception look like a childs play.

Will be watching and re-watching till I can figure this bugger out.

 

This movie really isn't that complicated. It appears to be complex only because it's cutting in and out of the six storylines. And the transitions appear to be random more than any meaningful juxtaposition. Again, my complaint for this film is that none of the storyline by itself is interesting enough to carry the movie and the inevitable letdown when all the storylines do not converge to a satisfying finish.

post #133 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

This movie really isn't that complicated. It appears to be complex only because it's cutting in and out of the six storylines. And the transitions appear to be random more than any meaningful juxtaposition.

I guess the film is more complicated than you realize if you think the transitions are random.
post #134 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

This movie really isn't that complicated. It appears to be complex only because it's cutting in and out of the six storylines. And the transitions appear to be random more than any meaningful juxtaposition. Again, my complaint for this film is that none of the storyline by itself is interesting enough to carry the movie and the inevitable letdown when all the storylines do not converge to a satisfying finish.

The transitions are not random. Maybe the first time you see the film it may appear so but in fact they're all connected. I don't find it particularly complex, but I do find it a fascinating journey. If you expect a converging ending then obviously you're ending up disappointed because imo that's not the point. The passage of time, the recurrence of certain things and their evolution ; they're not supposed to converge from point A to point B, they're only supposed to go through A and B, and so on.
post #135 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

I guess the film is more complicated than you realize if you think the transitions are random.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

The transitions are not random. Maybe the first time you see the film it may appear so but in fact they're all connected. I don't find it particularly complex, but I do find it a fascinating journey. If you expect a converging ending then obviously you're ending up disappointed because imo that's not the point. The passage of time, the recurrence of certain things and their evolution ; they're not supposed to converge from point A to point B, they're only supposed to go through A and B, and so on.
I am not saying it's total random. On a scale of random to meaningful juxtaposition, although there are moments of clarity and insight, movie ends up feeling gimmicky. Perhaps because I didn't have the exposure to the source material, I didn't appreciate the necessity and the complexity of weaving six distinct storylines.
post #136 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

Finally got to watch this. Beautifully shot and well edited but didn't move me in any profound way. Five storylines didn't connect and watching Tom Hanks in various roles took me out of the movie at times. 6.9/10
I would agree with your assessment, especially with regard to Tom Hanks. He's a fine actor, but his more successful roles seem to be variations on Tom Hanks, not fully-fledged-out independent characters. For a movie like this, a more-flexible actor could have helped the context of the story, rather than being a distraction from it.

I thought the editing of the different storylines worked just fine, but never felt a strong connection or attachment to any of the characters. I'd almost say that it was due to splitting the narrative into so many different parts, but considering the length of the movie, and how quickly one can get involved with even bit players in other movies, that can't be it. Perhaps the very theme of everyone affecting anyone takes away from the interest in the independent characters?

The other sub-themes of the film were too heavy-handed: Big oil = evil! Slavery is naughty! Love is really where it's at, baby! Rich and strong feed upon the weak and poor, but ought not to! This felt like one of those profound epics that ends up lacking a profound core. The two nods to Soylent Green were a little too much. The figurative one didn't seem to fit, and the literal one was too overt - especially with it having been referenced earlier by Cavendish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

Was anyone else offended by the "Chinese eyes" the actors sported in the Neo Seoul segment. Reminded me of the 60's Hollywood treatment of Asian characters.
I wasn't offended by the Asian eyes, but I'm not Asian. I do see how those of Asian descent might be, but it wasn't meant to be offensive, it was integral to the theme of the movie of people being connected regardless of time, gender, and race. Had it been handled better technically, would it have still been offensive to you?

Overall, I thought the makeup effects in the movie were disappointing and ineffective. Yes, some of the actors were unrecognizable, but many came across as unrecognizably human. In addition to the questionable effect used to portray the Asian characters, others felt so hidden that they lost their connections to the audience. I'm thinking of Hugh Grant's role as the Cavendish brother. He sounded like Hugh Grant, but the makeup was so overdone that he didn't seem human. The same with Halle Berry as Ovid, Doona Bae as "Mexican Woman", and Hanks as Dr. Goose. They had that off-putting hollowness found in a Robert Zemeckis CGI movie.

One wonders if the movie might have been better off using different actors to portray the different characters across time and let the audience find their own connections though speech patterns, mannerisms, the comet tattoo, etc., rather than force the effect by making them play multiple roles.

In the end, I thought it was worth viewing once, if only to witness a stab at an ambitions movie, but there wasn't enough substance to try and dig further into it, or ever think about wanting to revisit it for either the themes or execution.

Scott
post #137 of 301

Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

I wasn't offended by the Asian eyes, but I'm not Asian. I do see how those of Asian descent might be, but it wasn't meant to be offensive, it was integral to the theme of the movie of people being connected regardless of time, gender, and race. Had it been handled better technically, would it have still been offensive to you?

 

Perhaps. How do you make a Caucasian look Korean without resorting to the cheap stereotype of slant-eyes? I don't know.

 

Very first plastic surgery in Korea was performed on prostitutes, to make them more attractive to the US servicemen stationed in Korea after the Korean War. This surgery got rid of the slant-eyes.

post #138 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

You must be korean then cause you seem pretty pissed and offended about it.

tongue.gif

AGAIN: just as I didn't really have a problem with Halle Berry as a white person, or Doona Bae as a white person, or Hugo Weaving as a "woman"(!), I didn't really have a problem either with the asian makeup. Were the asian audiences offended by it? I don't know but FROM WHAT I'VE READ SINCE THE FILM CAME OUT, they didn't seem to be... That's all. Was the goal to appear 100% convincing? Maybe not, we'd have to ask the filmmakers. This whole makeup thing throughout the film just seemed odd at times, nothing more nothing less - imo. Does it make it a lesser film? No.

I am part Asian and have many friends who are Korean. And they WERE offended. Many were called slant eyes when they were young and it still hurts today. Even if the directors did not mean it to be offensive is not the point. They should have been more aware and less ignorant. Why not just cast a half asian/white actor like Keanu Reaves? And why didn't they make a white/asian person look black? Its because they would be crucified if they tried. Yet they have no problem making white people look like asian aliens.
post #139 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

I am part Asian and have many friends who are Korean. And they WERE offended. Many were called slant eyes when they were young and it still hurts today. Even if the directors did not mean it to be offensive is not the point. They should have been more aware and less ignorant. Why not just cast a half asian/white actor like Keanu Reaves? And why didn't they make a white/asian person look black? Its because they would be crucified if they tried. Yet they have no problem making white people look like asian aliens.
Movie industry has been doing this sort of thing for quite a while. Tony Randall as a Chinese wizard in 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964), Laurence Olivier as a black man in Othello (1965), Sean Connery with a bit of Asian makeup in You Only Live Twice (1967), Robert Downey Jr. as a "black" man in Tropic Thunder (2008).

Some people get offended by this sort of things but the important thing to know is that there will always be some of those no matter what. When Jennifer Lopez (American w/ Puerto Rican parents) played a role of Selena (1997), there was a protest among some Mexicans because Selena was an American w/ Mexican parents. You tell me...
Edited by bcruiser - 6/16/13 at 2:13pm
post #140 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Movie industry has been doing this sort of thing for quite a while. Tony Randall as a Chinese wizard in 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964), Laurence Olivier as a black man in Othello (1965), Sean Connery with a bit of Asian makeup in You Only Live Twice (1967), Robert Downey Jr. as a "black" man in Tropic Thunder (2008).

Some people get offended by this sort of things but the important thing to know is that there will always be some of those no matter what. When Jennifer Lopez (American w/ Puerto Rican parents) played a role of Selena (1997), there was a protest among some Mexicans because Selena was an American w/ Mexican parents. You tell me...

Robert Downey Jr. gets a pass for Tropic Thunder. I think he was absolutely brilliant, and given the character he was playing, no one should be offended since he played an Australian actor who was playing the role of a black man. IMHO, he should have gotten an Oscar.

A better choice in line with the point you're making would be Charlton Heston playing a Mexican in Touch of Evil. It's not that he was bad in the role, but he sure as hell ain't a Mexican.
post #141 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

but he sure as hell ain't a Mexican.
Neither is Eli Wallach but he played a convincing role of one (Tuco) in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966). If anyone is offended by Heston and Wallach playing Mexican, tough $#!t. They are called actors for a reason. BTW, does the person have to be a Mexican to be qualified to be offended in this case?
post #142 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Neither is Eli Wallach but he played a convincing role of one (Tuco) in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966). If anyone is offended by Heston and Wallach playing Mexican, tough $#!t. They are called actors for a reason. BTW, does the person have to be a Mexican to be qualified to be offended in this case?

The difference is that Eli Wallach was convincingly authentic and totally believable, whereas you would need to be told that Charlton Heston was playing a Mexican. They just slapped some makeup on him and off he went.
post #143 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Neither is Eli Wallach but he played a convincing role of one (Tuco) in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966). If anyone is offended by Heston and Wallach playing Mexican, tough $#!t. They are called actors for a reason. BTW, does the person have to be a Mexican to be qualified to be offended in this case?

wow. Another ignorant comment. Just because you dont find it offensive you have no right to tell others who offended tough shet. You have the sensability of a caveman.
post #144 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

The difference is that Eli Wallach was convincingly authentic and totally believable,
That's subjective to each viewer. I'll ask a Mexican friend of mine about Eli's performance as a Mexican outlaw.
Quote:
whereas you would need to be told that Charlton Heston was playing a Mexican. They just slapped some makeup on him and off he went.
If he didn't start in The Ten Commandments (1956), that may not have been the case. It's a case of being too well known. IOW, it's the timing issue, IMO.
post #145 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

wow. Another ignorant comment. Just because you dont find it offensive you have no right to tell others who offended tough shet. You have the sensability of a caveman.
Wow! eek.gif Seems very emotional... frown.gif

Well, I have the right to express, at least in this country. You take issues with me for saying "tough $#!t" to those (if any) who get offended by Heston and Wallach playing Mexican in a movie which they are paid to perform? I wouldn't say such phrase during political debates surrounding race and gender issues but this isn't one of those. Try to relax. rolleyes.gif
post #146 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

Wow! eek.gif Seems very emotional... frown.gif

Well, I have the right to express, at least in this country. You take issues with me for saying "tough $#!t" to those (if any) who get offended by Heston and Wallach playing Mexican in a movie which they are paid to perform? I wouldn't say such phrase during political debates surrounding race and gender issues but this isn't one of those. Try to relax. rolleyes.gif

I have to agree with you that Eli Wallach's performance as Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was wonderful. I realize that in this day and age of political correctness, there's no telling what someone may find offensive, but to take offense in 2013 over the portrayal by a gifted American Jew of a Mexican in a 1966 Italian film? Come on! I can't resist observing that the film ranks Number 5 on the IMDb's Top 250 Films list, so I guess not many others were offended either. Heston was predictably awful when he played a Mexican. Heston was a beefcake, pretty boy, movie star who made his mark with his physical perfection and charisma. He never was a character actor, to say the least. In stark contrast, Wallach wonderfully disappeared into role after role, including that of Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I have the BD of that film and still love it. Does that make me a racist?
post #147 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Heston was predictably awful when he played a Mexican. Heston was a beefcake, pretty boy, movie star who made his mark with his physical perfection and charisma.
Lets compare these two.
picture-6-300x199.pngfox1.GIF

One is a Mexican you know...
Quote:
Does that make me a racist?
I would say no. We are talking about art (acting, scripting, picture...etc.) here. As I've mentioned earlier, there will always be some with problems no matter what.
post #148 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I have the BD of that film and still love it. Does that make me a racist?

I have it too, right between Mein Kampf and my 78 RPM Wagner collection.

wink.gif
post #149 of 301
Thread Starter 
Choose to be offended, choose to be a victim. Unless you are specifically targeted, then taking offense is often a choice. I'll certainly agree that some past casting decisions have been incredibly wrong. I don't think that was the case with this movie. On the other hand, insisting that only actors of a specific race play that race is, IMO, racist. The producers of this movie did not make a conscious choice to offend or target anyone unless you're talking about white slavers, white corporate execs or white, ignorant post apocolyptic survivors. The producers chose to creatively use the cast in a wide variety of roles in order to try and convey their concept of the interplay of souls over time and in doing so they ignored the race of the actors in favor of intermixing them in a variety of ethnic roles.
post #150 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

I have to agree with you that Eli Wallach's performance as Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was wonderful. I realize that in this day and age of political correctness, there's no telling what someone may find offensive, but to take offense in 2013 over the portrayal by a gifted American Jew of a Mexican in a 1966 Italian film? Come on! I can't resist observing that the film ranks Number 5 on the IMDb's Top 250 Films list, so I guess not many others were offended either. Heston was predictably awful when he played a Mexican. Heston was a beefcake, pretty boy, movie star who made his mark with his physical perfection and charisma. He never was a character actor, to say the least. In stark contrast, Wallach wonderfully disappeared into role after role, including that of Tuco in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I have the BD of that film and still love it. Does that make me a racist?

as a white man it may be easy for you to say tough shet. Since you never walked in the shoes of a minority EVEN ONE FRICKEN DAY.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home