or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cloud Atlas - Page 10

post #271 of 301

I apologize for even bringing up this subject in the first place. It appears, however, some of my serious questions were ignored by most, whereas more polarizing posts are answered immediately and always certainly. I guess that's the nature of interwebz.

post #272 of 301
WTF has happened to this thread?!?
I step out for a drink and all hell breaks loose....rolleyes.gif

Let's talk about THE MOVIE, gentlemen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

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.
Profound or not, the core "message" is the necessity or willingness of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.
This thread runs thru all 6 storylines.
It is the underlying choice and ultimate answer for the predicaments the characters find themselves in.

Somehow, somewhere someone has to sacrifice their lives to make the world a better place.
While some may consider this to be a bit of a subversive message, nonetheless, it is an inherent and recurring theme in most of the Wachowski's oeuvre (The Matrices, V for Vendetta).

Quote:
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.
Agreed....it pulled me out of the movie more than it should have.

Quote:
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.
You could be right about that.

Quote:
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.
I have the book and will be reading it soon.
However, I am not sure I will watch the movie again.
There was nothing said or communicated in Cloud Atlas I didn't know already.

The film is sort of a preaching to the choir experience for me.
In this world of ours, controlled by powerful and mostly malevolent forces, nothing much will change for the better without some form of sacrifices going forward.
Kudos to the filmmakers for having the balls courage to put this out.
post #273 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

WTF has happened to this thread?!?
I step out for a drink and all hell breaks loose....rolleyes.gif
You snooze, you loose.
What you are seeing now.
What you missed.
post #274 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

You snooze, you loose.
What you are seeing now.
What you missed.
Best Post of the Month.biggrin.gifbiggrin.gif
post #275 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcruiser View Post

You snooze, you loose.
What you are seeing now.
What you missed.

My greatest pet peeve that one day will make me go absolutely postal is people who use the word "loose" instead of the word "lose".
post #276 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

My greatest pet peeve that one day will make me go absolutely postal is people who use the word "loose" instead of the word "lose".

I've noticed this a lot more the past few days. That, and they're, there, and their.
post #277 of 301
It's one of those words that are just to easy to misspell. frown.gif Oh we'll...
post #278 of 301
Since we're on the subject, I go out of my way to avoid colonel. I mean, how does that word sound anything like kernel?
post #279 of 301
spoilers deleted
post #280 of 301
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

I've noticed this a lot more the past few days. That, and they're, there, and their.

Two, too, to.
post #281 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

spoilers deleted
Damn, my bad.redface.gif
Sorry about that.
post #282 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_P_A View Post

Since we're on the subject, I go out of my way to avoid colonel. I mean, how does that word sound anything like kernel?

Whenever I read that word, I say it in my head the way LeBeau said it to Colonel Hogan in Hogan's Heroes. He actually says "Coronel" but "R"s and "L"s get messed up in French. And Boston.

I just don't say it that way aloud. I'd probably get slapped by somebody.
post #283 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

spoilers deleted
I'm sorry, I thought my original response only contained character names that could only be known by those that had already seen the movie, and was vague enough that it avoided specific plot points that it didn't fall into the spoiler category. I'll try again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

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.
Profound or not, the core "message" is the necessity or willingness of self-sacrifice for the benefit of others.
This thread runs thru all 6 storylines.
It is the underlying choice and ultimate answer for the predicaments the characters find themselves in.

Somehow, somewhere someone has to sacrifice their lives to make the world a better place.
While some may consider this to be a bit of a subversive message, nonetheless, it is an inherent and recurring theme in most of the Wachowski's oeuvre (The Matrices, V for Vendetta).

I have the book and will be reading it soon.
However, I am not sure I will watch the movie again.
There was nothing said or communicated in Cloud Atlas I didn't know already.

The film is sort of a preaching to the choir experience for me.
In this world of ours, controlled by powerful and mostly malevolent forces, nothing much will change for the better without some form of sacrifices going forward.
Kudos to the filmmakers for having the balls courage to put this out.
Interesting point, and some of the sacrifices are obvious enough in some of the stories, but I'm having a hard time seeing them in others.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Sonmi-451 is the clearest example, but others are less apparent. While Frobisher may have sacrificed his own life (I'd ague that the term forfeited is more appropriate), what was to be gained benefitting the world?

Cavendish's story also doesn't seem to fit. What exactly does he sacrifice? He fled, was imprisoned, and escaped. He didn't willing give up anything, just chose to flee, with the aid and accompaniment of others.

Even the bookend story of Zachry's character doesn't seem t be based on sacrifice. Early in the movie he stands back while his brother in law and nephew are both killed, hiding to preserve his own life. Later, he takes Meronym to the secret mountain chamber in exchange for her saving the life of his niece, during which time the rest of his tribe is wiped out (excluding said niece), but that's not really a sacrifice. He didn't choose for his tribe to be destroyed, nor did he give up his own life.

Scott
post #284 of 301
Special Thanx to Larry....


Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000

Frobisher's sacrifice is easy enough to spot, but what was the great benefit to the world?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Frobisher's "sacrifice" eventually led to Sixsmith's "gift" (which cost him his life) to Rey and lead to the exposure of the conspiracy by the oil company.

Quote:
What was Cavendish's sacrifice?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
In spite of being nearly free, he turned the Range Rover around and picked up Mr. Meeks (the very definition of a Bodhisattva).

Quote:
How about Zachry? He avoided sacrifice early on, and later inconvenienced himself and put himself in jeopardy to save another, but was there an actual sacrifice?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
He "sacrificed" in the sense he stepped out of his neurotically-based comfort zone by agreeing to act as a guide for Meronym's search for the Cloud Atlas redoubt, while, at the same time, confronting and destroying "Old Georgie."
post #285 of 301
Labeled as "sci-fi", this is quite an eclectic mash-up of snippets of mankind's "history". I think some of the segments might've worked as stand-alone films, especially the "Cannibals of the South Pacific" and (the Logans Run/Soylent Green inspired) "Neo Seoul".
post #286 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Labeled as "sci-fi", this is quite an eclectic mash-up of snippets of mankind's "history".
Or maybe "fantasy history?"
This is a movie hard to label.
post #287 of 301
Yes, that's why I put history in " ". Fantasy would probably be a better label for CA.
post #288 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Fantasy would probably be a better label for CA.
I have to agree.
The sci-fi angle is kinda slim.wink.gif
post #289 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Special Thanx to Larry....
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000

Frobisher's sacrifice is easy enough to spot, but what was the great benefit to the world?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Frobisher's "sacrifice" eventually led to Sixsmith's "gift" (which cost him his life) to Rey and lead to the exposure of the conspiracy by the oil company.
That's a rather generous application of the word sacrifice, isn't it? Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Frobisher had no way of even dreaming that his suicide might actually lead to Sixsmith sharing secrets to a nuclear energy conspiracy that would save thousands of lives some day. His suicide was more about Forbisher rather than making the world a better place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000What was Cavendish's sacrifice?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
In spite of being nearly free, he turned the Range Rover around and picked up Mr. Meeks (the very definition of a Bodhisattva).
Again, that's an overly-broad definition of the word sacrifice. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Yes, Cavendish makes a choice to take action. And while it isn't one without some risk for the benefit of another, there's no real sacrifice. He doesn't actually give up anything, much less his own life, but rather just slightly lowers his (and his companions') chance of success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000How about Zachry? He avoided sacrifice early on, and later inconvenienced himself and put himself in jeopardy to save another, but was there an actual sacrifice?
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
He "sacrificed" in the sense he stepped out of his neurotically-based comfort zone by agreeing to act as a guide for Meronym's search for the Cloud Atlas redoubt, while, at the same time, confronting and destroying "Old Georgie."
Again, he took action, but he didn't give up anything in the process. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
His actions actually ended up saving his own life, rather than costing it. Yes, he took a risk to save the life of another, and you can argue that he acted selflessly in doing so. You can also show how that's different from earlier, when he hid from danger. But, even there, the comparison is unequal. When he watched his brother in law die, he would have faced certain death. He would not have been able to defeat the cannibals, and would have most certainly died at their hands.

When guiding Meronym through the mountains wasn't without danger, it also couldn't be considered a sacrificial act or even certain death scenario.

Likewise, his struggle with Old Georgie, was an inner battle, but not sacrificial in any way.

If self-sacrifice was really the major theme running through all six stories, I think the film-maker fell short in showing that with consistency.

It could be broadened to argue that all six stories show that one has to act to affect the future, but isn't that kind of a given in all dramas? Generally, protagonists of the stories are expected to take some action, usually against adversity and with some risk to themselves and/or others.

Scott
post #290 of 301
Was really sleepy last night while viewing and the fam was talking too much. Will give it another look, as I'm sure I missed a lot....or did I?
post #291 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezzy View Post

Labeled as "sci-fi", this is quite an eclectic mash-up of snippets of mankind's "history". I think some of the segments might've worked as stand-alone films, especially the "Cannibals of the South Pacific" and (the Logans Run/Soylent Green inspired) "Neo Seoul".
I think you're right about splitting the movies up, but then viewers may have lost the connections between the works. Some of the sequences really felt like they could have been more fleshed-out, allowing the characters to live and breathe a bit.

Maybe it could have been done as a TV miniseries? Narratively, it could have easily followed the Lost model, the two already had similarities with the intercutting of the overall story and character's backstories.

Scott
post #292 of 301
The thing about Cloud Atlas for me is that I enjoyed the visual spectacle, had a little difficulty following the plot and time jumps, and appreciated it more once I left the theater and could ponder what I had just seen for a little while. While it was playing, I admit to being a bit befuddled.
post #293 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

That's a rather generous application of the word sacrifice, isn't it? Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Frobisher had no way of even dreaming that his suicide might actually lead to Sixsmith sharing secrets to a nuclear energy conspiracy that would save thousands of lives some day. His suicide was more about Forbisher rather than making the world a better place.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
You're right, Frobisher couldn't have known what Sixsmith would do years later, but it did began the process that led to.....
The grief suffered by Sixsmith (a man who took no chances, who never rocked the boat) for many decades came unbuttoned when he saw the identical tattoo of his beloved Frobisher on the reporter.
At this point, in spite of knowing the risk, Sixsmith willingly stepped off his safe spot.

Quote:
Again, that's an overly-broad definition of the word sacrifice. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Yes, Cavendish makes a choice to take action. And while it isn't one without some risk for the benefit of another, there's no real sacrifice. He doesn't actually give up anything, much less his own life, but rather just slightly lowers his (and his companions') chance of success.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
You are forgetting the shame he felt from his cowardice with the gangsters.
Cowardice is a much easier response to danger than courage.

Risk = "sacrifice" by reducing the odds of one's own safety/security.
Someone who jumps in a river to save someone from drowning also realizes they too can drown in the rescue.
They are making a real sacrifice.
Whether it is fatal or not is beside the point.

Quote:
Again, he took action, but he didn't give up anything in the process. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
His actions actually ended up saving his own life, rather than costing it. Yes, he took a risk to save the life of another, and you can argue that he acted selflessly in doing so. You can also show how that's different from earlier, when he hid from danger. But, even there, the comparison is unequal. When he watched his brother in law die, he would have faced certain death. He would not have been able to defeat the cannibals, and would have most certainly died at their hands.

When guiding Meronym through the mountains wasn't without danger, it also couldn't be considered a sacrificial act or even certain death scenario.

Likewise, his struggle with Old Georgie, was an inner battle, but not sacrificial in any way.
What we have here is 2 different definitions of the word.
From Wiktionary: To give away (something valuable) to get at least a possibility to gain something else of value (such as self-respect, trust, love, freedom, prosperity)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sacrifice

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

While it was playing, I admit to being a bit befuddled.
The FIRST symptom of the neurological condition known as architecturephobia.
post #294 of 301
Something I noticed upon a second viewing. Within the flow of the film, the "Asian" outlaws Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
killed in the future (2360?) become reunited in the past (1860?), but as Caucasians....?

I tried to pay attention, but just couldn't stay awake. I wasn't bored, either...
Edited by rezzy - 7/6/13 at 4:51pm
post #295 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

What we have here is 2 different definitions of the word.
From Wiktionary: To give away (something valuable) to get at least a possibility to gain something else of value (such as self-respect, trust, love, freedom, prosperity)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sacrifice
This is partially my fault. I abbreviated your original phrase of self-sacrifice to just sacrifice in my responses, which has probably led to some confusion. The bar for self-sacrifice is a bit higher. From Wictionary:
Quote:
self-sacrifice (plural self-sacrifices)

The giving up of one's own benefit, especially giving up one's life, for the good of others.

His brave self-sacrifice won him a posthumous medal, but I think he'd have preferred to receive it in person.

That's the standard that I was looking for. In the most generic step, the word sacrifice can be applied to trivial events, such as, "I sacrificed my breakfast this morning by giving the last of my Fruit Loops to my little brother since he likes them better than I do." While it may have qualified, it doesn't rise to the dramatic level required for a movie. Granted, the earlier situations aren't exactly as minor as this, they don't meet the higher threshold I was looking for.

Scott
post #296 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

This is partially my fault. I abbreviated your original phrase of self-sacrifice to just sacrifice in my responses, which has probably led to some confusion. The bar for self-sacrifice is a bit higher. From Wictionary:
That's the standard that I was looking for. In the most generic step, the word sacrifice can be applied to trivial events, such as, "I sacrificed my breakfast this morning by giving the last of my Fruit Loops to my little brother since he likes them better than I do." While it may have qualified, it doesn't rise to the dramatic level required for a movie. Granted, the earlier situations aren't exactly as minor as this, they don't meet the higher threshold I was looking for.

Scott
It's a funny thing....
We say the same words, but sometimes don't mean the same thing.wink.gif
post #297 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by srw1000 View Post

It could be broadened to argue that all six stories show that one has to act to affect the future, but isn't that kind of a given in all dramas?

If that truly is the theme, it's kind of interesting that the further the story progresses chronologically into the future, the more it seems that all of the characters' efforts to make the world better fail. The 19th Century character becomes an Abolitionist, but slavery returns a couple centuries later. The reporter stops an intentional nuclear meltdown, but most of the world is eventually destroyed in an apocalypse anyway. History keeps repeating itself, and nothing anyone does seems to have a lasting effect on that.

If this was an intentional theme of the novel, I feel that it could have been developed a little more clearly in the movie.
post #298 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If that truly is the theme, it's kind of interesting that the further the story progresses chronologically into the future, the more it seems that all of the characters' efforts to make the world better fail. The 19th Century character becomes an Abolitionist, but slavery returns a couple centuries later. The reporter stops an intentional nuclear meltdown, but most of the world is eventually destroyed in an apocalypse anyway. History keeps repeating itself, and nothing anyone does seems to have a lasting effect on that.

If this was an intentional theme of the novel, I feel that it could have been developed a little more clearly in the movie.
I didn't really notice the pattern....nice observation.
post #299 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

If that truly is the theme, it's kind of interesting that the further the story progresses chronologically into the future, the more it seems that all of the characters' efforts to make the world better fail. The 19th Century character becomes an Abolitionist, but slavery returns a couple centuries later. The reporter stops an intentional nuclear meltdown, but most of the world is eventually destroyed in an apocalypse anyway. History keeps repeating itself, and nothing anyone does seems to have a lasting effect on that.

If this was an intentional theme of the novel, I feel that it could have been developed a little more clearly in the movie.


post #300 of 301
It gets little easier to follow on second viewing but still leaves many things to one's own interpretation. Too bad it's near 3 hours long which makes multiple viewing difficult. As for the same actors with prosthetic vs different actors, I think the former works better for a movie where visualization is a big part of story telling.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home