New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

When speaking to Empire magazine, it was revealed that directors Andy and Lana Wachowski spent their childhood having film marathon day trips. Andy said, “We’d go to one movie then go and eat something, then we’d talk about it, we’d go to the next one, go and eat something then talk about it…”

“That became the way we learned how to engage with art,” said Lana. “You would see things that you would wanna talk about. Today there are so many things made where you don’t have anything to say afterwards!” Cloud Atlas appeared to be their way of trying to replicate this experience. The film has six different stories, so there is definitely something to talk about once it is over.

Based on David Mitchell’s novel, Cloud Atlas was initially deemed unfilmable due to the Russian-doll like structure of the novel, telling six stories each from a different time and place, beginning with the earliest and continuing chronologically. Each story stops midway, with the exception of the final one set in the future, which is told in its entirety, after which the book moves backwards chronologically, finishing each story.

Adapted and directed for the screen by Tom Tykwer, Lana Wachowski and Andy Wachowski, their film has all six stories entwined with each other. In 1849, American lawyer Adam Ewing (Jim Sturgess) is on a ship back to San Francisco and finds himself helping an escaped slave (David Gyasi), as well as slowly falling ill. In Cambridge, 1936, musician Robert Frobisher (Ben Whishaw) works as an amanuensis for composer Vyvyan Ayrs (Jim Broadbent), hoping to create a masterpiece. In San Francisco, 1973, journalist Luisa Rey (Halle Berry) uncovers a conspiracy about the safety of a nuclear reactor, putting her life in danger as she attempts to expose the truth. In London, 2012, publisher Timothy Cavendish (Jim Broadbent) is threatened by gangsters so he reconnects with his brother Demholme (Hugh Grant), asking for help, only for Timothy to end up in an old-people’s home from which he can’t escape. In Neo Seoul, 2144, fabricant Sonmi-451 (Doona Bae) is a fast food waitress who joins a revolutionary (Jim Sturgess). In Hawaii, some time in the future, tribesman Zachry (Tom Hanks) agrees to help the visiting “Prescient” Meronym (Halle Berry) in her mission to find and send a message.

It was in August 2009 that Tykwer and the Wachowskis had finished a draft of their script to send to David Mitchell. When speaking to the New Yorker, Lana said, “We decided in Costa Rica that - as hard and as long as it might take to write this script - if David didn’t like it, we were just going to kill the project.” Mitchell responded to the script saying, “This could be one of those movies that are better than the book!”

All the studios passed on Cloud Atlas, feeling that the film would be too expensive, challenging and complicated. Warner Bros. put up a portion of the film’s production budget (believed to be $25 million). In return they gained the rights to distribute the film in the US. The rest of the budget came from German production companies A Company, ARD Degeto Film, and X-Filme, as well as a multitude of independent investors across the world.

Lana and Andy had to forgo a director’s fee and instead put their own money into the project. During an interview with Deadline, Lana revealed how a financer went bankrupt four days before shooting was to commence. “We had lunch and we basically all decided to put our personal money, mortgage our house, fill that last bit of a gap,” said Lana. Shooting took place from September 2011 to December 2011, with a production budget of $102 million.

Marketing Cloud Atlas proved to be tricky. July 2012 saw the release of a five minute trailer, along with a director’s commentary that had Tom Tykwer, Lana Wachowski and Andy Wachowski introduce it. In it the three of them tell the viewer, “The movie is hard to sell because it’s hard to describe, it’s hard to reduce. So we decided to make a really, really, really long trailer, and just put it out there.” This itself showed how ambitious the film was. However, on the other end, one could deduce that if the filmmakers themselves are having trouble describing what they’ve just made, then are viewers even going to be able to make sense of it? Credit to Tykwer and the Wachowskis for this was probably the best way to go about it. The extended trailer looks brilliant, but some were unable to grasp what that one core story was, only that for some reason “everything is connected.”

This made 30 second TV spots even more difficult, none of which really told the viewer much about the film. Some ended up having to rely on positive quotes from critics. One used the tagline, “Past, Present, Future Collide,” while another listed the main cast and featured a fraction of their various guises in the film, which did help convey a sense of it being a sprawling epic across time.

Cloud Atlas had its premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 8, 2012, where it received a standing ovation. From this it would appear that the signs were good and the film would be a hit.

Cloud Atlas opened in the US on October 26, 2012 in a little over 2,000 theatres. It landed at #2 with an opening weekend take of $9.6 million (held off the top spot by the three week old Argo). According to Warner, 77% of the audience that came out for the film on opening weekend were aged over 25. The film’s R-rating likely put a stop to many youngsters, but was this really going to appeal to the majority of under 25s? It managed just $27.1 million during its run at the US box office.

Reviews were mixed, with some reviewers even saying that the film will divide opinion. The best example came from Steven Lebowitz of the Examiner, who led his review saying, “'Cloud Atlas' is one of the best movies of 2012, but you'll probably hate it.” It was almost akin to saying, “Cloud Atlas is too great for stupid people, which the majority of you are.” This was further exemplified when Lebowitz noted that during his screening about 25 people walked out. Based on that, readers will either accept the film or realize that it’s clearly not for them. It also didn’t help that some reviewers were calling the film “complicated,” a word that can instantly turn people off regardless of just how much praise the reviewer bestows upon the film.

In December 2012, Time Magazine listed Cloud Atlas as the worst film of 2012, calling it a “bloated fantasia of special effects and makeup wizardry.” The film had yet to roll out in some international territories, such as France, Brazil, South Korea, Australia and the UK. Coupled with the mixed reviews, potential audiences in those countries were now less likely to go see the film. Speaking to The Guardian, producer Stefan Arndt revealed how the film was originally supposed to have a more synchronized release, but the involvement of multiple investors only made things more difficult: “What happens if you have 20 territories with 20 investors with 20 opinions – in the end you cannot force your distributors to follow one strategy.” He also stressed how the marketing originally focussed too much on targeting older moviegoers.

Cloud Atlas did fare a little better overseas, earning $103.3 million. It managed a worldwide total of $130.4 million.

By offering moviegoers six (somewhat connected) stories for the price of one, Cloud Atlas manages to mix multiple genres and has something to say on just about everything. But with a running time that’s close to three hours, are audiences going to want to sit through something that from the outset looks confusing? Will they have the patience for it all? And if they do, what will they take away from each story, if anything?

Coming across as an adventure, drama, detective story and sci-fi spectacle all wrapped up in one may sound like a good deal, but for some it was probably a struggle just to make it through a synopsis. The film leaves audiences with a lot to take in, and some felt confused, wondering what the overall message of the film was. Kudos to editor Alexander Berner for managing to put all six stories together, but even if “Everything is Connected,” for some people it’s easier to focus on one story instead of having to jump from one time frame to another trying to keep track of six.

The film also came under fire from the Media Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA) criticising the film’s “badly done yellowface,” with actors such as Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess and James D'Arcy made-up to portray Asian characters. MANAA’s founding president Guy Aoki said, “In the modern age of movie make up, it is disturbing to see poorly done Asian eye prosthetics to make Caucasian men look Asian.” It may have turned Asian Americans off from seeing the film, though curiously, outside the US, the country where Cloud Atlas earned the most money was China ($27.7 million)

As the saying goes, “You’re only as good as your last film,” and it could be argued that for Andy and Lana Wachowski in particular they were no longer the draw they once were. After the disappointment that came from the conclusion to The Matrix trilogy with The Matrix Revolutions they followed up with Speed Racer, a family film that failed at the box office and with critics. Having previously avoided doing press and interviews, with Cloud Atlas they made an effort to promote the film.

In the New Yorker, Lana noted how one of the difficulties that arose from making the film was that it had no comparison. “The problem with market-driven art-making is that movies are green-lit based on past movies,” said Lana. “So, as nature abhors a vacuum, the system abhors originality. Originality cannot be economically modelled.” You see, it’s all down to what audiences are paying to see and one could argue that the thought process of the typical moviegoer works in a similar way – with the price of a ticket rising, their choice will largely be dictated by what they’ve seen and enjoyed before. So why should they suddenly take a risk on viewing a film that defies categorization?

In September 2012, author David Mitchell wrote a piece for The New York Times about the adaptation of his novel. He described the idea to have the actors playing multiple roles during the different timelines as “ingenious”. He also highlighted how the film left him “more impressed than piqued” with its reasons for changes. “A novel contains as many versions of itself as it has readers,” said Mitchell. “A film’s final cut vaporizes every other way it might have been made…When I try to recall how I imagined my vanity-publisher character, Timothy Cavendish, before the movie, all I see now is Jim Broadbent’s face smiling back, devilishly. Which, as it happens, is fine by me.”

I did not view Cloud Atlas on the big screen, instead waiting till it was released on DVD. I did enjoy the film and can’t deny that it is great to look at, a reason that’s usually enough to bring audiences in. With six stories contained in a running time that’s close to three hours, from three directors working with a mega cast, it doesn’t just give off an epic vibe; it also fits the pretentious category. A TV miniseries rather than a film might have been the best way to go about it. Also, maybe it’s just me, but none of the stories in the film felt complicated at all (however, the dialogue during the Big Isle/The Fall story set in the future is strange).

Cloud Atlas might have been doomed to fail simply due to the nature of the film itself. Generally risks of an unconventional nature would carry a low to mid production budget. However, Cloud Atlas was an ambitiously monumental $100 million+ risk. During a feature on the DVD, A Film Like No Other, we hear Andy say, “You don’t get to make experimental big budget movies.” That the film failed to find success is unfortunately the reason why. The fact that it was made it all is an achievement in itself, but the result was an expensive art house film searching for an audience.