Multiplicity and infinity | Cathal Dennehy

Cathal Dennehy finds Cloud Atlas to be too often unfairly dismissed.Where to begin? Cloud Atlas was always going to be a difficult film; difficult to make, to understand and, crucially, to sell. After having flopped quite severely in America, many had written off Cloud Atlas as a bloated, baffling mess. This, however, seems to be a very unfair dismissal.Directors/screenwriters Andy Wachowski, Lana Wachowski and Tom Tykwer have achieved what Ang Lee did with Life of Pi in that they took what was widely believed to be an unfilmable novel and make something coherent, entertaining and cinematic (although Cloud Atlas is not as well rounded a film as Life of Pi). The novel of the same name by David Mitchell describes tales of six different people from various time periods and locations. The multitude of plot lines, while never actually interlocking, are linked through time itself as events, interactions and characters themselves resonate down through the ages. Surprisingly, the six plot strands are well balanced and the film never feels cluttered or confused. The film, despite its nearly three hour running time, never drags and remains consistantly engaging and interesting.The cast is star-studded, including Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent and Hugh Grant, whose performances are diverse to say the least. What’s interesting to note is how some of the bigger stars, like Hanks and Broadbent, are given several roles of varying significance in each storyline, whereas younger performers, such as Ben Whishaw and Jim Sturgess, have a single, meatier role to deal with. In some ways seeing the same actor turn up every so often in different make up and with another accent can be slightly disconcerting. Elements like these makes one wish at times that lesser known actors were used, as the huge star wattage can distract from the characters themselves. Also, as there are so many characters and so many storylines to juggle there is little time left to fully develop the characters themselves, and as a result the film is interesting but never truly compelling. Nevertheless, performances such as Ben Whishaw’s forlorn composer and Halle Berry’s 1970s reporter stand out as the most engaging.The overall message of the film is that people’s actions (be they kind or unpleasant)  resonate and send a ripple through time, affecting people in strange and disparate ways. For example, Jim Broadbent’s decision in 2012 to escape from his nursing home causes a revolution in 22^nd Century Seoul. Such is the tone of the film; we are all connected and we carry on living after we die. Some may find that the occasionally drippy message becomes overly preachy at times, as characters constantly reference how they feel that they know this situation or how that person seems so farmiliar. I feel that the film is successful in managing its central conceit. Unlike films such as Prometheus which became bogged down by its far-reaching philosophical notions, Cloud Atlas - despite the supposed incomprehension of its subject matter - is surprisingly manageable and simple enough to grasp. The message actually is a relatively simple one which is told in a complex way.Cloud Atlas certainly is a flawed film, mainly in its inability to give its characters much more than surface depth. However its strengths outweigh its weaknesses; the complexity of its story telling and the successful reigning in of the multiple plot strands to form a coherent film stand to make it a unique and often challenging cinema experience, something which should be acknowleged when it comes along.