Cloud Atlas - the Movie vs the Book

[Meadow337]

I picked up a copy of the movie a few weeks ago and was really impressed with it - so impressed that I was motivated to get and read the book which I finally got around to reading this weekend and finished the last few pages this morning.

Well my first impression of the book was - this is a book that was written to be made into a movie, and I'm very glad it was because was a pointless mess it was. The connections that were so obvious in the movie were almost entirely missing from the book. The whole meaning / importance of individual actions echoing forward through time was entirely lost. In fact I would go so far as to say that any meaning was entirely lost on me.

I have no idea how this book was applauded as much as it was. I enjoyed the different passages - but they felt like a series of short stories that had been cut up and pasted together randomly so that you skipped through bits of each story before finding the next bit, which was oddly not disruptive to the text. However as I said apart from a few very brief (two I think) mentions of the birthmark, there were no clues to the deeper meanings so evident in the film.

It also just ended abruptly. Much of bits that made it make sense had been added into the film. Like the ending. I couldn't believe it just ended. Like the author was called away mid-sentence and forgot to finish it, it was that abrupt. I actually paged through the adverts for the authors next book wondering where the rest was when my brain caught up with what my eyes were seeing - there was no more. No conclusion, no explanations, no connections .... just finished. If I hadn't seen the movie I would have had no idea what the heck the point was.

Does any one else have any thoughts on it?

 

[Peder]

Hi Meadow, I agree pretty much with all the particular points you make, but my reactions are almost entirely opposite.
I enjoyed the book so much more than the movie. I couldn't really follow the movie; but I thought the individual sections of the book were glorious, even if they connected to nothing - apart from loose progression in time.
My own particular comments would be that: The Orison of Sonmi 451 was one of the most powerful stories I have ever read; and the end-of the-world story in the middle of the book was the most vividly horrifying vision of an apocalypse I have ever read. Mitchell's apocalypse absolutely staggered me and left me walking around depressed for three days, it was that believable. In terms of simply beautiful writing, the opening section on the savage phase of civilization was gripping exposition. And the use of different styles was at least interesting.

I don't mind chopped up narratives anymore. They seem to come with the post-modern trend. In most other authors I don't think they add much, but Mitchell's book was a very happy exception for me.

 

[Meadow337]

Yes I agree with you that it was beautifully written, but that is not enough for me. Oddly The Orison of Sonmi 451 was the part I liked the least while in the movie it was the part I liked the most. I thought that the way the movie used her story to tie all the other stories together was just brilliant, although it was there in a book a little, it just didn't have the same impact. Ditto for Zachry and Meronym climbing the mountain. In the movie there was a point to the climb, one that ensures the future, in the book it is only there to serve as a reason for him saving her life - which also loses most, if not all of its significance, because it just wasn't that significant a future. So he lives to be an old man telling his story but without the significance of learning about Somni, it is almost pointless.

For me the movie was about the victory of love and hope over all the things that would crush it and humanity with it. The book was a beautiful box but empty.

 

[Peder]

. So he lives to be an old man telling his story but without the significance of learning about Somni, it is almost pointless.

For me the movie was about the victory of love and hope over all the things that would crush it and humanity with it. The book was a beautiful box but empty.

Well, Meadow, you are convincing with your optimistic insight into the movie. I'll only offer that maybe it was a movie of a different book. Maybe the book was deliberately pointless. The time jumps in the movie lost me and denied continuity. The book, to me, showed isolated vignettes of civilization from early history through the present time to future dismal apocalypse -- which was indeed basically a hopeless (or pointless) prospect, quite different from the ending of the movie.

But no quarrel. Very interesting to hear your alternative view of it.

 

[Meadow337]

Perhaps this is why I didn't understand the book at all LOL I don't get / do / understand bleak 'all life is pointless' view points of the meaning of life, the universe and every thing. I guess I was expecting to find the same meaning / import / subtext as the movie and was disappointed because it wasn't there to find.

The movie really was all about the transforming power of love, especially for the character played by Tom Hanks. He was the murderous doctor and it was his character that had the greatest emotional growth through all his lives. It was his understanding of the story of Somni on the mountain top that was transfigurative. Up to that moment the choice he would make, upon which the future of humanity would rest, was still in the balance. It was Somni's story that changed him and led him to save Maryam's life, and help her send out a call for ship to come from other colonies to save them. An outcome that is entirely positive because of the end, with him passing on all he learnt to the next generation. All in all a very positive movie that affirms the power of love expressed through the human spirit to overcome and transform even the worst of us.

 

[Peder]

Perhaps this is why I didn't understand the book at all LOL I don't get / do / understand bleak 'all life is pointless' view points of the meaning of life, the universe and every thing. I guess I was expecting to find the same meaning / import / subtext as the movie and was disappointed because it wasn't there to find.

The movie really was all about the transforming power of love, especially for the character played by Tom Hanks. He was the murderous doctor and it was his character that had the greatest emotional growth through all his lives. It was his understanding of the story of Somni on the mountain top that was transfigurative. Up to that moment the choice he would make, upon which the future of humanity would rest, was still in the balance. It was Somni's story that changed him and led him to save Maryam's life, and help her send out a call for ship to come from other colonies to save them. An outcome that is entirely positive because of the end, with him passing on all he learnt to the next generation. All in all a very positive movie that affirms the power of love expressed through the human spirit to overcome and transform even the worst of us.

Well, I suppose that is the nub of it.

To me, the end of the overall story is the bleak apocalypse in the center of the book. (We do agree that there are a number of short-story-like historical segments, split in half and distributed with their first halves in the first half of the book and their second halves in the second half of the book, with the apocalypse in the far future, which ends it all, at the dividing line between the first and second halves. Don't we?)

As I remember the apocalyptic scene, the world is becoming uninhabitable -- becoming covered by radioactive waste -- and there are only two radio stations still active, with a total of only about three people alive between them. That, in my memory, is quite different from the ending beach scene, looking out to the horizon, that I think I remember from the movie. In the book there is no beautiful prospect for the future. The death of the entire earth is right around the corner. Isn't it?

 

[Meadow337]

yes now that you say it - thats exactly how it reads. I.missed it because I was expecting the opposite. It's a horrible view to have because it makes you feel that there is no point at all to struggling through life, miggt as well just end the misery today. I rejected that approach many years ago as soul destroying. Without hope that is all we have. If we have love we have hope and with love and hope all things are possible.

 

[Peder]

Actually I inadvertently overemphasized. The end is not necessarily "just around the corner," as I stated, even though the book has it as the end of history. In the meantime (maybe 10 billion years, or less) there is time enough for humanity to learn how to be humane toward each other. If only it will. So the movie does project a positive message for "now," and I can understand why it does that, rather than adhere faithfully to the rather downish written end of the book. And, with you, I also believe that love toward our fellow man is the only way to do it.

 

[753C]

I liked both. I thought the book was pretty decent,although it took me forever to get through it. And the movie actually made me appreciate it a little more.

 

[Meadow337]

Actually I inadvertently overemphasized. The end is not necessarily "just around the corner," as I stated, even though the book has it as the end of history. In the meantime (maybe 10 billion years, or less) there is time enough for humanity to learn how to be humane toward each other. If only it will. So the movie does project a positive message for "now," and I can understand why it does that, rather than adhere faithfully to the rather downish written end of the book. And, with you, I also believe that love toward our fellow man is the only way to do it.

Well no I'm not sure you did. As I thought about what you said, it fit perfectly like a hand in a glove. And I still feel the same way, whether The End is tomorrow or in 10 million years, that bleak dystopian view of the future, that mankind is doomed to wipe themselves out, is horribly depressingly soul destroying. If all we are destined for is some nuclear holocaust and / or some other horrific weapon we unleash on ourselves - what is the point? Why struggle through this generation or any succeeding generation because it offers no hope at all. Might as well save yourself and any successive generations that end with you the pain of a pointless existence.

I reject that outcome and its lack of hope with every fiber of my being

 

[pontalba]

Interesting discussion.

The film seemed to emphasize reincarnation far more strenuously than the book. Naturally it was a, maybe the, theme of the book, but the film hit one over the head with it. To my taste and eye at any rate.

I thought the book and the book and film were realistic in showing a pattern of behavior that would lead to Mankind's eventual destruction. And, even if it didn't, the natural cycle of any planet leads to eventual destruction. The film gave the hope at the end of humankind "escaping" to another planet....they ended up on Alpha Centauri, didn't they? That is the closest to us. Logical progression, outward, ever outward. So, while the film held out a future hope for mankind, as I recall, the book held out no such hope.

So, hopeless? No, IMO, realistic. Realism does not necessarily equal hopelessness. Realism is what we must accept, and deal with it.

 

[Meadow337]

Hope is faith in what is not seen, realism can only ever be what is seen, what is there, and me I prefer hope.

 

[Peder]

I think the ploy of interstellar travel is s neat way to provide a happy ending -- logical and consistent with expectation for technology in that advanced era. Shrewd maneuver that I had forgotten about to get beyond the book's ending. Clever, these film writers!

 

[Meadow337]

indeed lol

 

[DATo]

Hi Medow337. I think yours is an excellent post because it addresses an important issue that comes up time and time again in this type of discussion - the dichotomy of 'book vs. movie'. As is often the case a book can present more information than a movie because every minute of screen time is enormously expensive; also, because movie viewers would not be willing to sit patiently through many hours of story presentation if the movie delineated everything contained in the book. As you may recall Mitchell's novel proceeded forward in time to the middle of the book then retraced its steps back in time to the beginning, resolving all the individual vignettes as it did so. The movie, on the other hand, moved in a linear fashion with each story paralleling the others as the movie moved forward. I think this helped movie viewers make better sense of how all the individual stories intertwined. I happened to have read the book before I saw the movie and I had the opposite reaction - I thought the book was better but I totally agree with you that the book was far more challenging.

I have read all of David Mitchell's novels (to date) and you might find it interesting to know that several of the characters in Cloud Atlas appear in Black Swan Green and Ghostwritten which is somewhat reminiscent of Balzac's, The Human Comedy.

 

[Meadow337]

To be totally honest, once having realised how negative his POV about life was in Cloud Atlas I shall not be dipping into any of his other books.

Although I agree with your assessment of why books are different from movies I think the explanation has far more to do with the difference in medium. In a book the author has to use many words to describe a scene - take a very simple image of a living room - he/she has to describe the size of the room, the furnishings, what the room says about the character etc (assuming this is relevant) while the filmmaker does not have to do anything more except show an image of the room and you make all your own assessments from how the set designer put the room together - total time 1 sec vs 500 words.

Or how about showing emotion - in a book the author has to tell you how the character is feeling and how they are speaking = more words but in a movie you don't have to have a flash card saying 'this character is angry etc' because you can see.

 

[Ell]

Hi Meadow, I agree pretty much with all the particular points you make, but my reactions are almost entirely opposite.
I enjoyed the book so much more than the movie. I couldn't really follow the movie; but I thought the individual sections of the book were glorious, even if they connected to nothing - apart from loose progression in time.
My own particular comments would be that: The Orison of Sonmi 451 was one of the most powerful stories I have ever read; and the end-of the-world story in the middle of the book was the most vividly horrifying vision of an apocalypse I have ever read. Mitchell's apocalypse absolutely staggered me and left me walking around depressed for three days, it was that believable. In terms of simply beautiful writing, the opening section on the savage phase of civilization was gripping exposition. And the use of different styles was at least interesting.

I don't mind chopped up narratives anymore. They seem to come with the post-modern trend. In most other authors I don't think they add much, but Mitchell's book was a very happy exception for me.

Peder, I absolutely loved the book but have not been able to finish the movie. The book was beautifully written and I had no trouble following the splintered narrative. I thought of it more as stories folding in upon each other.

Given Meadow's glowing opinion of the movie, perhaps I'll give it another try.

 

[Meadow337]

It wasn't that the writing wasn't really great it was the bleak outlook on the future, which I don't share. The movie had a totally different message of hope which I do share.

 

[pontalba]

It wasn't that the writing wasn't really great it was the bleak outlook on the future, which I don't share. The movie had a totally different message of hope which I do share.

Another example of Hollywood messing with a good book. IMO. I hate it when they change endings. That said, I liked the movie. Even though Tom Hanks annoys me no end. Some of his roles in the film were great!

 

[Meadow337]

Another example of Hollywood messing with a good book. IMO. I hate it when they change endings. That said, I liked the movie. Even though Tom Hanks annoys me no end. Some of his roles in the film were great!

In this case I'm glad they did. It made for a wonderful experience IMO which the book was not. I kept waiting and waiting for the positive outcome and I couldn't believe when I read the last word and it never came. I honestly really hate these 'its all going to end in destruction' type books. They offer nothing. And without hope we might as well all just jump off the nearest bridge because there is no point in even trying. However we get it, and where-ever we get it from we need hope. We need to believe that if not today, maybe even not tomorrow, but soon, things will be better in order to keep putting one foot in front of the other and to keep moving forward through life trying to improve ourselves and the world around us.