I think that one's a cumulus
Nov. 30th, 2010 04:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I just discovered that The Wachowskis are making a movie out of Cloud Atlas. With Tom Hanks, Halle Berry and Natalie Portman.
I can't see how they can do this without destroying the structure of the book. Spoiler for the structure of the book follows - no spoiler for plot, hence I'm not doing an LJ-Cut, unless people complain.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The book is structured as six stories, with the first half of each one followed by the first half of the next one, until we reach number six, and then we get the second halves of each one in turn, until we arrive at the first story again, to read its conclusion.
So, that's six stories, each with split into two halves, or 12 story fragments. Even if we assume that they have three hours to play around with, that's 15 minutes per fragment. Is that really enough to pull the viewers into a story, join it to the parts before and after, and tell something coherent? I'm doubtful, to put it mildly.
Now, I do love films that can pull off the twisty-turny narration. There's a bit in Reservoir Dogs that's three levels deep, and I love the structure of The Prestige, but this feels like something that's too large to bite off and also make a mainstream movie from.
And I don't mind gutting a book to make it into a film - pulling the essence out of it and streamlining it by leaving out (or changing) a chunk of the plot to fit the constraints (and advantages) of film is something I thoroughly approve of. But the heart of Cloud Atlas _is_ its structure.
So you can colour me intrigued. But I'll be utterly unsurprised if it's a failure. They've got good people onboard though, including writer Tom Tykwer, who made Run Lola Run and Perfume (and The International, which I heard was good, but haven't seen yet.)
I can't see how they can do this without destroying the structure of the book. Spoiler for the structure of the book follows - no spoiler for plot, hence I'm not doing an LJ-Cut, unless people complain.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The book is structured as six stories, with the first half of each one followed by the first half of the next one, until we reach number six, and then we get the second halves of each one in turn, until we arrive at the first story again, to read its conclusion.
So, that's six stories, each with split into two halves, or 12 story fragments. Even if we assume that they have three hours to play around with, that's 15 minutes per fragment. Is that really enough to pull the viewers into a story, join it to the parts before and after, and tell something coherent? I'm doubtful, to put it mildly.
Now, I do love films that can pull off the twisty-turny narration. There's a bit in Reservoir Dogs that's three levels deep, and I love the structure of The Prestige, but this feels like something that's too large to bite off and also make a mainstream movie from.
And I don't mind gutting a book to make it into a film - pulling the essence out of it and streamlining it by leaving out (or changing) a chunk of the plot to fit the constraints (and advantages) of film is something I thoroughly approve of. But the heart of Cloud Atlas _is_ its structure.
So you can colour me intrigued. But I'll be utterly unsurprised if it's a failure. They've got good people onboard though, including writer Tom Tykwer, who made Run Lola Run and Perfume (and The International, which I heard was good, but haven't seen yet.)
no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 04:45 pm (UTC)But curious to see what it becomes at a film, yes.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 04:51 pm (UTC)Also, for the record, Mitchell has read plenty of genre sf. Wrote reviews for the BSFA for a couple of years in the early nineties, too.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 05:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 08:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 04:56 pm (UTC)I wouldn't count the change of fiction levels to be a flaw, I thought it was another echo of the general theme of changing levels.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 04:48 pm (UTC)The irony is I don't think it would work all that well as a TV series either, since I think the effect requires that continuousness of story for maximum impact.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 06:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 08:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 06:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 06:39 pm (UTC)I think the best way to do it would be to use little visual tricks to link the stories together, and trim the plots way back.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 07:54 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-30 11:19 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-02 09:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-12-02 01:15 pm (UTC)You might find Short Cuts interesting, though. It's based on quite a lot of different short stories by Raymond Carver, which have all been made to intersect.