Cinema vs. Literature: The Case of Cloud Atlas

Hey I know it's a crazy debate that is considered tedious even by the people who engage in it and incredibly dull to the vast majority of people, but to me it's a somewhat important debate – also I've always wanted to get my piece in. In my life I have watched many movies that started out as books. I even watched a series of movies pull an entire genre out of leftfield and into the mainstream (the 'teenage girls + Lord of the Rings = Twilight' formula).

I never really want to do the research. One masterful post about 90's action movies Judge Dredd and Demolition Man is the one piece of film criticism I've ever attempted (I wouldn't even call criticism that by a mile), but the fact that it came together at all is a miracle and premised heavily on my understanding of the 1990s and action movies. I would never put on airs about film. I didn't study film, I am no expert, and if I couldn't write a decent bit about it I wouldn't even dare tangle with such heady stuff. Just kidding: nothing is sacred and film deserves an honest thrashing beyond my abilities.

But so do books, which brings me to today's post, which will take all of my faculties firing at once. Books and film. Easy target. Why not the Jurassic Park series? Why not the Harry Potter series? Well, both of those movie series are premised on books written in the 90s and I don't want to overplay my hand. I want to up the ante, though, so I'm taking it up to the 2000s and the 2010s. Cloud Atlas, the novel, was published in 2004 by an English author named David Mitchell. It was a rather engaging, spirited, and creative endeavor that consisted of six stories and their mysterious interplay throughout the novel. With no one narrative, or style, it was consistently engaging to read, and the nesting of the stories (like so: 1/2/3/4/5/6/5/4/3/2/1 ), and their content lent the final conclusion an epic sense. What a book, David Mitchell. Good work.

For years I had encountered brief allusions to the book, and some people I know had read it, but nobody had recommended it to me. Then I came across a trailer for the movie version and the race was on: I had to read the book before the movie came out. I was determined to do that and then also go see the movie. Naturally it took until this very week (8 months after release in my region) for me to actually see the movie. Life interceded, but I did find the book and read it.

Between a book and the film inevitably made about it there is a chasm so wide it cannot be imagined. A book can take a year to finish but a movie only has the audience's attention so long. Therefore, any attempt made to transcribe an entire book into a movie (even if the visual medium optimally condenses meaning and collapses the long-windedness of writing into digestible, filmable scenes) would fall completely flat or be ludicrous or run for 9 hours straight. Film buffs and hardcore book worms don't even have time for that: the two mediums are a world apart.

That Time of The Year, Pt.2 : Based on a True Story

In 2011 this rule held true: if it was December there were a lot of movies coming out 'based on true stories'. I feel like 'based on a true story' is the sort of phrase that deserves to always be put in quotes. It stands out. I remember going to a theater and seeing two or three 'based on a true story' movies. Could be my memory is destroyed. You can check for yourself in many ways, I'm sure, but I will provide one.

I guess seeing a fabulous movie with roots in the mundane, grimy, desperate reality of life is a heart-warming thing. It's not terrible. You can't simply hate the story for being insipid or unbelievable. However, you can throw shovelfuls of shit onto the screenplay, script, and performances. I'm not one for 'true story' movies myself, but I can see the appeal. Recent Denzel vehicle Flight was also allegedly 'based on a true story' in the trailers. There is some discussion about that. Again, maybe my memory is shot.

It seems to me, after some reflection, that the winter months and the final weeks of autumn is the key season for 'based on a true story' movies. I guess film-goers need their hearts warmed, too. I will include in this discussion biographical films. I saw The Master this year in an independent cinema in late November. It fits the bill, even though the movie was released much earlier. I just wanted to say that I watched a movie. Was it good? Hell yeah it was interesting. I've never seen such a good, unbiased movie about Scientology in my life. The word 'Scientology' isn't even used once, as far as I know, in the movie. That's brilliant. L. Ron Hubbard is renamed. It's a work of art. Drags a bit. Philip Seymour Hoffman is in it and he's a masterful actor who positively keeps the damn thing going.

But I digress. Take one of recent history's most successful and critically lauded Milk, which was released on November 26, 2008. It was a movie 'based on a true story' and some might have called it a 'biographical film' or even a 'biopic'. I'm more or less an idiot, but even I can see this trend. I won't go ahead and say December is peak month for this type of movie, but it is certainly roughly in the middle. It is the median month for 'based on true story' entertainment.

Though, following this line of reasoning, every war movie ever made is 'based on a true story' and most crime movies as well. Then, let's get existential and very post-modern critical and just say that every movie and every book and every narrative ever is 'based on a true story'. Most music is probably born along those lines. Everything creative is partly 'based on a true story'. This is problematic, because I mean a specific type of feel-good, heartwarming, nonthreatening, almost unconscious type of movie. The type that would star Sandra Bullock and a minority actor, and you'd find your girlfriend watching it late one evening – absorbed, transported, and entirely quiet. Why can't she be like that when Ted is playing?

Except that movie with Sandra Bullock is not really so unconscious. I feel bad for considering it problematic. It's probably legitimately progressive, and probably has integrity as a work of art, as a consumer product, and as a social statement. I don't actually know, though. I never saw it. All I know is that, apparently, it was based on a true story, and according to that logic probably came out between mid-November and late-February.

Mars Then and Now

Our attitude towards the planet Mars is puzzling. It lies a long distance away and only by merit of being slightly more hospitable than Venus do we bother to choose it as the planetary neighbor to visit. In twenty or so minutes NASA will attempt a fantastic science-fictiony landing of another rover onto the red planet, in search of traces of water and cellular life or organic compounds. It's an interesting thing but I wanted to talk about the past.

Around 1999 the Mars madness was palpable. The Pathfinder mission was a huge cultural moment still somewhat in the spotlight and there was hype and references and exciting stuff. Upcoming missions made it seem all kinds of things were about to be discovered. It only makes sense that two big-budget movies would come out about Mars that year. It was the Deep Impact/Armageddon rule: find a cultural sensitivity and fight to the death to capture it perfectly in a movie.

In 2000, two Mars movies were released. Both were unscientific, dumb, melodramatic, action-packed, special-effects-laden, and not very remarkable. One was slightly more action styled. It was called Red Planet and was unapologetically stupid – as a film it was an abject failure. It tried to have 'deep' and/or 'thoughtful' undertones, but these didn't work out, because the film was about survival and strife and action. It was pretty cool as an action movie about Mars, but it was not sharp or exceptional. Wikipedia helpfully points out that it was a 'critical and commercial failure'.

The other movie was Mission to Mars, slightly more highbrow, slightly deeper, with less pervasive action scenes and a crippling addiction to nonsense and melodrama. It had a way better cast than Red Planet but the script was roughly just as bad. The main difference was the level of action. In Mission to Mars an important character takes off his helmet in space to discourage his wife from trying to rescue him from sure death. Melodrama, right? Pure melodrama, and out of all context of reality considering these are elite astronauts. Why even allow a husband/wife team? To make the story a little cozier, sure, but thoroughly unrealistic. The movie is still heartfelt in many ways and the ending, while cliche, dumb, and scientifically bankrupt (like the whole movie) is kind of touching in its absolute madness.

I suppose we're due for a Mars themed movie soon, depending on how this lander does in twelve or so minutes.