I'm not sure how famous it is worldwide but
in Britain we have a product called Marmite – a yeast extract product. For
anyone who doesn't know, it's pretty much just a spreadable food that looks a
bit like the black goo from Prometheus mixed in with some diarrhoea. It
also has a rather bizarre kind of slogan which claims, “You either love it or
you hate it”. I'd love to be able to tell you if this was true, but the fact is
that I haven't tried the gunk to be able to form an opinion. It might be though,
as I was talking to a friend the other day who drunkenly explained to me about
how he was “an absolute slag for the stuff”. Sadly however, that slogan alone
has pretty much put me off buying any as I'm sure I won't like it. Call me a
pessimist but if something openly admits that I might hate it whilst looking
like it's been shat out of a goats arse then I'll probably give it a miss. I
know there's a chance that I could be denying myself the greatest flavour of my
life but luckily I don't know what I'm missing to be able to give a fuck.
|
Gael Garcia Bernal in the Kermode life story |
Cloud Atlas has
only recently been released in the UK and is definitely the cinematic
equivalent of Marmite. Obviously I mean because of the slogan and not because I
think that it looks like shit. Having read several reviews for it, it seriously
does seem like it's either loved or hated and in honesty, I can see why. Over
in America, Roger Ebert seemed to enjoy the film whereas on the other big
flappy hand, the BBC's Mark Kermode apparently considered it a failure. Cloud
Atlas is such a strange and ‘out-there’ movie that I really doubt that
anybody could just think it was just ‘okay’. It's kind of like fisting, in that
there's really nobody undecided on their stance either way. Ironically though
the world is treating the film with the same level of apathy that I do towards
Marmite and simply ignoring it, which is a huge shame. Regardless of which end of
the spectrum you end up falling on, everybody seems to admire the film’s
ambitions and for that alone it deserves to be seen. For films with similar aims
and a Marmite-esque audience response, you should also check out The
Fountain, Inland Empire and stoma porn.
|
Who could this be? |
Cloud Atlas is
based on a book of the same name with the film being co-directed by Tom Tykwer,
Andy and Lana (previously Larry) Wachowski. I kind of want to make a joke about
those three collectively reminding me of the show Two and a Half Men but
I won't. Just because Tykwer is German, it doesn't make him half of a man. It
also has a cast of roughly seven people playing about four hundred characters
each, over the course of six interlocking stories. The irony of this is that
according to the film’s credits, this took three separate people to cast the
thing. I'd love to have been at the meeting where they got away with telling
the directors, “Look we've got Forrest Gump and about twelve different wigs if
you don't like it then go fuck yourself”. I'm presuming they used the same
people for multiple roles either to help highlight the thematic ties of the
film or because they couldn't find enough actors who understood the script.
|
Fit as fuck! |
In terms of what the movie is about- well,
really, who the fuck knows? I can't be bothered going through the plot of each
of the six stories because lets face it none of us are getting any younger. In
regards to the overall themes of Cloud
Atlas, then I guess it would be that of freedom, the soul, repeating the
same mistakes and the burden of having a giant spud face. I'm not even joking
about the last point as the cast are often so layered in prosthetics that they
start to resemble a mouldy potato that's been dropped into a tray of pubes. As
each actor shows up in the various segments, you find yourself playing spot the
celebrity which might sound distracting but is actually just part of the film’s
fun. As a clue to help you recognise them, Hugo Weaving and Hugh Grant tend to
be the villains and Tom Hanks is usually the one whose massive nose looks like
a dick that's been punched in on itself. Again though, even if the make-up
isn't always entirely convincing you've got to admire the level of
transformation that they've aimed for; the cast not only change characters but
also skin colour, age and even gender. Exposing oneself in a cinema screening
is always a risky venture and so you can imagine my annoyance when the gorgeous
fat woman that I tossed one off too turned out to be Agent Smith in a pair of
fake tits.
|
You had me at "How much?" |
Interestingly though, of all the actors
cast in this film, perhaps the most bizarre is Hugh Grant. Before embarking on
his epic television drama series The Leveson Inquiry Grant had pretty
much made a career by starring in shite films enjoyed solely by lonely women.
However despite him being the mascot for movies that make me pray for a nuclear
apocalypse, I'd always kind of liked him. Ever since he was caught face-fucking
a whore, it's been obvious that there's a real darkness to him that has so far
gone untapped. It was therefore nice to see him stretch himself in this film by
playing a variety of characters ranging from an old man to a psychotic
futuristic cannibal. The real shame is that he's genuinely really good in each
story proving that he's actually been squandering his talent over the course of
a remarkably bland career. Not that I'm sure he cares, considering how rich his
boring films have made him. To his credit, if interviews are anything to go by
then you'll never find a bigger critic of Hugh Grant’s crap filmography than
Hugh Grant himself. So it's not that he doesn't have any taste but rather, in
comparison to building a legacy, his taste for buying sluts is apparently much
greater.
So assuming you don't mind the prosthetics
making everybodies face look as weird as Mickey Rourke's then the next question
would be how well does the film hold together? Well, again, this is going to be
a Marmite kind of situation but personally I thought it worked very well, and helping
this is that each individual story is luckily enjoyable enough in its own
right. My personal favourite would probably be Jim Broadbent's daring escape
from the piss stained corridors of an old folk’s home. But then at the other
end of the spectrum is a futuristic tale set in Neo Seoul which follows the
adventure of a Korean clone on the run… at least I hope she's a clone and I've
not just said something massively racist. Of course, cutting from the various
periods and settings does jar occasionally but the film works because each
segment mirrors the plot and themes of the next. Despite three diverse
directors, the look of the film is also impressively consistent as though
they've worked as one presumably freaky-looking hive-mind. Do you remember just
how well Four Rooms worked together with its separate directors? Well
thankfully, this is the complete opposite of that arrogant slab of indulgent
shite.
Although it's probably obvious by now, I am
clearly very much on the side of love where Cloud Atlas is concerned.
Yes it's easy to make fun of and yes there is a section where Hugo Weaving
seems to play The Hitcher from The Mighty Boosh, however I think that overall there's a sincerity and heart to
the film which allows me to overlook whatever aspects of it that the haters
presumably hate. It's exciting, sad, funny and as mentioned, undeniably
ambitious. I know this hasn't been the most analytical of blogs and I've only
really briefly mentioned the themes rather than actually explored them, but
fuck it. I could go into depth with all the linking metaphors and reflections
of each segment but there'd be so much to say that this would be less of a blog
and more an extended descent into my own rambling insanity. My only suggestion
would therefore be that you just see the film for yourself and then comment
what you notice in the section below. Firstly because I'm moderately curious as
to what you thought and secondly because it'll make up for the lack of insight
in the rest of this essay of drivel. Having said that I'm pretty sure that by
now you people only read this for the shit and fart jokes and not for the
insightful comments on the semiology of cinema. So if that's the
case then get commenting below and I seriously hope you're proud of yourself.
Follow this blog or I'll fucking cut you.
I thought the film was good although could have been longer with more characters as i felt they didn't get a reflective enough look at all the people in time and space. the film wasn't as good as marmite as nothing can beat the filth pot of joy.
ReplyDeleteThat may be the best description of Marmite that I've ever heard...
Delete