My feeling was that you need to pay a minimum amount of attention to get a feel for the film, probably more than most films. But that’s pretty easy to recognise early on and the film kinda weans you into realising this.
But beyond that minimum amount, it’s up to you how much attention you want to pay, where you can opt more for the vibe of the interconnected stories, or try to be super detailed. Unfortunately, I think there’s a genuinely toxic reaction from some viewers that hates a film that demands some amount of “work” from the viewer, as though the film has done something wrong. Which is toxic for a few reasons, but one sad one I think is that it destroys the idea of watching a film more than once in order to understand it better and just going along for the ride the first time.
I think you are giving yourself too much credit. It’s not that the film “requires work”, lots of films do. The problem is, there’s no payoff for the work involved.
The Lord of the Rings films are 12 hours long with a ton of characters. You can easily miss the fact that Aragorn is some ancient foretold king, so the ghost army doesn’t make any sense. Also, it wouldn’t make sense why Denethor is angry at Gandalf coming to help him.
The films are enjoyable if you don’t pay much attention, because they have a lot of action and cool lines. But they also have an intricate story that improves when you pay attention and watch again.
Cloud Atlas tries to be intricate but the story is just not good. “We are being reincarnated” isn’t an original idea. And the execution is tedious.
Honestly not sure what you mean by that … what credit am I giving myself?
Cloud Atlas tries to be intricate but the story is just not good. “We are being reincarnated” isn’t an original idea.
Well, I think that depends on what you want. I for one was very happy to watch an attempt at putting reincarnation to film. The core idea of reincarnation doesn’t need to be original, and I don’t think the film itself has any sense of that, in the same way that LotR (books or films) doesn’t try to claim that geography and history are its own original “ideas”.
As for whether the story is “good” … well, the core of the story is kindness, self-discovery and finding a way to live with or “fight” the evils of the world, along with some meditation on “what is the significance of one’s life”. Like I said, I’m not keen on describing this as either “good” or “bad”, but I’m certainly happy to watch it and I’m sure plenty of other people are too.
Otherwise, comparing LotR to Cloud Atlas seems strange to me. The former is essentially lore based while Cloud Atlas is intended to be self contained. There are things in the LotR book/movie that just do not make as much sense without then reading the Silmarillion and/or the appendices, and all of the internet dissemination of this lore for those who haven’t read more deeply is quite extensive … it’s basically top-tier fantasy world building gone mainstream … having details discoverable beyond the film, and which have been “discovered” by many, including it seems yourself, is by design, before the films.
But you don’t have to watch Cloud Atlas more than once, it works just fine on a single viewing IMO, and is clearly not intended to be a world-building exercise, in large part IMO because it is very much about our world, here and now.
But if you don’t like it or find it tedious … that’s all good, I get it. I just think there’s something misplaced in trying to approach a critique from a relatively objective standpoint of “done well” or not. It’s a film that’s very much about a vibe or feeling IMO (which Ebert was always pretty good at picking up on I think, thus my link to his review), and either you’re receptive to that vibe or you’re not.
Subjective art … is good … wonderful … vital even.
And that’s part of what I appreciated about the film, it seemed from the outset to have a relatively personal essence that you either connected with or didn’t … which is what my comparison to some of the modern stuff, especially TV, that I’ve consumed lately. There’s nothing quite like a “personal” work.
maegul@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
My feeling was that you need to pay a minimum amount of attention to get a feel for the film, probably more than most films. But that’s pretty easy to recognise early on and the film kinda weans you into realising this.
But beyond that minimum amount, it’s up to you how much attention you want to pay, where you can opt more for the vibe of the interconnected stories, or try to be super detailed. Unfortunately, I think there’s a genuinely toxic reaction from some viewers that hates a film that demands some amount of “work” from the viewer, as though the film has done something wrong. Which is toxic for a few reasons, but one sad one I think is that it destroys the idea of watching a film more than once in order to understand it better and just going along for the ride the first time.
KevonLooney@lemm.ee 2 years ago
I think you are giving yourself too much credit. It’s not that the film “requires work”, lots of films do. The problem is, there’s no payoff for the work involved.
The Lord of the Rings films are 12 hours long with a ton of characters. You can easily miss the fact that Aragorn is some ancient foretold king, so the ghost army doesn’t make any sense. Also, it wouldn’t make sense why Denethor is angry at Gandalf coming to help him.
The films are enjoyable if you don’t pay much attention, because they have a lot of action and cool lines. But they also have an intricate story that improves when you pay attention and watch again.
Cloud Atlas tries to be intricate but the story is just not good. “We are being reincarnated” isn’t an original idea. And the execution is tedious.
maegul@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
Honestly not sure what you mean by that … what credit am I giving myself?
Well, I think that depends on what you want. I for one was very happy to watch an attempt at putting reincarnation to film. The core idea of reincarnation doesn’t need to be original, and I don’t think the film itself has any sense of that, in the same way that LotR (books or films) doesn’t try to claim that geography and history are its own original “ideas”.
As for whether the story is “good” … well, the core of the story is kindness, self-discovery and finding a way to live with or “fight” the evils of the world, along with some meditation on “what is the significance of one’s life”. Like I said, I’m not keen on describing this as either “good” or “bad”, but I’m certainly happy to watch it and I’m sure plenty of other people are too.
Otherwise, comparing LotR to Cloud Atlas seems strange to me. The former is essentially lore based while Cloud Atlas is intended to be self contained. There are things in the LotR book/movie that just do not make as much sense without then reading the Silmarillion and/or the appendices, and all of the internet dissemination of this lore for those who haven’t read more deeply is quite extensive … it’s basically top-tier fantasy world building gone mainstream … having details discoverable beyond the film, and which have been “discovered” by many, including it seems yourself, is by design, before the films.
But you don’t have to watch Cloud Atlas more than once, it works just fine on a single viewing IMO, and is clearly not intended to be a world-building exercise, in large part IMO because it is very much about our world, here and now.
But if you don’t like it or find it tedious … that’s all good, I get it. I just think there’s something misplaced in trying to approach a critique from a relatively objective standpoint of “done well” or not. It’s a film that’s very much about a vibe or feeling IMO (which Ebert was always pretty good at picking up on I think, thus my link to his review), and either you’re receptive to that vibe or you’re not.
Subjective art … is good … wonderful … vital even.
And that’s part of what I appreciated about the film, it seemed from the outset to have a relatively personal essence that you either connected with or didn’t … which is what my comparison to some of the modern stuff, especially TV, that I’ve consumed lately. There’s nothing quite like a “personal” work.