Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to Cloud Atlas - The Outsiders Fan Reaction, Cloud Atlas Preview

Transcript

Prequel to Cloud Atlas - The Outsiders Fan Reaction, Cloud Atlas Preview · This Film is Lit

• 0:10
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our Outsiders listener polls and preview Cloud Atlas. Hello and welcome back to this film is the August we're talking about movies that are based on books. It's a prequel episode. Plenty of stuff to get into. I got a lot of notes about Cloud Atlas the movie. I'm sure you got a lot to talk about about the book. Maybe not. We'll see. There's usually more stuff about the movies because.
• 0:40
  Speaker B: Movies. Yeah, there's a lot more like production notes and stuff that you don't like get with a book.
• 0:45
  Speaker A: Yeah. And like it. Yeah. Yeah. It's a lot easier to find reviews and all that kind of stuff. So.
• 0:49
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 0:49
  Speaker A: Anyways, point being, we're gonna jump right into it with our patron shoutouts. I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why. One kind of new patron this week. Returning patron at the Hugo award winning level, Diane Takaki. Thank you, Diane for coming back and supporting us getting that bonus content. Make sure you're checking out all those bonus episodes. And as always, we have our Academy Award winning patrons and they are. Nicole Goble, Harpo Rat, Nathan Vic Apocalypse, Mathilde Cottonwood, Steve. Teresa Schwartz, Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier, Gratch. Just Gratch. Shelby's withholding judgment on Taylor Lautner, Werewolf Hunter until we see the werewolves that darn skag and V. Frank. Thank you all for your continued support. What did I miss? What is that? What is Shelby's name in do you know?
• 1:44
  Speaker B: I heard about it. I think it's a TV show.
• 1:49
  Speaker A: What's it. Do you know what it's called?
• 1:50
  Speaker B: I think it's called Taylor Lautner, Werewolf Hunter.
• 1:53
  Speaker A: Maybe I assumed that was like a fun Mimi name for like a show where he is playing a werewolf hunter, but I maybe.
• 2:01
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 2:04
  Speaker A: Let's see. Upcoming, the token groomsman. That can't be it. Maybe it's just not on IMDb yet or something. There's a page he's an executive producer on it and it says he's starring it. That's weird because on his. On the cast page for it it says Taylor Lautner. But on his page he is not credited as in the. Like that's not one of his upcoming actors.
• 2:30
  Speaker B: It's an Amazon project on an article on Variety about it. I had heard about it but only like tangentially and I didn't know if it was like a real thing or.
• 2:41
  Speaker A: It looks like a meme thing. Yeah, it appears to be the writer Is Daisy Gardner, who wrote on a TV show called Married. Also was a writer on 30 Rock, producer on Californiacation. It looks like maybe her big show that she show led might have been Single Drunk Female, which I've never seen, but I've heard, I think good things about maybe Looks like she was a producer on the Goldberg so. Yeah, she's got real credits and stuff. Worked on Roswell. Interesting. Yeah, I don't know. That's fascinating. I wonder what the heck it's supposed to be. After Twilight, Taylor Lautner joins secret werewolf hunters, using his expertise to fight the creatures that made him famous while balancing Hollywood life and finding love. So it's like, interesting. This says documentary. That can't be right. It's gotta be like a satirical comedy. And again, based on the writer that's attached on this, she writes comedies and stuff.
• 3:36
  Speaker B: So it's probably like a mockumentary type thing.
• 3:39
  Speaker A: Yeah, that would be. My guess is maybe they're doing a.
• 3:41
  Speaker B: Like a what we do in the shadows style thing, kind of a. Ma', am, what are you doing?
• 3:45
  Speaker A: That would be my guess. All right, well, that was a fun little diversion. Katie, it's time to see what the people had to say about the outsiders. Yeah, well, you know, that's just like your opinion.
• 3:58
  Speaker B: Man on Patreon. We had three votes for the book and two for the movie. Returning patron Diane Takaki said, full disclosure. When my 9th grade English teacher assigned this book to the class, I only read maybe half of it. It's not a very long book.
• 4:17
  Speaker A: Ninth grade. I get it. I get it.
• 4:20
  Speaker B: This was during a time when I decided that movies were more important than books. And I was much more excited to watch the movie in class after we were supposed to read the book. So I will let my 14 year old me make the decision for the poll. Oh, my God. Look at Rab Low. He is the hottest.
• 4:37
  Speaker A: Well, there you go.
• 4:38
  Speaker B: That being said, after listening to Katie's verdict, it made me wish that I had read the whole book at that time in my life. I'm planning on reading it now, but I'm not sure it would have the same impact that it would have had on teen me.
• 4:50
  Speaker A: That feels.
• 4:51
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think that's probably fair.
• 4:52
  Speaker A: Probably true.
• 4:53
  Speaker B: We shall see. Thanks for the episode. It was a fun one.
• 4:56
  Speaker A: Well, you're welcome. Thank you and glad you enjoyed it.
• 4:59
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Gordon who said, I read the book in sixth grade and absolutely loved it and watched the movie in class later that year. I love both of them, but I decided to vote for the movie because of the actors and the lines. Do it for Johnny and stay golden, Pony boy.
• 5:17
  Speaker A: There you go. I mean, great lines.
• 5:21
  Speaker B: Our next comment was from Kelly Napier, who said, as most Americans who went through the public school system probably did, I read this book years ago for English class. I didn't like it then. I thought the plot was thin and my teacher was trying to force us to find symbolism and meaning in it that wasn't there. Now, 20 plus years later, turns out I still don't like this book much. I still found the plot lacking in depth and wondered how a book so short could feel so long. That being said, I still preferred it to the movie. For the most part. The actors didn't do much for me and C. Thomas Howell just feels flat in the main role. The time the boys spent at the church felt rushed in the movie, where in the book you can feel the boredom they feel by being there alone for so long with nothing to do. You mentioned the way the sunrise scene was lit, and interestingly, it's shot in a very similar way to the scene in Gone with the Wind where Scarlet states she'll never be hungry again. It struck me as an unspoken homage, since that work is one that's specifically referenced in this one.
• 6:25
  Speaker A: Makes sense.
• 6:26
  Speaker B: Yeah, that's probably accurate. I've never seen Gone with the Wind, so I don't.
• 6:31
  Speaker A: I was gonna say. Well, I was gonna get to that here after we hit her side note.
• 6:34
  Speaker B: But side note, will y' all ever cover Gone with the Wind? Obvious problematic issues aside, it is one of my favorite books and movies. I reread the book once a year and the movie is one I'll just put on in the background when I'm cleaning the house. I've always been hesitant to request it, though, maybe because I'm not sure I could take it if you didn't like it.
• 6:57
  Speaker A: So I have also, I don't want to say I've never seen it. I think I did see at least a significant portion of it when I was young, but I don't remember anything about it and I have not watched it since then.
• 7:08
  Speaker B: I mean, I know some of the major cultural references from it, I know.
• 7:12
  Speaker A: A couple lines, and that's about it.
• 7:14
  Speaker B: But I've never seen it, know nothing about it.
• 7:18
  Speaker A: I would be interested. I'm sure we'll do it one day. It's a big enough popular thing, probably that eventually we'll get to it. You know, assuming we keep doing these podcasts, which we have no plans to stop anytime. So I imagine we would get to it one day. I don't know. Yeah, I'd be interested to see how I feel about it because obviously is, you know, it's a classic of both literature and film. But I do wonder how it, how I. How it has aged. Not, and obviously not in like a problematic way, but just like as a film and as like an entertainment experience. Like how. And filmmaking and all that, like how it is aged, I imagine. Well, it's still regarded well, I think, in terms of its like craft, but I just don't know enough. Again, I saw maybe parts of it as a very young child and then have not seen anything since then, so I have no idea.
• 8:07
  Speaker B: Katie mentioned she was okay with the movie cutting the scene with Derry officially getting custody of Soda Pop and Ponyboy, but. But I actually liked that scene in the book. They kept mentioning throughout the story leading up to that point that Derry needed his brothers to stay straight so they wouldn't get taken away from him. So it was a concern Ponyboy had that his family would be broken up. And the resolution of that was nice. Second side note, how does a family go from naming their first child Daryl and then the second and third children Soda Pop and Ponyboy? What left turn happened there?
• 8:41
  Speaker A: That is a fascinating question.
• 8:42
  Speaker B: It's a really good question. I mean, the boring answer is that they were named by a 15 year old girl.
• 8:47
  Speaker A: Yes. But like, but it makes you wonder what her thought was like when she did that. Like, why did she go from Daryl to.
• 8:56
  Speaker B: Yeah, I. I mean, I don't know about that in universe. I am pretty sure. Okay. So I, I know for sure that like in the scene where they're at the drive in, Pony Boy says like that his dad was an original person when they're talking about their names.
• 9:14
  Speaker A: Yeah. She's like.
• 9:15
  Speaker B: So I can, I can assume that dad had the naming power here.
• 9:21
  Speaker A: Sure. Yeah.
• 9:22
  Speaker B: And I also, I can't remember where this would be in the book, but I swear at some point it's alluded to that Darry's named after their dad. So apparently like dad named him after himself.
• 9:37
  Speaker A: And then from there he's like.
• 9:38
  Speaker B: From there he was like, all right, I got it. I'm the best names that you've ever heard in your life.
• 9:45
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 9:45
  Speaker B: Soda Pop and Ponyboy. Honestly, I would rather be Soda Pop.
• 9:50
  Speaker A: Yes. Ponyboy has too many Pony Boy. That's the makings of.
• 9:54
  Speaker B: That's a rough one.
• 9:55
  Speaker A: Yeah. Getting made fun of a lot. I mean, both of them are, to be fair. But yeah, it's they're not ideal names for a child growing up. I would say that.
• 10:07
  Speaker B: Next comment was from.
• 10:08
  Speaker A: Do you think. And this is actually, I'm like legitimately wondering because this is maybe the only explanation. And this is from a why did Essie Hinton decide on these names thing. Do you think maybe she thought there was this. And this is a complete guess because I was looking at their names and Ponyboy doesn't really work as well, but I could imagine a 15 year old doing something like this, which is finding out about indigenous names.
• 10:35
  Speaker B: Okay.
• 10:36
  Speaker A: And how indigenous names or at least in some, I don't know exactly how indigenous name work or whatever, but the idea of that their names are related to either like something that had like natural things like in the world, events that occurred at the time of their birth, whatever, stuff like that. I don't know exactly how it works, but you know, like where people have like names that are like Running river or things like that. Okay, so my question is, does a 15 year old go, what if Trailer.
• 11:05
  Speaker B: Park Hoosiers had had a version of that?
• 11:08
  Speaker A: A version of that?
• 11:10
  Speaker B: Okay, you know what I mean?
• 11:11
  Speaker A: Like Soda Pop. And again, Ponyboy doesn't really fit that necessarily.
• 11:15
  Speaker B: But. No, but hold on. They do the, they do rodeo. Oh, in the book, remember?
• 11:24
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 11:25
  Speaker B: Pony Boy.
• 11:25
  Speaker A: So I'm wondering if it's maybe like a 15 year old being like playing with that idea. I don't know, maybe your speculation. Guess I'm just. Because that was like Soda Pop, like, you know, he was born. I was like, there was a soda on the counter and so you name him Soda Pop. And I'm like, I'm wondering like, does a 15 year old in 1960 or whatever think like, you know, that's a fun idea. I don't know, just to get just some maybe random speculation.
• 11:52
  Speaker B: All right, our next comment was from Cottonwood Steve. And Steve said, I'm kind of jealous. A lot of you got to read this in middle school and such. Being a student of an 8th grade teacher who was a hardcore left wing activist and literally knew people like Dolores Huerta and Cesar Chavez, we were exposed to heavier subject matter. Like Things Fall Apart, Man Child and the promised land, 1919 and native son. Needless to say, the Outsiders would have been a welcome relief.
• 12:25
  Speaker A: I feel like that teacher was maybe teaching above the.
• 12:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, maybe.
• 12:30
  Speaker A: I don't know. I don't know enough about those books to know. Maybe they're fitting for eighth graders to parse. But yeah.
• 12:39
  Speaker B: And on that point I'm going with the book the book was wildly progressive for its time, taking a look at the young male psyche, more, more so than most. Ponyboy was a lot like me in middle school, an outsider that went to Catholic school and got exposed to a world full of clicks and biases. Of course, it got worse when I went to a Catholic high school and ultimately left the church. Due in part to those experiences, I felt some genuine empathy for the characters. For Ms. Hinton really blew up the concept of nature versus nurture. The socias were vicious because they were protected from scrutiny, while the Greasers were rough and tumble because society pigeonholed them to be that way. It was something I noticed a lot during my college years when I studied journalism, where media outlets really pointed out the social and racial status of quote, unquote, bad people in order to create these inherent biases.
• 13:32
  Speaker A: I would be interested to research the directionality of that, specifically what he states here. I noticed a lot during my college years when I studied journalism where media outlets really pointed out the social and racial statuses of bad people in order to create these inherent biases. I would hesitate to say, and I don't know, so I'm actually legitimately saying I would be interested to see. Like, I'm sure there's been plenty of ink spilled on this topic, but to me that puts a lot of intentionality behind media outlets doing that as like a concerted effort to create that narrative as opposed to the media outlets, which is what I would be more inclined to believe would be the idea that media outlets are made up of people with inherent biases that are just writing that way without perpetuating it and perpetuating it, but not like with an intention necessarily, as opposed to like the journalism. I don't know, it's interesting. I, I, yeah, there's a lot, a lot going on in that one sentence, but I was just kind of.
• 14:39
  Speaker B: Anyways, I felt the movie did a solid job of portraying the two worlds, especially during the fight scene where the Socials looked well fed, clean and perfect, while the Greasers looked starved, tired and scrappy. I wish they had opened the fight scene like they did in the book. For the Socials knew Derry was gonna mess some people up and then had their ringer come out from behind the crowd like the Red Sea parting. I also like the fact that Tom Cruise got his ass whooped repeatedly in that fight before finally overpowering his opponents. Such is the character arc of Steve.
• 15:14
  Speaker A: Oh goodness.
• 15:16
  Speaker B: It's been a while since I've seen this film, so it was nice to watch it again and read the book for the first time. I do want to see Rumble Fish now. Another good read. And I'm fascinated on what you two will think about Cloud Atlas. The makeup in the movie is always the starting point for most discussion.
• 15:33
  Speaker A: Yeah, we'll talk about that briefly in the preview coming up. But I am also excited for Cloudless. But I wanted to touch on another thing that Steve mentioned, because I wanted to mention it here, that Steve wrote in another comment, I think, on the main episode post on Patreon saying that he was surprised on the last prequel episode when we were going through the reviews. Or did I talk about this on the main episode?
• 15:57
  Speaker B: I don't think we did.
• 15:58
  Speaker A: I don't think I did.
• 15:58
  Speaker B: Do you want me to pull up that comment?
• 15:59
  Speaker A: Yeah, if you could pull it up. But I can remember vaguely enough of what it said, which was that one of the reviews that I read on the prequel episode was something along the lines of, oh, it's art for art's sake. And there was another review saying about how basically using language of this being overindulgent or art for art's sake and all these sort of things. And Steve said had left a comment, a different comment saying, like, having watched the movie, I'm surprised those reviews are interesting. That's not how I would describe this movie. And me and you had that exact same conversation after we finished the movie about how I would not call this movie art for art's sake. And then I think what may have occurred is that some of those reviews I was reading on the prequel episode may have been specifically about and written for the complete novel edition release.
• 16:52
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 16:53
  Speaker A: Which would make more sense is that maybe some of those reviews are those. Those pull quotes from those reviews are talking about how this complete novel re edit director's cut version is art for art's sake because the movie's done, it's over, we're not gonna make any more. Or not that they're not gonna make any more money on it. Obviously they are. But like, Coppola's decision to go back and change and tweak things and recut it to his desire is a practice of art for art's sake and that sort of thing.
• 17:21
  Speaker B: Yeah, I think it makes more sense in that context than like, just in.
• 17:26
  Speaker A: The context of the movie itself, because I was like, I do not get that at all from this movie. It's a fairly straightforward slice of life narrative about kid, you know, like, it's not overindulgent. It's not even particularly steeped in like, especially compared to even some of other Coppola's other films that I've seen. It's not even nearly as heavy. Not heavy handed, but as overindulgent as some of his other movies I've seen. Like, it's very straightforward for the most part. There are some very like, beautiful cinematic shots in it, but it's not even shot in a particularly. Again, overindulgent or trying too hard kind of way.
• 18:12
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's really. It's not like particularly steeped in like filmic length.
• 18:17
  Speaker A: Yeah. Super stylized or anything like that in a way where it's, you know, I wouldn't. I would not remotely call it art for art's sake. So I think those reviews may have been.
• 18:29
  Speaker B: A little jab at him going back.
• 18:31
  Speaker A: No, no, I don't even think a jab. I think those are just genuinely like. Because. Because I. And I want to clarify. I don't even take the sentence art for art's sake as a negative. I think that's a positive. That's like what art should be. Art should be made for art's sake.
• 18:44
  Speaker B: Well, maybe I'm misremembering that pull quote. I thought the pull quote that we read. Little more negative.
• 18:50
  Speaker A: One of them was. I don't think the art for art's sake was one. Was. It may have been. I can't recall now, but the. Where was that?
• 18:58
  Speaker B: Yeah, that was the. The. The really crazy.
• 19:02
  Speaker A: Oh, that's right. Okay. For sight and sound. It writes one of the most overtly aesthetic art for art sake film in Hollywood history. Okay, now that does feel like. Yeah, it's just about the movie.
• 19:11
  Speaker B: A phone off Pre Raphaelite mural in which. Yeah. Angels with dirty faces but immaculately pure hearts burn with a hard gem like flame.
• 19:21
  Speaker A: I'm reading that back. I don't. That's.
• 19:24
  Speaker B: I was gonna say. I thought I remembered that being a negative quote.
• 19:28
  Speaker A: I would have to read the whole review to see there's almost a deep irony there in that review being kind of.
• 19:38
  Speaker B: And I think we talked about overly.
• 19:40
  Speaker A: Aesthetic and art for art's sake.
• 19:43
  Speaker B: I think we did talk about that when we recorded that last prequel episode. About that being ironic.
• 19:49
  Speaker A: Yeah, it's a little ironic of. Yeah. Because it's like, why. Okay, interesting. So maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. But yeah, I do not agree with that assessment of the movie at all. It's not. I would not describe it as overly aesthetic at all. There are some moments we talked about, like the sunrise. Yes.
• 20:04
  Speaker B: There are some moments that are a.
• 20:05
  Speaker A: Little more stylized, but even then, not.
• 20:08
  Speaker B: Not really.
• 20:09
  Speaker A: Really? Yeah. I would have to read the whole review. Maybe it's within the context of a larger point that makes sense, I don't know. But quote on its own, I do not understand. So.
• 20:17
  Speaker B: All right. Our last comment on Patreon was from Nathan who said, I haven't seen the movie yet, but the book was one of the most depressing I have read in quite a while. I wouldn't recommend it to a grade school kid. At least I know I wouldn't have been able to handle. Also very much reads like a book written by a 16 year old who kind of understood some bigger themes, but lacks the elegance to craft them into a flowing narrative. The plot seemed very disjointed, especially the resolution of the murder. The plot after it was basically just paused so they could have the rumble. Like the cops just let a kid who already ran away stay free with no monitoring pending his trial. It just didn't feel like a lived in world, but rather one constructed to make some disjointed points about what it was like to be a kid in the 50s, 60s.
• 21:09
  Speaker A: Interesting. I could only talk about the movie. I don't necessarily agree with that assessment based on the movie. I also think you might be surprised by what the world was like in the 50s and the idea of the cops letting a kid who already ran away stay free with no monitoring pending his trial. I have no idea. That doesn't strike me as particularly outlandish as.
• 21:34
  Speaker B: Honestly, it doesn't strike me as. Well they're in Tulsa. They're technically not in a small town, but it still doesn't strike me as particularly outlandish.
• 21:44
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. The world was a very different. And it's like even the 80s, like really like the way the law and everything operates today is much more. And even then it still very varies. It varies crazily from like different locations.
• 22:05
  Speaker B: Location to location and person to person.
• 22:08
  Speaker A: You know, obviously these are all white kids in this. That probably wouldn't be true for a black kid during the same time period or whatever. Like it's, you know, it's. I don't know. That did not strike me as particularly outlandish that this kid is like, maybe it is, I don't know. But that just struck me as like. Yeah, I don't know. The 50s, they were kind of like fucking doing whatever.
• 22:26
  Speaker B: I mean, I think it's also probably fair to say that 15 year old Essie Hinton probably also had like no idea.
• 22:34
  Speaker A: True.
• 22:34
  Speaker B: How that kind of thing worked.
• 22:36
  Speaker A: So it very well could be completely ridiculous. I don't know. Maybe if like, somebody was like, oh, no, actually in the 50s, that kid would have been locked up. I have no idea. It just didn't strike me as, like, particularly crazy that during that time period, the local sheriff or whatever would be like, yeah, whatever, or something.
• 22:52
  Speaker B: I don't know.
• 22:52
  Speaker A: Like, yeah.
• 22:57
  Speaker B: All right. We didn't have any comments on Facebook. That's this time. But we did have three votes for the book and zero for the movie. On Instagram, we had two votes for the book, three for the movie, and two listeners who couldn't decide. And we have a comment from young Melissa. For context, this is my cousin Melissa, and for further context, she is a 7th grade English teacher, so probably knows this book better than any of us. And Melissa said, I am so behind on the pod, but I skipped ahead just to listen to this asap. Number one, it's hilarious to me from the prequel episode how little Brian knew about the book slash movie and story. I was straight up gleeful hearing how he didn't know who directed the movie at first either.
• 23:52
  Speaker A: Yeah, I legitimately had somehow, completely. Yeah, it just. I missed it somehow. I just. Complete hole in my knowledge of this one.
• 24:03
  Speaker B: 2. I was surprised to hear the mostly high ratings online for the movie. The movie feels like the epitome of cornball to me.
• 24:11
  Speaker A: That's fascinating. Okay, so I talked about. And this is as good a place as any. I talked about how I didn't really give my opinions on the movie in the episode other than, like, through context. You kind of gather. I thought it was pretty good. Definitely nowhere near like the Godfather in terms of.
• 24:29
  Speaker B: Yeah, it's not a masterpiece.
• 24:30
  Speaker A: It's not a masterpiece. I think it's pretty good. I don't think I would describe it as cornball, although it has corny elements. There are definitely moments. It actually kind of reminds me of our discussion. I don't know if Melissa heard this or not, but of our discussion on Crybaby in a similar way. And that movie, I think is, like you said, that's why you went and sought out that movie was because of your obsession with this story. And so I think it's very likely that that movie was inspired by this as well as Greece and other things, obviously. But I think it's similar to what we discussed in our review of Crybaby, which is that that movie is way over the top, corny, ridiculous, and it's intentionally so. It's trying to be a comedy for the Most part it's satirical. But what that movie does and why it works, even though, like. Even though it's trying to be a comedy, it still works on an emotional level and kind of is affecting in a way, is because it is saying something like those emotional reactions feel true at their core to the experience of a teenager.
• 25:40
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 25:41
  Speaker A: And kind of the way they emotionally interact with the world. And this movie is a similar thing to me. Whereas there are elements of it that feel very cornball and silly and cheesy. But because it's about teenagers, those moments work better for me than they would in a movie about a bunch of adults.
• 26:01
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 26:01
  Speaker A: If that makes sense. So, like.
• 26:02
  Speaker B: Yeah, I agree.
• 26:03
  Speaker A: Like, the whole scene where, like, Matt Dillon's character and he's older. Older than the other ones, but he's still only supposed to be, like, 17.
• 26:11
  Speaker B: Yeah. I think in the book he's only like, 17 or maybe 18.
• 26:14
  Speaker A: In the movie, he looks like he's like, 20. I don't know how old Matt Dillon.
• 26:17
  Speaker B: Was, but, yeah, he looks like he's.
• 26:18
  Speaker A: In his 20s, a few years older than. But even still, like, assuming he's supposed to be, like, 17 or 18, even 20 or whatever, he has that big moment of, we gotta do it for Johnny. That's a very cheesy moment. But it works because it just. At least. I think it kind of works because it connects with an emotionality, an emotional truth about the heightened experience of being a teenager.
• 26:44
  Speaker B: We've talked about this on the show before. Teenagers feel everything big. So when you're an adult and you're going back and you're reading or watching something that's about teenagers or that's meant for teenagers, I think it's really easy to scoff at that kind of stuff. But think back. Teenagers feel everything so big.
• 27:05
  Speaker A: Yeah. And it varies from teenager to teenager. Obviously, some kids are fairly restrained as teenagers. I was a fairly restrained teenager. I was not like a big emotional outburst teenager, but I knew plenty of teenagers that were. And it's. You know. And so, like. Yeah, I think it works in that sense. And you kind of do have to meet the movie on its level of what it's doing. That being said, there are still moments that didn't work for me. There are moments where lines come off a little cheesy, where the delivery just doesn't feel right.
• 27:35
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 27:35
  Speaker A: And it just kind of feels a little bit that. But overall, as a whole, you get to the end of the movie. The moments that work work well enough that I think, as a whole, the movie works and is good. Like I said, it's not a masterpiece. I wouldn't say it has some moments in it, but it's, it's far from, you know, I wouldn't put it in the top 100 movies I've ever, I don't even know.
• 27:59
  Speaker B: I don't think.
• 28:00
  Speaker A: Yeah, I would have to consider. But like, I don't even think it'd be in the top hundreds of hundred of movies I've seen or something like that. But yeah, it's good, you know, it's like a, I think it's like a solid like 7 to 8 out of 10.
• 28:13
  Speaker B: Yeah, I would put it around a 7 probably. I think it's fine. Yeah, like I, you know, I think it's good. Really. Any affection that I have for it is more wrapped up in nostalgia than anything about like the film itself. And I'm aware of that, you know. All right, continuing with Melissa's comment 3. 7th grade English teacher POV. Yes, a 15 year old can clearly can write like this. And there are 12 and 13 year olds who can, who can too.
• 28:45
  Speaker A: Real quick, I want to say, because I saw like several people kind of point out that. And I, I think one thing that I want to clarif clarify is that when I was talking about that I'm, I'm viewing it through the lens of having watched the movie where Francis Ford Coppola is interpreting the. And obviously a lot of those moments do come directly from the book and the lines and dialogue and stuff. But I'm also viewing that through the lens of a master filmmaker reinterpreting that book. So I think it adds a layer of like, impressiveness to me because I'm, I haven't read the book so I'm like, oh, all this stuff comes from the book, but I'm also viewing it reinterpolated by Francis Ford Coppola. So it's like it seems even more impressive than it probably would. I bet if I read the book I might be like, oh yeah, this like a fit. Reads like a 15 year old wrote it and we talk about that in the episode.
• 29:34
  Speaker B: But anyways, yeah, okay. Yes, a 15 year old clearly can write like this and there are 12 and 13 year olds who can too often. They are the kids that are very well read and introspective kids like Katie. Thank you for that. Completely agree that they don't necessarily have the language for what they're doing, but some of its innate talent and some of its other works rubbing off on them. And man, the angst of this book completely tracks with the angst of being 13 to 16.
• 30:04
  Speaker A: Yeah, that hits on what we were just talking about. Yeah.
• 30:07
  Speaker B: Four Random aside, in the school district where I work there was some redrawing of lines and we began getting kids from a wealthier and more privileged demographic compared to our more working class demographic. There were some horrible Facebook reactions going around about this news from some of the moms in the wealthier area. They were not happy about sending their kids to our school. The ultimate irony was some of them were sharing posts and memes referencing greasers and socials with the greasers representing our school and students. I was like, damn, did y' all read the book?
• 30:42
  Speaker A: Anyway, it's a good thing they sent him to your school so you can teach him how to some freaking media literacy.
• 30:48
  Speaker B: Yeah, right.
• 30:48
  Speaker A: Good Lord.
• 30:50
  Speaker B: 5 Katie thank you for making a point to talk about the Rob Lowe shower scene. Which leads me to my final thoughts of six. Perhaps what works most for this book and movie that made me love it in seventh grade and makes me cringe and question it now is it really is a certain type of 15 year old girl's dream. I had a similar obsession to Katie. My friends did, and years later when I used it in my first year teaching, the girls did too. Perhaps the things that make me cringe about it are the things I cringe about when reflecting on my younger selves. Anyway, this episode gave me some more compassion and reminded me of what really does work with the story.
• 31:32
  Speaker A: There you go. Fantastic. Love to hear it. Thank you Melissa. That was amazing.
• 31:37
  Speaker B: Yeah, that's the kind of insight that I like to get for something like that. Somebody on the ground, on the ground.
• 31:43
  Speaker A: Boots on the ground.
• 31:44
  Speaker B: Boots on the ground. Working with the this material.
• 31:47
  Speaker A: Yeah, sounds like she maybe doesn't teach it anymore.
• 31:49
  Speaker B: She had left a comment, I think on the post where I announced that we were doing this. Actually left a couple comments and I think she had not taught it for a couple years but was thinking about reincorporating it back interesting into her curriculum.
• 32:05
  Speaker A: Cool.
• 32:06
  Speaker B: All right. Over on Threads we had one vote for the book and zero for the movie. I still can't access our Threads account, but I can look at it from my personal Threads account. I can see it, I just can't get into it and I'm terrified to try and mess with it. But we have a comment from Gumbyok234.
• 32:28
  Speaker A: All right.
• 32:29
  Speaker B: And Gumby said, I vote for the book. The movie has its positives, most notably the young cast of superstars on The Brink. But the book was one of the first I read in English class that was published within the previous 25.
• 32:44
  Speaker A: I do wonder if that's another thing that makes it stick out is that a lot of the other stuff you're reading in English classes, like from.
• 32:51
  Speaker B: You know, I think that is probably something that.
• 32:54
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 32:55
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 32:55
  Speaker A: Even. Even though it's still set in the past, it's at least a little more relatable.
• 32:58
  Speaker B: Well, yeah, it doesn't feel like it's set in the past the way that.
• 33:02
  Speaker A: Right. Because they have cars and it's like. And all the stuff going on seems relatively relatable. Whereas when we're talking about, you know, you're reading, like, whatever stuff from the.
• 33:10
  Speaker B: 1800S or something, it feels more modern than, like, you know, Lord of the Flies or God. What else did I read in school?
• 33:19
  Speaker A: Yeah, even something like Grapes of Wrath or something like that. You know, that. Yeah.
• 33:25
  Speaker B: Finally, English is about a book that we might actually want to read. It got some of the other students in my sixth grade class who had never read anything more substantive than a magazine to look forward to library day. Anything that encourages reading gets my vote every time.
• 33:42
  Speaker A: And that's. That's really cool. Like the fact that it. Yeah, I never read it in middle school or high school or whatever. Or never read it back then, but for whatever reason, I must have.
• 33:50
  Speaker B: I don't know, maybe your teacher didn't.
• 33:52
  Speaker A: Like, it could have been. Or. I was also. So a lot of. I missed some. A fair amount of. And I think I've talked about this before, mainly in high school, but also in middle school. I missed a fair amount of what you would have been in these classes, too, probably. But I missed a fair amount of, like, the traditional classics because I was in, like, honors and AP classes where we.
• 34:08
  Speaker B: I had. I had that experience.
• 34:11
  Speaker A: Special books that they. You know what I mean?
• 34:13
  Speaker B: Like, I had that experience in high school.
• 34:15
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 34:16
  Speaker B: Like, I had not read. I've still never read Of Mice and Men.
• 34:20
  Speaker A: I have not either.
• 34:21
  Speaker B: And I had. I did not read the Great Gatsby in high school.
• 34:24
  Speaker A: I did read.
• 34:25
  Speaker B: Because I was being forced to read the Grapes of Wrath instead.
• 34:28
  Speaker A: I read both, but. Yeah.
• 34:31
  Speaker B: But in middle school, I went to a Catholic school, kindergarten through 12th grade, and it was very small, so we didn't have. I mean, it would have been a class of, like, three people if I had been separated out for AP classes.
• 34:45
  Speaker A: I'm, like, 99% sure we had an honors or some. Some sort of, like. Yeah, it wasn't AP but some sort of like, honors class for English in middle school that I was in both years that we had.
• 34:55
  Speaker B: Yeah, we didn't have separate classes, so I read all of the, quote unquote, normal middle school books over on Goodreads. We had one vote for the book and zero for the movie. And Mikko said, it seems like I watched the director's cut as the court scene was present.
• 35:15
  Speaker A: You must have.
• 35:16
  Speaker B: That felt like the most inconsequential addition as it was so quick and basically was just the judge revealing the verdict and people smiling. All right, good to know if we didn't miss anything there. I quite liked to watch the movie after reading the book and properly see the setting. It just helped me to get it better. All those greased hairs and houses with no parents anywhere.
• 35:38
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 35:39
  Speaker B: But I'll still give my vote to the book for similar reasons as what you discussed in the episode.
• 35:44
  Speaker A: It also feels like a very distinctly American setting and I know Miko is not American. Not American. So I. I don't know. I could be wrong. There could be similar, like, subcultures and stuff in Europe and other countries, but it definitely has a distinctly American thing. Where I could imagine seeing a movie would help you kind of go, okay, I get what? I get what?
• 36:02
  Speaker B: I get what we're talking about right now. Yeah, for sure. So our winner this week was the book, with 10 votes to the movies, five, plus our two listeners who couldn't decide.
• 36:15
  Speaker A: Fantastic. Thank you all for those amazing comments. Love it. Favorite part of the podcast. Katie, it's time to preview Cloud Atlas, the novel.
• 36:26
  Speaker B: This is the Cloud Atlas exit.
• 36:28
  Speaker A: I doubt there's more than a handful of copies in all of North America, but I know it.
• 36:36
  Speaker B: I know I know it.
• 36:41
  Speaker A: That's it. The music from my dream and a whole movement I wrote, imagining us meeting again and again in different lives, different ages. I can't explain it, but I knew when I opened that door A powerful deja vu ran through my bones. I heard it in a dream in a nightmarish cafe and the waitresses, they all had the same face. No reason to hide. I know you. Sunmi 3 4, 51.
• 37:18
  Speaker B: Cloud Atlas is a 2004 metafiction novel by British author David Mitchell. Metafiction, as just as a side note, is a form of fiction that emphasizes its own narrative structure in a way that reminds the audience that they are reading a work or viewing a work, or listening to a work. I guess so. Cloud Atlas is six nested stories that span multiple time periods and genres, most notably contemporary Fiction and science fiction.
• 37:55
  Speaker A: I'm interested to see where it goes. So I have started reading it. I'm like, because this is a switch episode for people who didn't. I don't know if people knew, but I'm only like 40 pages in. But it's so far. It is an epistolary novel. It is a journal. You are reading the journal of the main character that this first story is about. So it doesn't feel particularly meta fiction at this point. But once you get to the other, I know there are other storylines and other stories throughout. I could imagine that once we get to those, it could change the way it feels.
• 38:31
  Speaker B: In an interview with the Paris Review, Mitchell said that the book's title was inspired by a piece of music of the same name by Japanese composer Toshi Ichiyanagi, saying, quote, I bought the CD just because of that track's beautiful title and I had to include this. This was on Wikipedia page because I thought this was nuts. Mitchell's previous novel, Number Nine Dream, All One Word, was inspired by music by John Lennon. Both Ichi Inagi and Lenin were husbands of Yoko Ono. And Mitchell has said, this fact pleases me, though I couldn't duplicate the pattern indefinitely.
• 39:19
  Speaker A: Oh, fantastic. That's amazing.
• 39:23
  Speaker B: He has also stated that the title and the book address reincarnation and the universality of human nature, with the title referring to both Changing Elements, A Cloud and Constants, An Atlas. Mitchell has also cited English composer Frederick Delius and American author Russell Hoban's novel Ridley Walker as sources of inspiration. I don't know anything about any of these references, so you got me.
• 39:56
  Speaker A: I'll have to pop those on while I'm reading next time. Hopefully they're lyric less because I cannot read with lyrics. Me, I can barely read with music. To be fair, I get too distracted by music.
• 40:05
  Speaker B: Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey. Do not chew on that.
• 40:08
  Speaker A: Our cat is chewing on a power cable for a light.
• 40:11
  Speaker B: The novel received mostly positive reviews, although not everybody liked it. The BBC's Keely Oakes said that although the book's structure could be challenging, quote, david Mitchell had taken six wildly different stories and melded them into one fantastic and complex work. Kirkus Reviews called it, quote, sheer sheer storytelling brilliance. And Lara Miller of the New York Times compared it to the perfect crossword puzzle and that it was challenging to read but still fun. Criticism focused on the book's perceived failure to meet its lofty goals. Fantasy and science fiction reviewer Robert K.J. kilheffer praised Mitchell's quote, talent and inventiveness and willingness to adopt any mode or voice that furthers its ends. But noted for all its pleasures, Cloud Atlas falls short of revolutionary. Theo Tate of the Daily Telegraph gave the novel a mixed review, focusing on its clashing themes, saying it spends half its time wanting to be the Simpsons and the other half the Bible.
• 41:24
  Speaker A: Interesting, interesting.
• 41:25
  Speaker B: So that's something to look forward to for you.
• 41:30
  Speaker A: I mean, where I'm at so far, there are not any clashing themes. The themes seem pretty blatantly obvious. So far I'm only getting 30 pages in. That obviously will change because it's a 500 page book that I'm. Boy, it's gonna be a late next episode.
• 41:45
  Speaker B: It's gonna be a late next episode. You heard it here first.
• 41:49
  Speaker A: You heard. Just to clarify, you heard all those reviews up there saying, challenging to read. They're not lying. I'm only 40 pages in and I think it's gonna get more challenging.
• 41:58
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 41:59
  Speaker A: Particularly the first story takes place in like 1860 or something and clearly did a lot of research because it is written in a way that feels like 1860s. Like 1860s pro. Like the language used and every. There's a lot of me having to do a lot of context cluing to figure out what the hell is being being said by some of these characters about stuff. It hasn't been that hard, but it's one I also realized that I cannot listen to. I have to read it. Like, I have to physically read it because I tried listening. I bought the audiobook and then I tried listening to it for like five minutes. My brain was like, I can't keep this straight. Like, I'm hoping that maybe I can listen to the audiobook versions. When we get to like the story set in like the 60s or something, where it's like, the language will be more. You know, I will get what's going on. Like, I won't have to figure out, like, what is all this nautical sailing language mean? And stuff like that.
• 42:52
  Speaker B: But like, yeah, so the novel did get quite a bit of award buzz. It won the Literary Fiction award at the 2005 British Book Awards and the Richard and Judy Book of the Year Award. It was also shortlisted for the Booker Prize and it was nominated for the Nebula Award for best novel in 2004 and the Arthur C. Cl Award in 2005. And I believe those are both science Fiction awards.
• 43:25
  Speaker A: Sounds like it based on the names.
• 43:28
  Speaker B: And in 2019, Cloud Atlas was ranked ninth on the Guardians list of 100 Best Books of the 21st Century. Wow, that's pretty high.
• 43:39
  Speaker A: Pretty high. Pretty high praise so far. I could believe it based on the way it's I'm like, I'm very impressed with with. I'm like, this person is a genius. Like, just like. Again, the fact that you the amount of research that had to have been done just to write in the style that this first part is written in, it takes an immense amount of and not to mention weaving together six other tales in a way that makes sense, which is supposedly what the book does. Yeah, it's very impressive so far. We shall see how I feel when it's done, but all right, it's time now to learn a little bit about Cloud Atlas, the movie. Yesterday my life was headed in one direction. Today it is headed in another. You ever think the universe is against you? Fear, Belief, love. Phenomena that determine the course of our lives. These forces begin long before we are born and can be continue after we perish. Cloud Atlas is a 2012 film written and directed by Lily and Lena Wachowski, known for the Matrix, bound, Jupiter Ascending, Sense8, Speed Racer, and V for Vendetta, among others. So this is our second time covering for some reason, I think it's a third time, but it must be the second time covering a Wachowski film. It was also written and directed by Tom Tikwer, who worked on Sense8, but his big movie is Run Lola Run. He's worked on other stuff, but Run Lola Run he wrote and directed and is like probably his most his big film that was pretty successful and well reviewed and stuff like that. The film stars Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Duna Bay, Ben Whishaw, James d', Arcy, Joe Shoon, Keith David, Susan Sarandon, David Gyasi, and Hugh Grant. It has a, yeah, a huge cast. It has a 65% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 55% on Metacritic, and a 7.4 out of 10 on IMDb and it made 130.5 million against a budget of 100 million. It was pretty big flop. Tom Tikwa revealed in January of 2009 that he was working on a screenplay with the Bukowskis to adapt the novel after the Wachowskis had purchased the rights. According to IMDb trivia, Lena Wachowski got a copy of the novel from Natalie Portman as a gift while they were filming V for Vendetta. Portman was a big fan of it, and apparently Portman was originally promised the role of Sanmi451, but had to turn that down because she was pregnant and couldn't do it. But she does have a special thanks in the credits for, I assume, giving the book to Lena. Also, when I saw who played Sanmi451, I thought to myself, probably good that Portman couldn't do it because played by a Korean actress in the movie. So I'm like, okay. And my understanding, I believe, is that that's from the new Soul Neo Soul segment, which takes place in like a future Korea, essentially. We'll get to that here momentarily. The stuff about that so the movie almost didn't quite happen quite a few times due to funding issues. The movie ended up being funded by a lot of different people, including the Wachowskis themselves. Pitched in like $7 million to help fund it. But Germany was a big funder. There's a whole breakdown.
• 47:11
  Speaker B: Like the country.
• 47:12
  Speaker A: Yes, because it was filmed in Germany, it was a German production. And this is all outlined in the Wikipedia article. They break down like the country of Germany funded, let's donate or not donated, but pitched in like 20 million. But there was like all these different companies and groups and blah blah, blah that pitched in money. And several times the studio would call and say that they, after looking at the numbers, they were going to shut the movie down. And ultimately I think Warner Brothers did back out at some point. They may have ultimately distributed it, I'm not sure. But it. We'll get to it, but it's all right. My note here is Cloud Atlas ended up being at the time, one of the most expensive independent films ever made because of all these issues with the studio being like, this isn't A.D. blah, blah, all this stuff. Which they ended up being correct because it was a big flop, but. But still glad it got made from what I've heard. Supposedly Tom Hanks, though, was on board this whole time and was like a big backer, big believer in this movie. And he was basically able to make the movie happen. According to the Wachowskis. This is a quote every single time. Tom Hanks was the first who said, I'm getting on the plane. And then once he said he was getting on the plane, basically everyone said, well, Tom's on the plane, we're on the plane. And so everyone flew to Berlin to begin the film. It was like this giant leap of faith from all over the globe. And so, yeah, apparently Tom Hanks was pretty pivotal in making. Getting everybody to buy in and move forward and actually do this.
• 48:37
  Speaker B: I guess you can do that when.
• 48:38
  Speaker A: You'Re Tom Hanks and we'll get more into his. I thought this, this movie has a fascinating Wikipedia page, but we'll get to some of that later about. We'll get to it. So Tikwr and the Wachowskis each headed a production unit and they filmed simultaneously, occasionally working together. I was wondering. I was like, this is fascinating. I've never seen. Seen three directors.
• 48:56
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 48:57
  Speaker A: Except the older movies often had more directors with the old studio system and the way that worked. But modern movies, it's usually like if two directors maybe, you know, I don't think I've ever seen three. And I, I think I might have even seen a thing that was like, this is like the only, like modern movie directed by three people working simultaneously or something like that. Usually if there's three directors credited as something weird like a director. Fire.
• 49:20
  Speaker B: Yeah. Somebody left the production for some reason.
• 49:23
  Speaker A: But still had done enough to get a credit or who. You know, there's all kinds of. Kinds of rules with credits and that sort of thing. But the way this one worked is they both had a unit and they worked simultaneously. The Wachowskis primarily directed the 1849 story and the two that are set in the future, while Tom Tik were directed the stories that were set in 1936, 1973 and 2012. They all worked together in pre production and post production, but they filmed those segments kind of independently with their own crews.
• 49:51
  Speaker B: I mean, I get that kind of makes sense.
• 49:53
  Speaker A: Yeah. And I also think it makes sense splitting him up, that way of having him kind of handle the more grounded. Seeming potentially grounded like, and, and like contemporary stuff while they're doing the stuff set in the past and the stuff set in the future. So Warner Brothers initially put a limit of 150 minutes on the film's runtime, but eventually they would agree to 172 minutes, which is what the film clocks in at. This is a 3 hour and 10 minute movie.
• 50:20
  Speaker B: Great.
• 50:20
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 50:22
  Speaker B: I'm so excited. I love super long movies.
• 50:27
  Speaker A: Tikwa also co composed the score with his collab. Longtime collaborators Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek. They had worked together scoring films for years. And then this is what I was talking about. There's a reaction from the crew section on Wikipedia that I just thought was fascinating. Lily Wachowski said of the film after it premiered at TIFF, where it did receive a 10 minute standing ovation.
• 50:49
  Speaker B: 10 minutes.
• 50:50
  Speaker A: So this is the whole thing. It's. Do you not know this about film festivals like Cannes and.
• 50:56
  Speaker B: I've never been to a film festival.
• 50:57
  Speaker A: No, you don't have to. I've never been to. Well, I've been to small ones, but I've never been to like.
• 51:01
  Speaker B: Okay, tell me.
• 51:01
  Speaker A: So TIFF is the. Tiff is the Toronto International Film Festival. But Tiff and Cannes and all the big festivals. South by Southwest, maybe not that one, but a lot of the big film festivals, there's this tradition that you get insanely long standing ovations for movies, assuming that they're good, but even when they're not good, sometimes they still get these weird. There are there. And like, like there are. I think it's Ken specifically, maybe where like a 10 minute standing ovation would be considered short. I know it's. It's this weird absurd thing and I don't know all the specifics of it, but there's this weird thing at these, some, some very specific prestigious festivals where they do these absurdly long standing ovations as kind of this weird archaic tradition thing.
• 51:56
  Speaker B: I would, I would leave.
• 51:58
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 51:58
  Speaker B: If I were in a, if I were in a crowd and the standing ovation went past like maybe two minutes, I would leave.
• 52:06
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 52:07
  Speaker B: It'd be like, okay, I'm done.
• 52:08
  Speaker A: You could look into this. There's. I'm sure there's like video essays about it and stuff. I've never actually looked into the specifics of it. I've just vaguely aware of this idea of these weirdly long standing ovations at film festivals. There may be other things happening during that where people may be talking. I don't know, I have no idea how it works. But yeah. Anyways, Lily said after the film premiered at TIFF, where it did receive a 10 minute ovation, quote, soon as, as soon as critics encounter a piece of art that they don't fully understand the first time going through it, they think it's the fault of the movie or the work of art. They think it's a mess, this doesn't make any sense. And they reject it just out of an almost knee jerk response to some ambiguity or some gulf between what they expect they should be able to understand and what they do understand. End quote. And then Lana added, quote, people will try to will Cloud Atlas to be rejected. They will call it messy or complicated or undecided whether it's trying to say something New Agey profound or not. And we're wrestling with the same things that Dickens and Hugo and David Mitchell and Herman Mel Melville were wrestling with with. We're wrestling with those same ideas and we're just trying to do it in a more exciting context. Than conventionally you are allowed to. We don't want to say we are making this to mean this. What we find is that the most interesting art is open to a spectrum of interpretation. And I so completely agree with this specifically for this time period. There was a time period I think we've gotten better at it again, and probably not as much maybe like big critics and stuff, but for a long time, especially in the early 2000s, mid 2000s, and even before that. God. Because even Ebert and Roper and Siskel. Siskel and Ebert were guilty of this a lot, too. Of not meeting a movie where it's at. Like, not approaching a movie on the terms that the movie is trying to do its thing and trying to shoehorn it into something. And then it's the times you see Ebert have some of the most ridiculous and Siskel, for that matter, have some of the most ridiculous opinions. I'm trying to think of a really. There's some really famous examples of movies that Siskel and Ebert just trashed when they came out, and they have gone on to be widely reviewed as masterpieces and critical. There's a big one that is freaking blanking on. I think, famously, they were not big fans of Jurassic Park. I think they thought elements of it were good, but that it was mostly just like a cheesy, crappy blockbuster. Like they. They did not. Anyways, and there's some other. There's some bit better examples than that. I think it is very true that. And especially if you expand that, which they may very well have been doing here, because this is right at the peak of when online, like, Internet criticism was becoming a big thing, like 2012, where Internet critics, quote unquote, and YouTube critics and stuff. And holy shit, was there ever a genre of quote unquote critic that often at times was intentionally not meeting a movie and still do to this day, depending on different kind of niches of YouTube reviewers and stuff like that. But, boy, did Internet critics were they bad at meeting a film on the level that the movie was trying to, you know, at the level that the movie was presenting itself. And just sort of immediately assuming, because I don't get this, or it doesn't make perfect logical sense, it sucks, you know, and that that was a form of media criticism that I was steeped in way back in the day that I've pulled myself out of. I don't know if I was ever engaged with it that thoroughly myself, but it was definitely something. Those were the types of critics that I would tend to watch. I'm Talking back in, like, 2008, 2009, 2010, like, while I was in college or whatever. And. And so I think they're reacting to a very real thing there. And I thought that was really interesting. Quote. Anyways, moving on from there. Speaking of. And I thought this is really interesting. Tom Hanks has praised Cloud at Cloud Atlas strongly since its release in 2013, which is only a year after the movie came out. He said, quote, I've seen it three times now and discovered, I swear to God, different, different profound things with each viewing. Then in a 2017 interview, he called it, quote, a movie that altered my entire consciousness. It's the only movie I've been in that I've seen more than twice, end quote. Halle Berry said in an interview, quote, it would be impossible to explain what I really feel or think about the film. It exists on so many different levels. I love the totality of all the characters. She did mention, specifically talked about playing characters that were of different ethnicities. And also she plays a male, a man in the movie at some point, saying, quote, this is so poignant for an actor and someone like me to be able to shed my skin, you know, to do something that I would have never been able to do. If it were not for this kind of project, I still wouldn't have done that. Or if it were not for this kind of project, I still wouldn't have done that. And then Hugh Grant said in an October 2014 interview, quote, I thought Cloud Atlas was amazing. The Wachowskis are the bravest filmmakers in the world. And I think it's an amazing film. Film. It's frustrating to me. Every time I've done something outside the genre of light comedy, the film fails to find an audience at the box office. And sadly, Cloud Atlas never really found the audience it deserved. He would go on to say in 2016, the whole thing was fascinating. You know, when you work with proper people who love cinema, the Wachowskis are a special breed. They're not the same as people who just make movies and who happen to use cameras. They really love cinema. This, I thought, was really interesting. Before hearing that the Wachowskis and Tickwor were adapting the project, David Mitchell had said that he thought it was kind of impossible to make this into a movie. It's kind of famous, like one of those. This is not unadaptable. Unadaptable. And I could. Based on what I know of the structure of the book, I could imagine why you would think that. He said, quote, my only thought was What a shame this could never be a film. It has a Russian doll structure. God knows how the book gets away with it, but it does. But you can't ask a viewer of a film to begin a film times the sixth time, being an hour and a half in, they'd all walk out, end quote. Which I think is kind of prescient in the sense that I think a lot of people just don't like this movie. Didn't get it, and we're not on board for that. But in 2013, after the film came out, Mitchell called the film magnificent and supported all the changes made by the directors. And he said he was very impressed by the way they were able to disassemble the book down to what was needed for the film. As we mentioned of Steve kind of alluded to in his comment earlier, the film is not without controversy. Gotta mention this here because we'll talk more about it in the episode and we're not really the best place to speak on this, but. So I'm gonna read this and we'll talk more about it later. But the advocacy group Media Action Network for Asian Americans, which is called Mana, Mana and several other commenters online, they criticized the film's use of white actors in yellowface to portray East Asian characters in the Neo Seoul sequences. Specifically. I know Halle Berry, I believe, is one of them. Mana president Guy Aoki said that the film had a double standard as it used black actors to portray black characters in the film. The directors had responded to this. I don't know when this response is from. The Wachowskis responded to it at some point. The Wachowskis are legitimately maybe the wokest people on the planet. That's probably not true. But I think they're very conscious of these kind of things. I don't think they would be like, ah, who cares? You know what I mean? I think. I think they were aware of this and would be thinking about it at the very least. I will say though, their response here, I don't know. I have to watch the movie to see how I feel about it. But the Wachowskis responded to the same multiracial. Sorry, the Wachowski's responded that the same multiracial actors portrayed multiple roles of various nationalities and races, not just East Asian, across a 500 year story arc showing, quote, the continuity of Souls quote, end quote. That is critical to the story. Another thing that was similarly scrutinized was that there's a portrayal of a Moriori character, Atua, who is played by a Black British man was also some people being like, hey, what are you doing? And so we'll get to it. It is very, I'm interested to see because from my understanding, it's kind of the whole point of the story is this idea of like the universality of human experience and these, it's almost like these souls being. I don't know how literal the idea of souls being reincarnated into different people is, or if it's more a metaphorical thing or. I don't know. But that is kind of the central core of the story is the idea that all of these characters throughout these different timelines are in fact the same, quote, unquote, souls.
• 1:01:02
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 1:01:03
  Speaker A: So they're played by the same actors across all these different things. So sometimes they are a white character in 1840s and other times they are a Korean character in I don't know. It's complicated. I'll say that. And we can discuss how successful we think the movie is or how problematic it is as we, you know, actually watch it. Some IMDb trivia, a couple fun IMDb trivia facts real quick before we get to reviews. While on set, Tom Hanks called the Wachowski's mom and dad. And just for reference, Lily had not yet transitioned at this point. This is. Yeah. But called them mom and dad because they worked so well together. And the cast and crew with them and the cast and crew and everybody, apparently everybody got along really well. And this was like a very positive filmmaking experience. And then finally, for before reviews, David Mitchell does have a cameo in the Neo soul sequence as a freedom fighter.
• 1:01:54
  Speaker B: So we can watch out for the author cameo.
• 1:01:58
  Speaker A: Hopefully he's not in Yellow Face. Hopefully he's not, yeah. Getting to some reviews. Nick Pickerton reviewed the film for the Village Voice, said, there's a great deal of humbug about art and love in Cloud Atlas, but it is decidedly unlovable. And if you want to learn something about feeling, you're at the wrong movie. End quote. Mark Kermode on his first viewing called it, quote, an extremely honorable failure, but a failure. But then on a second viewing when the DVD came out, his review changed slightly to say, second time around. I find it to be more engaging. Still not an overall success, but containing several moments of genuine magic and buoyed up by the exuberance of high vaulting ambition. Village Voice and Time magazine both actually named Cloud Atlas the worst film of 2012. So it had its detractors, but in comparison, Variety described it as an intense three hour mental workout, rewarded With a big emotional payoff. One's attention must be engaged at all times as the mosaic triggers an infinite range of potentially profound personal responses. James Rachi of MSN Movies said, it is so full of passion and heart and empathy that it feels completely unlike any other modern film in its range, either measured through scope or budget or sweep of action. The Daily Beast called Cloud Atlas one of the year's most important movies, and Michael Siepley of the New York Times said of the film, quote, you will have to decide for yourself whether it works. It's that kind of picture. Is this the stuff of Oscars? Who knows? Is it a force to be reckoned with in the coming months? Absolutely. End quote. So very, like, polarizing movie. Some people say, this is awful garbage. And other people are like, this is inspired, incredible stuff, which is usually some of my favorite kinds of movies. So I'm very excited. Then finally, Roger Ebert, towards the end of his life here. I don't remember what year he died, but Roger Ebert gave the film 4 out of 4 stars and ranked it among his best of the year, saying, quote, one of the most ambitious films ever made. Even as I was watching Cloud Atlas the first time, I knew I would need to see it again. Now that I've seen it the second time, I know I'd like to see it a third time. I think you'll want to see this daring and visionary film. I was never, ever bored by Cloud Atlas. On my second viewing. I gave up any attempt to work out the logical connections between the segments. Segments, stories and characters. End quote. So, yeah, it sounds like a glorious, messy piece of fascinating filmmaking that I'm dying to see. So, as always, you can do us a favor by heading over to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, threads. No, not Twitter. That we're not on Twitter anymore. Facebook, Instagram threads, Blue Sky. Somewhere else that I'm forgetting.
• 1:04:53
  Speaker B: Interact with us on Blue sky, because nobody interacts with us over there.
• 1:04:56
  Speaker A: Yeah, go check out Blue sky if you're on there anyways, or just stick on Facebook. It's whatever. Use whatever you want, but drop us a rating. Write us a nice little review on whatever platform you listen to us and support us on. Patreon. If you Support us at 15 bucks a month at our top level patrons, you get to priority recommend something, which means if there's something you would really like for us to talk about, we'll put it as early in our list as we can get it. This, in fact, was a patron request. Request.
• 1:05:24
  Speaker B: This was a request from Cottonwood Steve.
• 1:05:27
  Speaker A: As He mentioned earlier. Yes. Where can people watch Cloud Atlas?
• 1:05:32
  Speaker B: Well, you can check with your local library. I have requested a Blu ray copy.
• 1:05:37
  Speaker A: Nice.
• 1:05:37
  Speaker B: Through our local library or a local video rental store if you still have one. You can check with them. Did not look like this was available like with a subscription from anywhere.
• 1:05:49
  Speaker A: Anywhere. But.
• 1:05:49
  Speaker B: But you can rent it for around $4 through Amazon, YouTube, Apple TV or Fandango at home.
• 1:05:57
  Speaker A: There you go. Like I said, I am very excited at the prospect of this. I'm only 40 pages into the book but I'm really enjoying it so far. I can tell it's, it's got, I've already written down. I'm. It's. It's one of the things that's going to make it take forever is I, I want to take notes like constantly. But I'm like I'm 40 pages into a 500 page book and I already have like so many notes and so many incredible lines and it's, it's written so evocatively and it's, I'm just like, I'm like this is good. Take forever but. And also which as a. By extension of that, I guarantee this is going to be like a freaking three hour long episode knowing me. So. Yeah. But anyways, come back next week sometime. We will be talking about, about Cloud Atlas. Until that time, guys, gals, non binary pals and everybody else keep reading books, watching movies and keep being awesome.