Cloud Atlas - Examining the Critiques

              After having just returned from Bangalore and seeing Cloud Atlas I find I can no longer hold my tongue concerning the many allegations that have been thrown at said film.  Warning - there will be more than one spoiler ahead so if you haven't read or seen the film you might not want to continue reading. 

               Although the majority of my readers may not have seen the film I'm sure a few have heard of the accusations against the film's actors and directors.  First and foremost - the heinous act of "yellow-face".  The majority of the anger has been directed towards Jim Sturgess for playing a Korean man.  The question often is why couldn't they get an actual Korean actor to play this character rather than stick a white man in to do his job?

               First of all I feel the need to say I understand the resentment; I get the anger and I agree with the issue at hand.  Time and time again Asian/Asian-American men are overlooked in Hollywood except when we want them to play a form of Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee.  But this film is not that.

               There are times when I feel that the POC community sometimes aim their anger towards the wrong people.  We can't always help it, there is still so much left to be angry about and there are indeed many culprits in  modern America who deserve our wrath.  However that does not excuse us from the necessary job of assessing just who is continually pushing us down and who isn't. 

               I wonder, for instance, if those complaining have seen the movie or read the book.  Surely if they had they would understand what it is that the author and directors were trying to accomplish.  The point was to hire a group of talented actors and use them for each story that was told - thusly re-using them for each new character we as an audience were introduced to.  This is extremely vital not only to the entire film but to the novel as well.  Jim Sturgess had a role in each story; but why did he have to play the Korean character?

 

 

 

               Simple.  In Adam Ewing's story we see him help Autua, a stowaway who also happened to be black.  Despite the damage he might do to his standing on the boat, Adam fights for Autua's safe journey and acceptance as a crew member.  At the end of the film after Autua has saved Adam's life and Adam has also saved Autua's life, he comes to the decision that he must leave his family to help with the emancipation movement concerning slaves in the U.S. 

 

 

               In the Neo-Seoul story, Jim's character, Hae-Joo, is fighting for the emancipation of 'fabricants', tank-born humans who are treated as slaves for humans.  When they no longer prove to be useful they are scrapped and turned into food for the remaining fabricants.  By keeping the same actor for both Adam Ewing and Hae-Joo, the directors are bringing to life the idea firmly held in the book that we are the same souls merely crossing over the past, present, and future continually bumping into one another.  The book expressed the same plot-point only now that the film has visualized such an idea it has upset quite a few people.

               Some may think that the only reason I remain so passive and on the "white man's" side is because I have no dog in this fight.  After all I'm not ethnically Asian.  But I am Mexican and I could very well have taken umbrage with the fact that they had Doona Bae, the same woman who plays Sonmi-451, plays a Mexican woman.  Not just that but she also speaks Spanish and worked at an establishment which was meant to represent a site that hires undocumented workers.  Did I take offense?  No.  I even clapped at the part in which Ms. Bae exclaims, "Don't call me a wetback," after slamming a wrench into Bill Smoke's head.  But I could argue that a Mexican woman should have been given this empowering moment to shout something that most Mexicans wish to scream at someone at least once in their lives.  However that would not have made sense with the theme and message of the film; in this instance it was much more powerful to have Doona Bae who represents equally persecuted characters in the film to take on this role.      

 

 

               Ms. Bae and Mr. Sturgess are not the only ones to smuggle their identity under the guise of another ethnicity.  Halle Berry not only plays an Indian woman but a Caucasian woman and a Korean man at that.  Doona Bae also plays Adam Ewing's Caucasian wife, another important aspect as to why Jim Sturgess had to be both Adam and Hae-Joo.  The point was that these two souls kept meeting one another no matter how many births. 

 

               Jim Sturgess, an Englishman, also plays the role of  a Scottish character in the film and yet there has been no gripe concerning this despite the tumultuous history that exists between the two groups.  I would think that this would be even more offensive as there is an obvious tension that still exists between the English and the Scottish.  Perhaps it was the make-up artist's choices that did him in.  If so it was a difficult task said artist had, to turn a white man into a Korean man.  No easy feat.  Perhaps you could say they went for the obvious and hurtful stereotypical choice to change only the eyes and nothing else.  They ignored facial structure and any other aspect besides hair color.  But at this token the critiques I believe are at a loss - we don't know the deliberation and selection process that went behind choosing how these characters should be changed.  For all we know had they decided to also change skin color (as there is a distinct difference between a white man's skin color and an Asian man's skin color) but realized that it turned things much too comical.  I agree that the eyes do look unnatural but then again this is a story set in the future where a fad called "facescaping" is quite in fashion; perhaps the directors weren't hoping to come across saying this is what Korean men look like to us but rather what a person might look like in this particular futuristic society after multiple unnatural face changes.

               Seeing as how Hae-Joo's character is someone who fights against the government it's more than plausible that he would have to change his face any number of times leading to such a strange appearance. 

               And did they not change the obvious about each actor at each turn when they had to play a new ethnicity or gender?  They lightened Halle Berry's skin so she could be a white woman (although even here I argue that she looks less like a white woman than perhaps someone who is mixed), gave Jim red hair in order to play a Scotsman, and Hugo Weaving was given rather frumpy looking breasts in order to play a woman.  Modern day audiences often to have everything spoon-fed to them now or they complain and for a film which is already so complicated sometimes you have to go for the obvious.  Even if that could be considered hurtful; perhaps hurtful because of the many terrible things which have already been done to certain communities.  But does this film lie in the same camp as those who have been racist towards Asians in the past?  Can it not be seen as it's own separate entity?  Technically speaking it's not a Hollywood film per se - rather it's an independent film without ties to any large blockbuster movie tycoon such as Warner Bros. 

               Another complaint might be why they didn't choose an Asian actor to play the series of characters Jim was given.  As to that you will have to take that up with the Directors and the casting director.  However my counter question is, how do you know that any Asian actors auditioned for this role?  Seeing as how it's quite risky to enter into any independent production especially when it cost so much money to make, why would a burgeoning actor choose to make a film that might not have any return profit?  Or perhaps it all came down to skill and Jim Sturgess was the only actor they felt capable of the difficult task of playing 7 different characters in one film. 

               To that end I must say he deserves a clap on the back; there is nothing easy about playing so many different characters in one production and seeing as how this is an independent production it takes a group of actors who are inspired by the story in order to want to take part.  Jim Sturgess displays such excitement in his interviews and rather than being able to share his pride over the work he's done as the others are doing he's being attacked for a decision made by the directors.  It's no wonder he went to twitter to vent his frustration; despite other actors also playing Asian characters he has been the most consistently berated for what he's done. 

               Imagine if you worked hard on a project and put all of your labor and love into something only to have people spit in your face for it afterwards.  Of course he made a remark back, most people who are frustrated would do the same. 

               Again I don't mean to belittle the plight of Asian-Americans or the Asian community in any way.  I understand that worse has been done to those groups but does that mean that throwing stones is the appropriate answer?  Should the POC community resort to degradation in retaliation?

               What makes me most sad about all of this is that Cloud Atlas is an amazing film and an even more amazing novel.  In fact I believe that both pieces of work represent ideas that are inherent in our own struggles within the POC community. My favorite lines of the book were, much to my satisfaction, kept in the film and is in my opinion the strongest moment of both.

               When Adam returns home he writes in his journal that he plans on telling his father-in-law of his decision to work towards the emancipation movement.  His reasoning, "If we believe that humanity may transcend tooth & claw, if we believe diverse races and creeds can share this world as peaceably as the orphans share their candlenut tree, if we believe leaders must be just, violence muzzled, power accountable & the riches of the Earth & its Oceans shared equitably, such a world will come to pass." 
  
               Beautiful, no?  Similar to many ideas that we pass around often in the POC community when we are up against a fight with those who keep us down.  But this is not the lines I was speaking of, the part I believe that most applies to the critiques we are often given when we say we want to change the world lie in the discussion between Adam and his father-in-law.

               "I hear my father-in-law's response.  'Ride to Tennessee on an ass & convince the red-necks that they are merely white-washed negroes & their negroes are black-washed Whites!  Sail to the Old World, tell 'em their imperial slaves rights are as inalienable as the Queen of Belgium's!  Oh, you'll grow hoarse, poor & grey in caucuses!  He who would do battle with the many-headed hydra of human nature must pay a world of pain & his family must pay it along with him! & only as you gasp your dying breath shall you understand, your life amounted to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean!"

               Adam's response?  "Yet what is an ocean but a multitude of drops!"  Does Adam's retort not evoke the same passion we POC's feel when people tell us nothing will ever change?  This statement succintly sums up such a powerful message that it makes me unbearably sad to think people will overlook it. 

               It's a wonderful thing to see such a great perspective in modern day cinema and pop culture (seeing as how we are currently drowning in tripe such as Twilight) and I can't understand how others aren't running to the theaters to watch such a masterpiece.   I'm afraid that this beautiful film, much like Robert Frobisher's Cloud Atlas Sextet, will go quietly unnoticed by the masses - and that is a travesty.

               The entire time I saw this film I coudn't help but feel as a POC that the book and film were made for any group who has ever felt persecuted; it has done a great thing for us.  It's showing us just how connected we all are and though our plights may be different when you boil it down to it's most simplistic form there is no difference between a Korean woman and a Mexican woman; there is no difference between a black man and a Korean man.  We all inevitably want the same things and if our souls can travel back and forth between such supposedly "different" vessels than doesn't that mean we are only as different as we conceive ourselves to be?  Does not each actor in this film evoke that (including Jim Sturgess) when they don their makeup? 

               My last argument concerning the rants against this film deal with my own time in India.  It has made me realize that constantly bickering and trying to find racist meaning behind all that happens in society will make you bitter, angry, and ultimately be a waste of energy.  Were I to get upset about every tiny injustice that happens to either me or those around me here I would surely pass away with a cold and hardened heart. 

               Especially the myth that white people are the only ones who treat POC' incorrectly.  What a laugh!  How many times have I heard people in India call Native Americans, Red Indians!  And how many times have I heard them refer to Mexicans as Red Indians, why I've lost count.  Not to mention the resentment and slanders they often use when referring to anyone of East Asian or South Asian descent. 

               But where I to get into an argument with each of those people it would do no better than to scream at a wall for the response I would get.  It's important to choose your battles and to decipher who it is that is the culprit and who might accidentally appear to be one. 

               For instance, at Lady Doak College the students held a competition concerning African-American literature.  One of the competitions was to do a small 5 minute play concerning a story written by an African-American author.  Seeing as how many of the works they read dealt with persecution of African-Americans by white people in America the girls decided to do something that would help the audience identify which characters where which.  Those playing African-American roles painted their faces black while those playing white characters painted their faces white. 

               Of course as I watched this I was initially stunned - did they not realize the implications of what they were doing?  Did they not know that blackface is an incredibly insensitive act?  Shouldn't they inherently know this because they are POC's?

               No.  Blackface is primarily an American construct.  These girls were not thinking of this as a politically incorrect action.  Rather, they wanted to make it clear to the audience using an obvious marker who was who in the play.  Being South Indian most of these girls already have dark skin and so in order to be clear as to what was happening they chose to paint their faces to represent the two groups they were playing.  There was no malice in their hearts when they did this act even if by accident they were offending a group of people.  Do we hurl stones at them?  Do we punish these girls despite their hopes in representing historical injustices that occurred to African-Americans? 

               Of course not.  We can discuss with them how their actions might be misconstrued or offensive to others but we shouldn't lump them with actual perpetrators of racism.  These girls are not the same as those who I've heard make racial slurs against most other ethnicities in India.  These girls are not the same as the ignorant asshole that sent an SMS to Assamese workers in Bangalore telling them if they didn't go back where they came from they would be killed.  They are not the same as those who are responsible for the mass movement of workers in Bangalore to abandon their homes. 

               In this way we must take a critical look and also try to understand the motives behind people's actions.  Also, we must learn to look at the larger picture much like in Cloud Atlas.  If I didn't look at the larger picture constantly here in Tamil Nadu than I would surely lose my mind. 

 

               * Disclaimer - I'm not trying to say people's anger over this is illegitimate in any way.  This is simply my opinion on the matter however I'm not saying I'm right or anyone else is wrong.  It's simply an opinion and feel free to comment with your own - I'd be more than happy to have a discussion and listen to other people's thoughts.