Cloud Atlas Clones....

You're right. Tom Hanks does change. He goes from a murderer to one willing to risk his life for others. I wouldn't say he only changes because of one impulse he makes. There may have been a multitude of reasons that we are not aware about. I would say that choice to not turn the reporter in was a marvelous choice, or 'impulse' have you, to have done so would have meant the deaths of potentially millions of people.

It's similar to the man who could have turned in the escaped slave would have meant the death of that slave. He made that choice. It seems his life was destined for him to turn him in because while he was rationalizing the fate of the slave he kept repeating that to turn him in was what he was supposed to do. But he made the opposite choice, which miraculously saved his own life, because if it weren't for the slave he would have died at the hands of the doctor. And then he wouldn't have ran off with the freckled girl and fight against slavery...And perhaps the girl wouldn't have stood up against her father, which probably changed the course of her future life also.

Our lives and our choices, each encounter, suggest a new potential direction. Yesterday my life was headed in one direction. Today, it is headed in another. Fear, belief, love, phenomena that determined the course of our lives. These forces begin long before we are born and continue long after we perish. Yesterday, I believe I would have never have done what I did today. I feel like something important has happened to me. Is this possible?

He says "each encounter, suggest a new potential direction." Each decision we make has the potential of changing the destiny of our lives, our future lives, and the lives and future lives of others.

Also, I was thinking of when you said, "To me, it's actually a refutation of the "progression to enlightenment" philosophy and more of an elitist message that some small part of civilization will grow to demigod status, while the remaining "unwashed majority" will degenerate into barbarism."

You're right. After the nuclear fall, part of society became hunters and gatherers. Another part became barbarians as you say, roving murderers and cannibals. And another society stayed in control of technology and definitely had a higher status than the people of the valley.

To me, the only people who were barbarians were the cannibals. I don't know why they became cannibals, but I would assume they are in reference to the cannibal skeletons that were found on the island at the beginning of the movie. It's as though that civilization has reincarnated throughout the ages, always as selfish murderers who require a life seeking the destruction and humiliations of others, but manifested in different ways based on the society they are born in.

The valley people were a very loving community, and I would say they are far from barbarism if that's what you are referring to. I saw them more as a quiet, self-reliant village who knew how to protect themselves to a certain degree, but which the society was focused more on peace and also loyalty to the tribe. Importantly, they followed the teachings of Sonmi-451, who represented wisdom and truth*, looking at how our actions control the fate of others and the future. Meaning, the society was built on good teachings, even if they were ignorant of what really transpired.

*P.S. I love that line where she responds to the interviewer who asks her to give her version of the truth. And she responds with the incredibly witty and powerfully wise statement, "Truth is singular. It's versions are mistruths."

reply to post by Xaberz


Well, perhaps you're right, though I see the "Valley people" as being barbarous, just not as efficient at it -- but perhaps uncivilized might be a more appropriate term.

If you're familiar with Pink Floyd's seminal 1977 album Animals, perhaps the groups can be better cast in Waters' three -- Pigs (the elites), Dogs (the barbarians) and Sheep (the Valley People.)

Perhaps they are uncivilized to our standards of society, but look at our society, which is incredibly wasteful and destructive to the environment. One could argue that we as a society are uncivilized too.

I think given their circumstances, the survival after a nuclear holocaust, it makes sense why the people ended up how they did.

They may not have the best in means of healthcare, education, or electricity, but they are survivors and fighters whereas so many billions of others have perished. In that way they are strong and incredible. They are champions of the future.

Personally, I loved Susan Sarandon's character in that post-apocalyptic future. She was a woman in tune with the Universe, allowing her to tap into this universal stream of knowledge. I don't think it's a coincidence that she played a good character in the story of the elderly publisher, and turned out as such a positive soul in the future. Perhaps she is a bit eccentric in the future, but she helps Tom Hanks' character understand his dream, which entail saves the woman's life and entail saves them all.

I suppose that's why I love this movie so much. Each of the characters, even the minor ones hold so much weight in the fate of the story. Everything is connected. And I'm so happy they kept the same actors to play as different races and ethnicities because it reinforces that idea of connectedness by interweaving not only the effects of the characters choices within their lifetime, but throughout lifetimes, when we compare the actions and choices that they make throughout time.

reply to post by adjensen


Tom Hanks was absolutely progressing through out the entire movie.

-----SPOILERS------

The first life he portrays the doctor of the ship in 1849, who purposely tries to kill Ewing the lawyer on the ship by making him more sick through toxins instead of medicine, just so he can attain all of his treasures.

The next life he is working at a hotel in England although he doesn't play a big role in this life to me it seemed as he was not evil or good, but more neutral.

The next life he is a scientist at a nuclear plant in San Francisco, who gives the main character (Halle Berry the journalist) the information she needs which jeopardizes his job and life but he still does it. Also because he meets Halle Barry he has an an instant connection with her. Although he dies by the hit man in the plane explosion, we can see that Tom Hanks did the right thing by giving her that information, so he is progessing to be more a good person.

Up until there it made a lot of sense to me that they were showing the progession of a soul, based on the actions of the past life, good or bad. But the next life for Tom Hanks is what confused me.

Tom Hanks plays a small role in the beginning of this life scene where he is Dermot Hoggins, a gangster and author of a book. He's rich, but rude, and villainous (I mean he threw a critic off the roof and goes to jail for life probably because of it). This made me think, why would his soul back track into a life like this? Maybe it's the karma of his first life trying to poison the lawyer on the ship that causes all the bad things to happen to him in this life. To me this is still a mystery.

I don't remember him being in the future setting city of Earth Neo Seoul. I would have to watch the movie again I'm sure he's someone in there.

The last life which is set in a post apocalyptic Earth Hanks plays a huge role. I think this is truly where he ascends to a good soul where as the other lives were like lessons. Old Georgie is a hallucination of his mind who speaks negativity to him, and yet Hanks still overcomes this, meets Halle Barry again, and transcends as a soul by the decisions he made. And notice that his life isn't great in this life, the tribe kills his friend, burns down his village, and he almost kills Halle Barry, but he still overcomes the negativity and does the right thing, allowing him to progress as a soul. I found it all too interesting, especially how they were all interconnected.

This movie is not a movie one can watch once, not even twice I think. There are a lot of messages in this movie and something to take out of each life and even each scene.

reply to post by wiseseeker


Just wanted to add a couple things about Tom Hanks characters for you. The life set in the 30's where he was the landlord or whatever his title was, he was still kind of a scumbag. He wanted the one guys vest as payment or something because of how fancy it looked. It reminded me of some of his previous lifes tendancies.

Also, with the future life with the clones he was involved with the restaraunt somehow. I don't remember if he was the owner or what. But I remember him getting involved with one of the clones. He was a skeazy guy in that life too. Lol

But I LOVED this movie and can't wait to see it again! You guys have pretty much covered all my thoughts on it.