Never Let Me Go
Never Let Me Go
Academy Award® Nominees Carey Mulligan and Keira Knightley, co-star with talented newcomer Andrew Garfield (The Social Network) in this poignant and powerful film. Kathy (Mulligan), Ruth (Knightley) and Tommy (Garfield) are best friends who grow up together at an English boarding school with a chilling secret. When they learn the shocking truth–that they are genetically engineered clones raised to be organ donors–they embrace their fleeting chance to live and love. Based on the acclaimed novel by Kazuo Ishiguro (The Remains of the Day), Never Let Me Go is an intriguing exploration of hope and humanity. In adapting Kazuo Ishiguro’s celebrated novel, director Mark Romanek (One Hour Photo) and screenwriter Alex Garland (Sunshine) transform
List Price: $ 29.98
Price: $ 14.98
A Haunting And Elegant Treatise On Love And Life In A Dystopian Alternate Reality,
Kazuo Ishiguro’s hauntingly enigmatic novel “Never Let Me Go” is a challenging artistic work that requires its readers to decipher a mysterious story arc that is never fully unveiled in the text. It’s complicated to describe, but the brilliance of the work is what it doesn’t say–and this ambiguity, when all the pieces finally fall into place, reveal a unique and disturbing alternate reality. It’s a difficult piece to conceptualize and adapt to a visual medium, so I was curious to see what director Mark Romanek and writer Alex Garland might bring to the table. Those hoping for a literal translation might, indeed, be disappointed in the film incarnation of “Never Let Me Go” which can’t replicate the novel’s precise and measured revelations. However, this lovely and thoughtful film does succeed in its own right as a heartbreaking examination on the nature of humanity.
“Never Let Me Go” does honor Ishiguro’s novel in tone, pacing, and mood. Gentle and idyllic, but austere and bleak when necessary, this is a subtle film that requires and rewards patience. The film establishes, from the first frame, that we’re embarking on a parallel timeline in which medical science is greatly advanced from our current world. In the British countryside, we meet three youths–Kathy (the film’s narrator), Tommy and Ruth–at a tony boarding school named Hailsham. Hailsham students serve a special purpose and their entire existence is lived within the walls of the academy. The three friends form a love triangle of sorts with Kathy and Tommy seeming to be soul mates and Ruth becoming the romantic foil. A treatise on unrequited love, the film follows the kids to young adulthood as they leave the confines of Hailsham at eighteen before fulfilling their final destiny.
One of the complaints I’ve heard leveled at the book is that the characters remain ciphers, muted personalities that seem resigned to their fate. But ultimately, that’s the point. Their lives are structured on one truth, one fate–it is an inherent fact of their being. Romanek and Garland understand that and don’t choose to vary from the inevitability of the story. Even if there is hope to be found in true love, it is a fleeting and temporary solution at best. Carey Mulligan gives a quietly understated, yet incredibly persuasive, performance as Kathy. Keira Knightly has a brittle efficiency as Ruth and Andrew Garfield (Tommy) has a bewildered charm that is refreshing. They, as well as the young actors in the same roles, draw you into “Never Let You Go” and, even if it seems futile, gives you hope for a brighter tomorrow.
The film’s ultimate message is “live the life you’re given.” In the end, none of us are so different. It’s a powerful message told very quietly. The film doesn’t explicitly announce how you should feel, it allows viewers to fill in many of the gaps on their own. Very adult, very sophisticated, and very sad–”Never Let Me Go” isn’t a perfect film–if anything it might be too reverent, too detached. But this is a thoughtful and ambitious adaptation that works on its own merits. KGHarris, 10.10
Was this review helpful to you?
|What would we do for more life?,
First of all, I haven’t read the 2005 novel by Kazuo Ishigiro that this film is based on, nor did I know much of anything about it apart from the basics (dystopian English alternate-world story) before seeing the film. So the few problems I mention or areas that I feel the film is deficient in dealing with are wholly a product of my experience with the movie – I suspect that some of these issues might be less problematic in the novel. As you can see from my rating and review, I think the positives far outweigh the negatives.
Second of all, if you know even less than I did, be prepared for **SPOILERS**
All that out of the way, what we have here is a story taking place in a roughly contemporary (1978-94) England, a country (and presumably, world) radically changed by medical advances that did not happen in our world. Or…maybe. The most fascinating element of this film to me, and I’m sure the most infuriating to many viewers, is that we never get a really clear picture as to just what the technology is, how things have changed. The focus here is not on technology, on the science fictional aspects, on gadgetry or medicine. We get a few references to cloning, but never any details; we learn fairly quickly that the children we’re introduced to at the Hailsham boarding school have a “special” destiny, and the film follows three of them in particular, one of whom, Kathy (Izzy Meikle-Small as a child/Carey Mulligan as an adult) narrates the film from 1994 at around the age of 30.
Kathy, her companions Tommy (Charlie Rowe/Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Ella Purnell/Keira Knightley) are all being raised in a comfortable, serene – almost idyllic – countryside school to face a very particular and peculiar destiny. We get several hints early on – but only get the full heartbreaking story from a sympathetic (and summarily dismissed) young teacher named Lucy (Sally Hawkins): the children are all clones who will be harvested for their organs before the age of 30, dying typically after their third or fourth “donation”. Lucy delivers the news with compassion and sadness; the rest of society, including the leaders of the school and apparently virtually all donors, have simply accepted this new world order, for the sake of the longer lives (we’re told in a brief script at the beginning of the film that the average lifespan has passed 100) and comfort it has given them. The donors are essentially regarded as cattle. Eventually they move on from the school to “The Cottages” a few years later in the second third of the film, as the forward and vivacious Ruth has taken up with the awkward and introverted Tommy, which Kathy considered becoming a “Carer”, helping to take care of the donors before she herself becomes one. In the last third of the film, 1994, all three confront their inevitable destinies.
In most such visions, the story would be about attempts to escape the repressive regime, or overthrow it. The genius and heartbreak of NEVER LET ME GO is that it shows a society – or a very tiny portion of one – that is completely conditioned to the way things are now; nobody even dreams of running away or changing things, and the idea of there being an ethical dilemma is never actually broached by any character until quite near the end of the film. This was, I’ll admit, something of a problem for me as I was watching the film – it’s really quite hard to take the blind acceptance of such an awful fate on the part of everyone; but I think that Ishiguro and the filmmakers here are making a statement that only seems unrealistic if we forget the history of the last century. I do have a slight problem with the notion that things could have happened so very quickly in a democracy like England, but if we look at something like Orwell’s “1984″ – set 35 years after its publication – as a model, we shouldn’t be surprised. The English dystopian vision has always seemed a particularly mordant and immediate one. And setting the film in essentially our time also allows it to be made much more cheaply – it’s “science fiction” certainly, but it doesn’t require the kinds of sets and effects that we usually think of the genre as having nowadays.
I think that another factor that is going to be problematic for many is that we just see a very small fraction of this society, which must be so very different in many aspects but which looks essentially the same to we viewers. We are kept in the presence of our three main characters throughout, and we never see the recipients of any of these peoples’ “gifts”; we never encounter the government; we never hear anyone from outside of their little world express an opinion. For me this helped keep the exquisite sadness and intensity of the growing sense of loss that these young people had fresh and vivid throughout, and without encumbering the actual film with external voices, we are allowed to consider all the ethical ramifications and meanings of…
Read more
Was this review helpful to you?
|Children with Special Deeds,
Walking out of “Never Let Me Go,” I felt as if I had experienced a death. This isn’t to suggest that the film pushed me away. If anything, I was deeply drawn in, entirely taken by the sheer power it had on me emotionally. I’m fairly certain I wasn’t the only one; I sensed solemnity in the audience I sat with, the profound feelings of shock, loss, grief, anger, and helplessness. The film projects all that, as if saying, “It’s not fair. It shouldn’t have to be this way.” At the same time, the film also projects profound feelings of resignation, as if saying, “Life isn’t fair, and it doesn’t matter what should or shouldn’t be – that’s just the way it is.” Perhaps so, but that doesn’t make it any easier. This movie haunted me, and I don’t mean that I was frightened or repulsed; its themes, its characters, and its plot have a lasting effect, the ability to move us in the most personal of ways.
Adapted from the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro (best known for “The Remains of the Day”), “Never Let Me Go” takes place in an alternate universe, where medical science achieved what was thought to be impossible; in 1952, all previously incurable diseases could be cured, allowing for the average life expectancy to increase to over 100 years by 1967. But how did such a thing happen? The opening title card is intentionally vague on the specifics – all it says is that it was the result of a “medical breakthrough.” With that in mind, we plunge into the story proper, which begins in 1978 at Hailsham, a charming-looking but isolated British boarding school surrounded by miles of open fields. The children and teenagers who attend know absolutely nothing of the outside world. They wouldn’t dream of leaving; they’ve all heard horror stories about those who have crossed over the fence.
They’ve also heard repeatedly from headmistress Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling) that they’re all special. What exactly does this mean? We gradually come to understand, although hints are dropped all throughout the opening section. Consider the fact that every student wears a special bracelet, one they must pass over a mechanical device whenever they reenter the school building. Also consider that every student has no last name other than an initial. And then consider a lecture given by the ever observant Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins), one in which she sorrowfully explains to the students that, while most children can grow up and be anything they want, they will never be anything; their paths have already been chosen for them. Do the students understand this? They may hear the words, but I imagine it would be difficult for them to fully grasp their meaning, especially when the only world they’ve ever known has been the grounds of a boarding school.
Emphasis is placed on artistic achievement, specifically poetry, drama, music, and – most importantly – drawing and painting. The best pieces are chosen by an elusive figure known as Madame to be displayed a section of the school called The Gallery. They’re encouraged to participate in sports and eat a healthy diet. They earn colored tokens, each having monetary value; every so often, they can use their tokens to buy assorted knick knacks, all delivered to Hailsham via truck.
Three students are introduced: Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy. As adolescents (played by Isobel Meikle-Small, Ella Purnell, and Charlie Rowe respectively), they dutifully engage in strict regiment, although they also develop as individuals, forming a close friendship in spite of the cliques students are often separated by. Kathy is observant and calm. Ruth is bold and opinionated. Tommy is a shy boy who isn’t as creatively inclined and is picked on by other boys. As adults in 1985 (played by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield respectively), tensions rise when they’re sent to a residential community that grants them more exposure to the outside world; not only do they not know how to cope in such a place (they’re incapable, for example, of deciding for themselves what to order in a restaurant), they’re also at odds over their needs and desires, Tommy’s physical attraction to Ruth seemingly upstaged by his emotional attraction to Kathy.
The film ends in 1994, at which point Kathy has become a Carer and has been separated from Ruth and Tommy for years. I dare not reveal what a Carer is, nor should I say anything more about Ruth and Tommy, for their fates are too attached to the secret the story revolves around. It’s revealed not as a surprise twist but rather as a disturbingly slow unfolding of events, all of which lead to a devastating conclusion. This in itself very easily could have been weepy and melodramatic, but director Mark Romanek and screenwriter Alex Garland instead opted to handle it with a fascinating sense of acceptance – sad, but inescapable, like death. Therein lies the tragedy of “Never Let Me Go”; it’s about the certainty of one’s existence, the inability to…
Read more
Was this review helpful to you?
|