Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
How is "you're dead by thirty" any harder a premise to swallow than "radio-active spider-bite"? I don't get that. Also everyone in this thread will probably be dead before they're 90. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO CHANGE THAT?
It's sorta complicated, but the chase scene will be kick ass, I can assure you.
I think Renn's point about societal apathy is kind of driven home in the film by Miss Lucy. At first you think she's essentially a human rights campaigner, but essentially she's there to disprove that notion. The society in Never Let Me Go have essentially enjoy sausage and know how it gets made, having the donors out in plain sight (after they've been raised to believe in their expendability) is a way of maintaining the system. Because the donors are taught accept their role in society they don't try to rebel, because they don't try to rebel the populace assume they are happy with what is happening, because of this assumption nothing is done to try and help the donors and the donors have no concept of their own rights.
Hmmm. I'm torn here, because I can see the argument for both sides. It IS a bit fatuous to compare this to stuff like the Holocaust and slavery--there were plenty of slave rebellions, plenty of resistance fighters and people who attempted to escape the Nazis. The point about societal apathy in the face of horror is well taken, but it sort of comes down to how much you're willing to accept in the name of metaphor. Because Blipper's right in that it's a little hard to swallow that these people, who supposedly are driven by love, and in at least one case by deep-seated rage, would be so unquestioning of their options. The film ends up making the oppressor's point, that the clones aren't human. The urge to escape is one of the most deep-seated human traits there is, no matter how strongly it's beaten out of you--and it's certainly not portrayed as being strongly ingrained into the clones in this movie.
You can assume--really, you have to assume--that all these moral debates are happening in the world of the movie, but off-screen. Still, if the protagonists aren't motivated enough to kick back a little, who the fuck would be?
I guess you can liken it to, say, an eeeeeeevil corporation in a movie. Right now, as we speak, corporations are propagating all kinds of fucked up shit on our world, and lots of people are lying back and taking it. But we're not literally being fucked right to our faces--that's precisely why we're not kicking back. And furthermore, this real-world fact doesn't make a portrayal of a corporate baddie as an over-the-top mustache-twirler any less hacky. This movie suffers from something similar.
The characters are surely human, and the film is filled with delicate, beautiful moments that indicate exactly who each of these characters are. Frustration with their non-revolutionary spirit is understandable, but that's the point of the film. It's saying something about indoctrination, apathy, complicity, and even worse- inability to even recognize the horror of the system in the first place. This film isn't about a Holocaust, or a singular event with blatant issues and troops and what have you. It's about the creeping, sliding decay of a civilization's ideals, morality, and understanding of itself (which could ultimately lead to a Holocaust, of course). It's about the systems we let be put into place and become routine. It's about the forest we miss for the trees. There's a reason why these kids are never fighting the system, but rather looking for extensions or ways to get what they innately want within the system. They see no world beyond it- that's much more interesting and frightening from where I sit. Sure, it would have been great and satisfying and easy for Hugo Weaving to show up in a mask and rile everyone up with revolutionary spirit to march against this ludicrous evil system, but that's not what this film is.
Perhaps you live in Egypt or Libya currently and don't have the same view of the world I do, but there is a massive amount of apathy infecting it. I can't imagine that's actually under question. All hail the revolutions past and present, but for every one of them, there's been a dozen or a hundred other countries (civilizations, towns, companies, groups, whatever) that sat pretty while frightening changes took place all around them with the quiet strokes of pens, rather than tossed rocks or fired bullets.
EDIT: I might be TL:DR'ing this.
Renn, I do understand what the film is striving for, and it is a touching idea. There are great moments not only between the leads, but with the younger versions of the leads, a sensitivity many other mainstream films either mess up or are too weak to go near. But I'm just not sold on the framing of the device. I'm not asking for bloody revolution in the school hallways, or the flexing of totalitarian muscle any time the children look beyond the school walls. What I want is something which might allow for healthy young people to not consider running away when there is nothing physically or intellectually prohibiting them. What exactly is the impulse that overides any sense of rebellion and love for a companion? It would surely need to be strong in Kathy and Tommy's case, and my arguement is that the impulse is never made with strong enough conviction or explicit enough beyond the simple fact that it was merely the desire of the author to add 'tragedy'.
And that's just the core characters. What are we to make of a society, apparently no different to our own, that views these donors as harvesting material and nothing more. The last time a group of society was dehumanised in such a detrimental manner there was a very particular and dark milieu, and even then the worst crimes were kept away from the eyes of the general population. People in the UK get upset over battery chickens (rightfully) and expecting me to believe that Middle England circa 1970 is perfectly laissez-faire with a section of society being killed for their parts in the absence of a compelling narrative sits more than a little uneasily.
How is "you're dead by thirty" any harder a premise to swallow than "radio-active spider-bite"? I don't get that. Also everyone in this thread will probably be dead before they're 90. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO TO CHANGE THAT?
You don't get that it's not the premise in as much as it's the credibility of character reactions to a premise that distinguishes good and not so good story telling?
And I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the live till 90 remark - the characters in Never Let Me Go are all too aware their lives will end prematurely, not naturally. I on the other hand am not currently aware of anyone wanting to end my life prematurely, if I were, I might do more than bellow at the sky for two minutes at this rather depressing news.
Because the premise of the film is to explore man's life in a faster cycle. We all die. They have a ticking clock. Their lifespans are arbitrary. So are ours. The point isn't that escape is an option, the point is to reflect that life is filled with bullshit. Are you doing what you want in your life? Why not? Why don't they? These are the questions. The premise is the premise. You guys want The Island, you want a film that suggests we can be immortal. That's not what this film is. It's not about the holocaust, it's not about slavery. It's about life, and how precious it is in the face of how stupid our lives are.
Honestly, some of the criticisms of this movie sound a lot like, "Why are these homeless people poor when they can just get a job?"
Honestly, some of the criticisms of this movie sound a lot like, "Why are these homeless people poor when they can just get a job?"
Not comparable at all. There are compelling reasons which drive people to homelessness (and perhaps were the story about a young homeless couple instead of the ill concieved donor/clone contrivance the story may have had more emotional resonance).
My criticism of 'Never Let Me Go' is that there is no rationale convincing enough, as presented, to allow these people to kill themselves so unquestioningly. Even when these characters see a reason for not killing themselves, and we the audience see no reason why they need to kill themselves, the author will force them as awkwardly as possible to kill themselves in order to make a point. It's a clumsy and embarrassing attempt at profoundness, like angsty teenage poetry.
Quote:
Because the premise of the film is to explore man's life in a faster cycle. We all die. They have a ticking clock. Their lifespans are arbitrary. So are ours. The point isn't that escape is an option, the point is to reflect that life is filled with bullshit. Are you doing what you want in your life? Why not? Why don't they? These are the questions. The premise is the premise. You guys want The Island, you want a film that suggests we can be immortal. That's not what this film is. It's not about the holocaust, it's not about slavery.
It's fine to suggest escape is not relevant to the point, but there needs to be adequate explanation as to why these characters have escape denied to them, particularly when the stakes are self preservation and deep affection for someone else, perhaps two of the srongest motivators in the human psyche. The author should not be excused for just waving his hand and saying, "oh, ignore that, that's not the point". If the author is going to play with analogy then he should at least think more thoroughly about the implications of that analogy or choose one that doesn't undermine his intent and raise legitimate criticism.
And it's interesting you should mention 'The Island', because like 'Never Let Me Go' both movies require you to leave your more critical faculties at home, one wittingly and one unwittingly.
Quote:
Well then the author and filmaker have failed miserably, because life is certainly not shown to be precious in Never Let Me Go, nihilistic maybe.
People are depicted as automatons with no free will and love counts for naught, certainly not an emotion strong enough to evoke passion and motivation. The characters in the world of 'Never Let Me Go' may look human, but they don't act human; they may as well be alien, or a hazy computer aproximation. They are either Eloi or Morlock, rendered to a single trait with never the possibility for behavoural deviation, and in the absence of a satisfying explanation as to why this should be, I find nothing to relate to in any meaningful way, no truth in such shallow characterisation and story telling.
It's fine to suggest escape is not relevant to the point, but there needs to be adequate explanation as to why these characters have escape denied to them, particularly when the stakes are self preservation and deep affection for someone else, perhaps two of the srongest motivators in the human psyche. The author should not be excused for just waving his hand and saying, "oh, ignore that, that's not the point". If the author is going to play with analogy then he should at least think more thoroughly about the implications of that analogy or choose one that doesn't undermine his intent and raise legitimate criticism.
It's entirely the point, though. But the other half of it is that, despite what we like to think about ourselves, we can be just as strongly motivated by fear of rocking the boat as by fear of death. That a great many of us will elect not to chase after the things we really want if it means risking what we have, even if what we have makes us unhappy.
Maybe that's not you. Maybe you're unafraid to seek out happiness and fulfillment on your own terms. Maybe you're a true revolutionary. Most of us aren't. When we're told there is a script, we mostly stick to it. We work in a dangerous factory or mine for low pay because that's what our fathers did. We marry people that aren't right for us because we got pregnant or we're in our thirties now and its probably time. When our friends do the same and the preacher asks if anyone objects, we keep our mouths shut. We assume that Darfur thing has sorted itself out by now. We go to church on Sunday less because of our beliefs than because we don't want to be asked why we weren't there. We survive a car wreck and eat at Hardees the next day. We figure marijuana must be more dangerous than tobacco because that's how the law is. Our bands haven't practiced in 3 months, played a gig in 7. We can accept our government torturing some people because they were probably bad anyway. We hate our jobs, but now is not a good time to look for a new one. We don't talk to a beautiful stranger even though we'd never see them again and have nothing to lose. We go to law school.
You don't have to like the film or the story. If you need the characters to be more dynamic to interest you, that's fair. I'm partial to heightened situations in drama myself (for example, as much as I appreciate Mad Men, I'd sell it down the river in a heartbeat if it meant saving Breaking Bad). But unrealistic, that I'm not buying. I see this stuff every day without even leaving the house. Does the abbreviated lifespan of the donors highlight the absurdity of it all? Again, that's the entire point. And the film does present life as precious, even if Robin Williams doesn't have a monologue spelling that out, and love does motivate the characters and lead them to act, even if what they change are their personal relationships rather than the system that oppresses them. Again, perfectly fine if that's too muted for your taste, but to compare it to high school poetry is simply unfair.
How could a spider-bite make someone a super-spider? That's the most ludicrous thing I've heard of. Why can't the makers spend the entire movie explaining how DNA works so I can understand why Spider-Man is able to do what he does. I mean, seriously, if he's nitting terminal velocity in those swings, then he'd die or go unconscious.
A guy could have a glowing anvil sprouting from his bell-end for all I care, as long as he and those around him acted in a plausable way. In the instance of Spiderman they do. In Never Let Me Go, not so much. I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time grasping this concept.
You're the one who seems to be having a hard time with a concept.
To be fair, he's complaining about the psychology of the characters not ringing true, not that the science of cloning doesn't hold up to real genetic scrutiny. I disagree with him, but it's not the same as questioning the physics of Spiderman. It would be more like asking what the hell kind of teenager would, upon finding out he has super-strength, decide he needed to knit himself the gayest bodysuit ever so he could be an unpaid policeman.
Still waiting for a movie to answer that question, for the record.
Thanks Schwartz and I'm sorry to you others if I'm not presenting my problem adequately. I'll try a different tact.
The premise with NLMG interferes with the way I can relate to the characters as fellow human beings.
For the scenario in NLMG to work, on a societal level, it would necessitate that the norm for everyone is to have very little empathy for one another and very little in the way of independent thought.
The author has made it clear that freedom does not exist in his world, the author has said we are to ignore the very concept.
That then is not a society I can relate to, they are not characters I can relate to. It's too removed from human behaviour to warrant consideration as human behaviour. It's a robot world, it plays with all the indifference of a wound spring unwinding, and that is all.
The author is saying "Life sucks!" and I'm saying "I know, tell me something new".
Honestly, I'm done on this subject. I don't particularly want to give this film any more of my time.
The problem is that everyone dies. The cloning stuff exists for the film to be about mortality.
Asking "why don't they escape" is like asking "why don't we live forever." I understand that this is a problem for some viewers, but in wrestling with that is not wrestlign with the text. The problem with most films about the future is that it posits a unbelievable solution to a problem (crime, expanding population) and then beats it (Pre-Crime is disbanded, Logan completes his run). But the way the present works is that we come to accept most advances.
Thanks Schwartz and I'm sorry to you others if I'm not presenting my problem adequately. I'll try a different tact.
The premise with NLMG interferes with the way I can relate to the characters as fellow human beings.
For the scenario in NLMG to work, on a societal level, it would necessitate that the norm for everyone is to have very little empathy for one another and very little in the way of independent thought.
The author has made it clear that freedom does not exist in his world, the author has said we are to ignore the very concept.
That then is not a society I can relate to, they are not characters I can relate to. It's too removed from human behaviour to warrant consideration as human behaviour. It's a robot world, it plays with all the indifference of a wound spring unwinding, and that is all.
The author is saying "Life sucks!" and I'm saying "I know, tell me something new".
Honestly, I'm done on this subject. I don't particularly want to give this film any more of my time.
I'm guessing you're American? I think its key to understanding the text is Ishiguro is of English and Japanese descent, two societies that, while as ostensibly "free" as America in the political sense, have much more entrenched traditions when it comes to class structure and self-sacrifice in the name of public service, respectively.
And if you don't mind my asking, how old are you?
The problem is that everyone dies. The cloning stuff exists for the film to be about mortality.
Asking "why don't they escape" is like asking "why don't we live forever." I understand that this is a problem for some viewers, but in wrestling with that is not wrestlign with the text. The problem with most films about the future is that it posits a unbelievable solution to a problem (crime, expanding population) and then beats it (Pre-Crime is disbanded, Logan completes his run). But the way the present works is that we come to accept most advances.
I'm not sure if it's entirely the same as asking "why don't we live forever", because there's a difference between escaping and attempting to escape. If they were to actually get away, it would send a very muddled message about mortality, but simply attempting to run would be take a degree of control of their lives that the film laments them not having the willingness to. Not that this wouldn't muddle the message in its own right. And this is ignoring that Tommy and Kathy do attempt to escape in their own meager, rather pathetic way.
The thing I think blipper is missing is that just because the book/film is sympathetic to the characters doesn't mean it approves of their behavior. Like almost all the most pessimistic stories, it is nothing if not a challenge to do better.
The part about futuristic movies is dead on.
Damn, just can't get away.
Schwartz, for what it's worth I'm 39 and from England. I'm actually only around a 40 minute drive from Kazuo Ishiguro's place of growing up (if his wiki is to be trusted) and a couple of hours drive from Hailsham so I'm not sure it's a cultural misunderstanding I have.
I get what you are saying re: this is about people *resigned* to a fate, and Damon, I am not demanding a film more concerned with 'denial of fate' such as Logan's Run. I also understand what you mean about how something may appear strange from a distance but to those who have grown alonside the change, there is nothing particularly odd.
But I do expect a film with an internal logic that does not gloss over how people can arrive so submissively at such an appalling idea.
In Logan's Run we can easily imagine how an isolated community can comfortably manipulate subsequent generations, so it doesn't become an issue. These new generations simply don't have access to any information that hasn't been vetted.
To all intents and purposes the world of Never Let Me Go is presented as identical to ours, no isolationism, no totalitarianism, or behaviour-altering drugs. The one glaring difference of course is that it's ok and quite normal to kill healthy young humans who walk and work alongside us. For some reason.
There are perfectly good reasons in the real world why people do acquiesce to a similar fate that don't require a leap of imagination or fumbling of analogy, be it arranged marriage, a battered spouse, caste system and so on, so for the author to employ a shaky science-fiction premise that only ever minimally addresses this and always feels like an annoyance to the author is quite bewildering and unsatisfying.
Why bother with it at all?
It's seems to me to be a film that wants the glory of a gold medal but doesn't want to put the work into the training, it feels the equivalent of that cheap trick of just slapping some generic sad music over some otherwise banal visual in order to illicit a response. There are much more effective and satisfying means of conveying the authors message than the curiously oblique method he has chosen, in my opinion.
To all intents and purposes the world of Never Let Me Go is presented as identical to ours, no isolationism, no totalitarianism, or behaviour-altering drugs. The one glaring difference of course is that it's ok and quite normal to kill healthy young humans who walk and work alongside us. For some reason.
That's not a glaring difference. Hence, your misreading of the film.
That's not a glaring difference.
Actually it kind of is. I'm not aware of any overt UK government sanctioned murder of UK citizens at this time. So no misreading.
Your frame of reference is far too small.
It's your replies that are small Gabe, care to expand?
Damn, just can't get away.
Schwartz, for what it's worth I'm 39 and from England. I'm actually only around a 40 minute drive from Kazuo Ishiguro's place of growing up (if his wiki is to be trusted) and a couple of hours drive from Hailsham so I'm not sure it's a cultural misunderstanding I have.
To all intents and purposes the world of Never Let Me Go is presented as identical to ours, no isolationism, no totalitarianism, or behaviour-altering drugs. The one glaring difference of course is that it's ok and quite normal to kill healthy young humans who walk and work alongside us. For some reason.
Well, so much for that theory.
I think Gabe is making a political point about modern day England not being entirely devoid of the characteristics you list. And even if that were true, we're given so little of the world outside of the donor system that it's something of an assumption to say it is exactly the same. But beyond that, in the world of the film, there is a concrete reason why it is considered okay to kill young people, being the harvested organs that allow "normals" to cheat death a bit longer. And it is able to occur because they are not considered "normal" or even "human", much less full citizens, and only walk and work alongside "us" in the most limited sense. The clones are not the only ones uncomfortable in that diner.
It does seem like you missed or are ignoring a couple of things about the set up. Hailsham was not the norm vis a vis the experience of clones, but was in fact the last vestige of the opposition to the donor system, which is largely glossed over because focusing on it would make this a story about cloning instead of dying. They are generally even more isolated from society. A security system is implied to prevent the clones from running, but this is largely glossed over because focusing on it would make it into a story about imprisonment instead of dying. The clones are unable to reproduce by design, but this is largely glossed over because focusing on it would make it into a story about living on through one's progeny instead of dying.
How many slave uprisings were there in America? For the most part it boils down to Nat Turner. How many people believe in God? How many people believe in that because that's what they're parents believed? Etc. etc.
Just watched this and came away very impressed. Subtle and brilliantly made. Mulligan and Garfield were terrific.
Romanek wow I liked One Hour Photo and this even more. I really would have liked to have seen what he would have done with The Wolfman.
Can't wait to see his next film.
SPOILER SPACE
Really reacted strongly to this. Knightley's death stood out, the editing of her confession/asking for forgiveness makes it so that we don't see the other two say goodbye, and have no details about their reaction to her death. Nothing other than Mulligan telling her they are trying for a deferral, to which I think she reacts with only a sigh, and Mulligan walks away. That plus the operation shot was extremely affecting... she was punished for youthful man-stealing with a lonely, lingering death.
Tried watching this over the weekend. I understood the subtext/human condition allusions, but honestly found it too slow and, yes, boring. "Pretty English people standing in a field," indeed. It was beautifully shot and thoughtfully done, but simply didn't connect with me. Made it about 45 minutes in and turned it off. (And I'm not someone who minds a lot of quiet or slow pacing - I really dig Soderbergh's SOLARIS and Shyamalan's UNBREAKABLE.)
I'll admit to wondering why the hell they didn't try to escape, but I think the points made above answer that question, both story-internal and underlying theme-wise. I didn't make it to Garfield's big scene apparently, and found it him pretty boring and empty in this character (I liked him in SOCIAL NETWORK).
Finally saw this over the weekend, and damn, I'm having a hard time shaking it. I can certainly see how people who don't connect to the characters can find it boring, but, for me, it's been a while since I've seen something so affecting. The whole thing was like an emotional gut punch. Great performances from the leads, really subtle but effective world-building. I do agree that the last line was too on-the-nose. Other than that, my only complaint is that I'll probably never be able to bring myself to watch it again.
Grace, agree. After I saw it I cried for like ten minutes. The way it gently builds to the inevitable end just killed me. Such an original, beautiful movie.
