Never Let Me Go
Apprentice 2 SA
Posts: 2,342 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Just watched this - it was broadcast just before Xmas. Very gripping (in a 'Returned' sort of way). I enjoyed it but am left with 2 questions.
First what was the idea of waving their hand at a sensor every time they left or entered a building.
Second, more generally, why would such clones let themselves be treated like this.
I realise that, like 'The Returned' I may get criticised for expecting logical answers which may go against the point of the movie, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
First what was the idea of waving their hand at a sensor every time they left or entered a building.
Second, more generally, why would such clones let themselves be treated like this.
I realise that, like 'The Returned' I may get criticised for expecting logical answers which may go against the point of the movie, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
0
Comments
The result of conditioning, which the book is far better at putting across.
NLMG is an okayish film that skims too quickly through the novel, I thought. But then the novel is fantastic. A real heart-stopper and stealth job that stays with you long after you've put it down.
I think her performance in this is up there with the best acting I've ever seen. I cried +++++++
Thanks for that. I wondered if the book might give more detail.
A related thought. Why does the public think this is acceptable. It was touched upon in the film that people couldn't do without their donations, but it still seems a pretty horrific way to treat people. Which links on to whether the clones can be considered people, which was also mentioned in the film, but it's still unbelievable the way the clones were treated. I realise that's the point of the film, to have that reaction, but I needed more justification for the way the clones were treated / considered not human. Did the book give that?
Carey Mulligan is the most sympathetic actress I've ever seen.
You don't think that the film is trying to draw analogies with the way a minority of powerful people actually do treat/exploit the weakest in society? How people are conditioned to accept the role that is set out for them in life? It's not a moral universe unknown to us, as we are seeing more and more cases of modern slavery which we thought was long gone. The film is so bleak, so without hope I find it hard to watch.
Yes and no, but you should read the book, anyway. The explanation given during the climax in the film is somewhat different from the explanation in the novel, which - for me - carries a heavier impact. I liked the film adaptation as much as I liked the novel, which is helped by believing it's best to treat a novel and a film adaptation as two separate entities that happen to share the same premise.
I agree with that. It raises an interesting point when films leave plot holes in order to draw analogies. I would prefer both. Plot holes filled and successful analogies.
But imagine that all your life you had been conditioned to think this is your purpose. You've got no-one you can turn to. Most people really don't care about your plight. Attempting to run would seem hopeless. That's what makes the film and book so sad. But also so much more real.
I've found a summary which I think helps fill in the gaps in the film, when combined with Johnny Clay's earlier comment "The result of conditioning, which the book is far better at putting across."
That's very true. The film did make it clear there was no one to turn to to get answers. At the cottage all they had was a delivery driver.
But my goodness. That last scene.
I agree. And we as an audience felt that tiny stage by tiny stage as the full horror was revealed.
The book is also more expansive on other themes, some familiar to Kazuo Ishiguro's previous novels: The power of memory, the passage of time, the preciousness (and consequences) of small things and small acts. All collude to provide the novel with the sort of subtle emotional punch the film can only sparsely match.
However, one thing that did surprise me about the film was Kiera Knightley. Her unquestioning acceptance of her fate was very well played. A solitary moment of her weakened self struggling through a door captures the book superbly.
The plot holes are not essential for the story and the emotional impact of the film. In fact I'm not sure there are any plot holes.
The idea that the clones don't try to escape is about conditioning, the lie about deferring is an analogy with so many deceptions that keep people in their place, it's perfect! It reminds me of Logan's Run and Elysium.
The film raises questions about the nature of being human (and inhuman), the nature of selfishness, self-interest, science without ethics, the mind/body duality. It covers a lot of areas but it is essentially about the existential nightmare of what if life has no meaning?
But I felt like it had something missing.
I would have preferred more exploration of some of the themes. It felt a bit light in that regard.
I enjoyed the scenes at the boarding school, but I couldn't help wanting them to explore those themes a bit more. I was left wanting.
I felt as though that final sequence of Kathy at the field under the tree was spoonfeeding a bit too much.
I think that sometimes films shouldn't literally spell things out, as I think by the end of the film people would liken the lives of the clones with our own lives anyway. No need to spell it out so literally in the voiceover. If you have to literally tell the audience what they should conclude from the story then it's as though you're not confident with the material you've just shown.
I think that's when voiceover narration can be used badly.
However at the same time it was heartbreaking to see her cling on to some glimmer of hope.
I don't think that the idea is very orignal either, so I think I would have preferred something in there to hold it up a bit more, as it felt like the 'weepie' elements were often overused at the expense of going a bit deeper with other aspects. But some of the sad scenes were pitch perfect. In particular Kathy and the lad showing the artwork in the hope of obtaining a deferral. Very effective scene.
I felt it lacked in some way I find hard to put my finger on, but still a well made engaging film with good performances though.
Absolutely. The allegorical aspect hinting towards real life society, authority, and systems of power was one of the elements of the film I was aware of throughout.
What I liked about that was that it remained as subtext, as opposed to the scene at the end which I felt was spoonfeeding far too much, which I referred to in my previous post.
I have no doubt that the choice of using a farm in the mid-section of the film was very deliberate in terms of subtext.