Gail sees a movie: Never Let Me Go
Despite interesting characters and strong performances, Never Let Me Go is disappointing. Aside from the unoriginal and implausible plot points, this film fails to examine the issues it raises. Despite some early promise in the first half of the film, the characters (and the audience) never really take that emotional journey necessary for a satisfying film.
Hailsham seems like a typical English boarding school in the 1970’s. Young Kathy (Izzy Meikle-Small), Tommy (Charlie Rowe) and Ruth (Ella Purnell) seem happy enough as they live and learn under the watchful eye of the stern but compassionate Miss Emily (Charlotte Rampling). The real purpose of the school is revealed early in the film and in several of the trailers, so no spoilers here. The children are clones, created for the purpose of donating their organs. Apparently, this scientific “breakthrough” allows people to live long and healthy lives, free from cancer and other fatal diseases. It is not such a good deal for the clones, as they spend their childhoods sheltered from the outside world until they are 18, when they begin to make organ donations. They make as many as three or four donations until they “complete” (die), usually in their 20’s. The first part of the film takes place in the school, and the rest of the film shows the now adult (and played by adult actors) Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Tommy (Andrew Garfield) and Ruth (Keira Knightley). The three friends are involved in a bit of a love triangle, but does this really matter if their future is so bleak?
The trio of child actors does a lovely job in the first part of the film, and I immediately felt invested in the fate of their characters. Charlotte Rampling is imposing as Miss Emily, who is convinced that the school and donor plan improves lives. Is she a villain or just misguided? She tells the children that there will be a sale (they have been collecting tokens) as a “bumper crop” of items will be delivered. The children squeal with delight over old and broken toys that seem to have been taken from the trash. I really enjoyed the scenes like this one at Hailsham, assuming they were setting the stage for the larger conflict.
The friendship between the three children is believable, as is the burgeoning romance between Ruth and Tommy and the obvious feeling between Tommy and Kathy, as Kathy pines on the sidelines. Carey Mulligan is vulnerable and compelling here, much as she was in An Education. She narrates some of the film in voiceovers, and the story is told from her point of view. Mulligan imbues Kathy with innocence and compassion, and it is hard not to root for her. Garfield is appropriately sincere and optimistic as Tommy and Knightley shows her usual sexiness and sensitivity as Ruth. These characters are sheltered and innocent, and all three actors effectively convey this. I was interested in their relationships, enjoyed all of their scenes together and was eager to see how the plot twists would affect them. The problem is that there are no real plot twists. The air of melancholy that pervades the film sets the stage only for more melancholy. Moreover, we do not see much of the rest of the population, so we never really see the benefits of the donor program. In a world where many groups protest cruelty and experimentation on animals, where are the advocates for the rights of these clones? Where are all the rebel clones? Where is a more complex examination of ethical considerations and the characters’ conflicting emotions? And for the audience, where is the eventual payoff?
The screenplay by Alex Garland was based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, and perhaps the novel further explored some of these issues. But I found the end of this film unsatisfying. The plot resolution was disappointing and I regretted my initial emotional investment.
Never Let Me Go. Directed by Mark Romanek. Carey Mulligan (Kathy), Andrew Garfield (Tommy), Keira Knightley (Ruth), Izzy Meikle-Small (Young Kathy), Charlie Rowe (Young Tommy), Ella Purnell (Young Ruth), Charlotte Rampling (Miss Emily)and Sally Hawkins (Miss Lucy) Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2010.
Gail sees a movie appears every Wednesday.
Latest posts by Gail D. Rosen (Posts)
- Gail sees a movie: The Company Men - February 2, 2011
- Gail sees a movie: No Strings Attached - January 26, 2011
- Gail sees a movie: Country Strong - January 19, 2011
- Gail sees a movie: Tiny Furniture - January 12, 2011
- Gail sees a movie: Casino Jack - January 5, 2011
Print This Post
I’m not sure if the reviewer realises that the film is very faithful to the spirit of the book. The novel is written from a first person’s point of view (Kathy’s) . Accordingly, the ‘outside world’ is only described in fragments, which serves to highlight the fact that these characters are very sheltered from the ‘real world’. You can’t really attack the filmmaker for not showing the rest of the population if a) he was being faithful to the source material and b) the whole point of the story is that we get a very unique insight into the lives of these characters by being immersed in their own world (knowing what they know). Also the original story isn’t about rebel clones, and even if the filmmakers decided to include superfluous subplots of an uprising, how would that add to the love story that is at the heart of the plot? In my opinion, the purpose of the novel was not to spark a debate on cloning per se, but rather to examine the fragility of life in a world where people are inhumanely discarded and bred for a questionable purpose. The movie didn’t hand hold the audience and spell everything out. You don’t get every loose thread tied in a neat little bow at the end. Instead, this film challenges the viewer by inviting reflection and thought long after the credits roll. This for me was the eventual payoff, but obviously if you want immediate gratification this might not be the film for you.
Thanks for you comment. I had heard from people that both liked the film and the book and disliked both that it is a faithful adaptation. I have not yet read the book, but the film just did not work for me in the end. I am glad you enjoyed it, I agree that this is a film that may spark interesting conversations after the film is over.