Never Let Me Go review
I think I’ve only been to the Hyde Park Picture House three times, but I really should go more often; it’s cheaper than Vue, closer to my house, and is the most adorable independent cinema you could hope for (and that’s something worth supporting in this day and age), and nearing its centennial.
Tonight we saw Never Let Me Go, based on the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro. It wasn’t my first choice – I was thinking of seeing Black Swan or True Grit, which have better ratings on Rotten Tomatoes, but I’m glad I saw it. It wasn’t a great film, but I think it’s important to watch films that are nearly great to understand what makes the best films really special. Plus, the storyline really interested me more than ballerina battles or Western remakes (though I’m sure they’re great films and I will get round to seeing them when I can).
There’s a school. There are children and teachers and singing. But there is a mystery! The mystery gets explained pretty early on, but it’s the concept, not the twist, which is pretty much central to the film. The idea’s been done before (see Ursula Le Guin’s The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas and – oh yeah, of course! – way back in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov1) but it’s still a really rich concept and the way the film explores it is watchable enough. But it doesn’t quite explore it enough. I was left with questions – why don’t they just run away? Why do people put up with this? Why do they use expensive schools and country estates? How does the system work?
Granted, these aren’t the important things; they’re more a kind of nerdy curiosity that can get in the way of a good story far too often. I think you’re just meant to assume it’s all dealt with, and to suspend disbelief – but how far should a film require you to suspend disbelief? If the outcome was compelling enough, could you make a story that defied all logical sense?
In the end it all comes down to a rather harrowing scene which portrays the film’s main metaphor; mankind brings all his greatest works and arguments to God and asks for just a little more time, and God says no. (Shades of Blade Runner in there, when I think about it.) It’s a powerful idea, and a good story, but I couldn’t get over the central idea the film asks you to swallow. I just don’t believe it could be allowed to happen.
1from Chapter 4: “Listen! If all must suffer to pay for the eternal harmony, what have children to do with it, tell me, please? It’s beyond all comprehension why they should suffer, and why they should pay for the harmony. Why should they, too, furnish material to enrich the soil for the harmony of the future? … I don’t want harmony. From love for humanity I don’t want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it’s beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It’s not God that I don’t accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return Him the ticket.”










Recent Comments