Meek Submission

email this story
read comments (40)
post a comment

In Contention's Kris Tapley has joined the ranks of the frustrated regarding Mark Romanek's Never Let Me Go, and for the same simple reason. He can't understand (and is perplexed that the movie fails to satisfactorily explain) why the lead characters, all trapped in a situation that threatens their lives, don't try to escape.

Romanek's adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel "kept me at arm's length from frame one," he writes. "There is a distance here, a cold sense of removal from what would otherwise be an extremely moving narrative. I wanted desperately to feel for the characters and their plight, but I felt nothing...at all. I wanted them to rage against their circumstances and show an ounce of the spirit they in one instance even set out to prove they have, but there was, again, nothing.

"Perhaps that's a subtle point of the piece, but I don't think so. Romanek seems to have David Fincher's tendency toward coolly registered emotional tones. And it does him no favors here. Of the cast, I was most responsive to Carey Mulligan's nearly catatonic state of inward consideration and turmoil, but Keira Knightley gets plenty of time to shine, while Andrew Garfield develops a unique character that nevertheless remained elusive when a sense of connection was sorely needed."

Update: USA Today's Anthony Breznican has tweeted agreement: "Never Let Me Go made me ask why don't these doomed people run, fight, resist?"

Hypothesis<< previous | next >>Cursed Again

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 4, 2010 at 6:47 AM

comment #1

Castle Bravo says ...

But the there's this: http://moviecitynews.com/2010/09/review-never-let-me-go/

Posted by Castle Bravo at September 4, 2010 7:33 AM

comment #2

C.C. Baxter says ...

I'm disappointed that apparently no one went to see the Weir, as I can't find a single review of last night's screening.

Posted by C.C. Baxter at September 4, 2010 7:35 AM

comment #3

liz says ...

Some of these reviewers are completely missing the point. *spoilers*

Why didnt they escape? Because they were conditioned since infancy that this was their purpose - live, donate then complete. They know no other way of life. In fantasy, those who are oppressed will resist against the injustices that are laid against them. In reality, most have little choice but to live out the life thats preset for them while everyone watches on.

David Poland got it one - the inevitably comparisons with the Holocuast is unavoidable:

Posted by liz at September 4, 2010 8:33 AM

comment #4

K. Bowen says ...

Why does every film have to "emotionally connect?" I don't want every movie to emotionally connect. It's a weak criticism for a decent amount of movies, particularly those invested in alienation. Such as The American, to use a current example. .

Posted by K. Bowen at September 4, 2010 8:40 AM

comment #5

SmilingPolitely says ...

Another counterpoint to Tapley:

Peter Sciretta(/Film) thought the movie was fantastic 9/10

http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/09/03/telluride-review-mark-romaneks-never-let-me-go/

Posted by SmilingPolitely at September 4, 2010 8:53 AM

comment #6

liz says ...

Variety has just posted a flat-out rave.

Richard Corliss for TIME magazine also raved it, but hasn't posted a review yet.

Posted by liz at September 4, 2010 8:55 AM

comment #7

MilkMan says ...

I've tried reading Ish's novel on three separate occasions and I have yet to get past the 60 page mark. I find it hideously overwritten. The so-called 'pulp' sci-novels that address this issue are much better. Romanek picked the wrong Ish novel to adapt; he should've tackled The Unconsoled.

You like Clone shit read Michael Martin Smith's Spares.

Posted by MilkMan at September 4, 2010 10:28 AM

comment #8

Bandito X says ...

The whole point of the book (I haven't seen the film), the tragedy that Ishiguro is relating, is that these kids are conditioned and raised to comply, in the same way that slaves throughout history (and there are more slaves today than at any previous point in history) don't always try to escape their fate by going on the run or leading an armed resistance - they think that's just the way it works and that's that. Also, in practical terms, they have no papers, money or living in society skills.

We've seen the sci fi fugitive movie a million times. Why not something more contemplative, like 1984 or Fahrenheit 451?

Posted by Bandito X at September 4, 2010 11:15 AM

comment #9

Anthony Breznican says ...

I tweeter agreement that I came out asking that question, but the movie has stuck with me. It's a haunting question, and one that applies to most people. I can think of ten things in my own life: "Why don't I just ... " but big life changes tend to fall victim to the status quo. We accept the path we're on. That's the beautiful point Never Let Me Go makes. Life is short. Why aren't we more bold? So in my case, it's not a criticism.

Posted by Anthony Breznican at September 4, 2010 11:42 AM

comment #10

Anthony Breznican says ...

The second half of that tweet made that point, btw. Why don't the doomed run, fight, escape? ... Then again, why is anyone still a journalist?

Posted by Anthony Breznican at September 4, 2010 11:47 AM

comment #11

adorian says ...

It seems to me that New York Magazine dropped a mega-ton spoiler about the plot in their Fall preview. Until I read it, I had no idea....

Posted by adorian at September 4, 2010 1:38 PM

comment #12

Mr. F. says ...

[sigh] Not THIS topic again, Wells -- it's like you've dug up the corpse of Mr. Ed to use as a pinata. Enough with the "Why don't they run?" chatter. (Especially if you've neither read the book nor seen the movie!)

Bandito is exactly right -- the whole POINT is that all of the children have been taught since birth about their special purpose, and they know of nothing else. They're trapped, but don't understand what or how to do things any differently. That's just what life *is*, and they're just living as they believe they're supposed to.

Posted by Mr. F. at September 4, 2010 2:02 PM

comment #13

Mr. F. says ...

(Having ranted: I'm curious to see what British critics will think of the movie, since that mindset of obedience and conformity is particularly English, just like Ishiguro...)

Posted by Mr. F. at September 4, 2010 2:04 PM

comment #14

Bandito X says ...

Yeah, adorian, that's a big spoiler bomb, almost hilarious in it's to-the-point spoilerishness. It's like a Crying Game preview that says "An Irish terrorist on the run falls for a transexual".

Sorry you got spoiled, but I'm intrigued as to what your thoughts on the film were before you read the preview. Did you have any inkling as to what "the secret" was? Did you think that it was just a drama, or did you know there was something in the plot to get spoiled on? Do you want to see it more or less now?

I'm always fascinated by the effect of spoilers on the enjoyment of a film. I loved The Sixth Sense, but my brother thought it was just ok having been told the twist in advance. With Unbreakable, our positions were reversed - I guessed the final twist right away, as soon as Samuel L.Jackson came onscreen practically; but my brother didn't and was blown away.

In the case of Never Let Me Go it's not so bad - apparently it's made pretty clear in the opening sections of the film (in the book it's about one third of the way in that it becomes obvious).

Posted by Bandito X at September 4, 2010 2:58 PM

comment #15

adorian says ...

Bandito X...I assumed it was going to be a straight drama, perhaps with some kind of sexual relationship secret that happened to one or two of them as children that now colors their relationships as adults. I really don't care to see it now that I know what it's really about.

I used to work with the worst possible person who never went to a movie or read a book, but he would hear about them from other people and then SHOUT the big secrets to anyone who said they were going to go see such-and-such a movie...or they bought such-and-such a book.

He ruined The Crying Game for a lot of our friends. He ruined The Sixth Sense. When people would call him on it, he would just snarl, "But everyone already knows." He didn't know anything about Gosford Park, but he still tried to ruin it for me. I was happy to learn he was wrong.

Posted by adorian at September 4, 2010 3:46 PM

comment #16

Mr. F. says ...

But to be clear... neither the book (nor, apparently, the movie) make the "secret" the POINT. It's about how the characters react to the discovery and deal with it. No one should expect this to be the next Sixth Sense -- that's not at all the point.

Posted by Mr. F. at September 4, 2010 5:42 PM

comment #17

Bandito X says ...

Absolutely. Bringing up those films was just a tangent.

The "secret" could actually be anything - sexual abuse, drug addiction - any bad situation that outsiders can look at and say "why didn't they just escape?" but for the conditioned victim seems inescapable. It's one thing to tell the Spartacus story of rebelling and tearing down the system, but Never Let Me Go is the story of all the other guys who didn't want - or even know they wanted - to risk the little they had against some unrealistic or improbable chance of escape.

Posted by Bandito X at September 4, 2010 6:23 PM

comment #18