| Review:
|
Walking out of "Never Let Me Go," I felt as if I had
experienced a death. This isn't to suggest that the film
pushed me away. If anything, I was deeply drawn in, entirely
taken by the sheer power it had on me emotionally. I'm fairly
certain I wasn't the only one; I sensed solemnity in the
audience I sat with, the profound feelings of shock, loss,
grief, anger, and helplessness. The film projects all that,
as if saying, "It's not fair. It shouldn't have to be this
way." At the same time, the film also projects profound
feelings of resignation, as if saying, "Life isn't fair,
and it doesn't matter what should or shouldn't be - that's
just the way it is." Perhaps so, but that doesn't make it
any easier. This movie haunted me, and I don't mean that
I was frightened or repulsed; its themes, its characters,
and its plot have a lasting effect, the ability to move
us in the most personal of ways.***
Adapted from the novel by Kazuo Ishiguro (best known
for "The Remains of the Day"), "Never Let Me Go" takes place
in an alternate universe, where medical science achieved
what was thought to be impossible; in 1952, all previously
incurable diseases could be cured, allowing for the average
life expectancy to increase to over 100 years by 1967. But
how did such a thing happen? The opening title card is intentionally
vague on the specifics - all it says is that it was the
result of a "medical breakthrough." With that in mind, we
plunge into the story proper, which begins in 1978 at Hailsham,
a charming-looking but isolated British boarding school
surrounded by miles of open fields. The children and teenagers
who attend know absolutely nothing of the outside world.
They wouldn't dream of leaving; they've all heard horror
stories about those who have crossed over the fence.***
They've also heard repeatedly from headmistress Miss
Emily (Charlotte Rampling) that they're all special. What
exactly does this mean? We gradually come to understand,
although hints are dropped all throughout the opening section.
Consider the fact that every student wears a special bracelet,
one they must pass over a mechanical device whenever they
reenter the school building. Also consider that every student
has no last name other than an initial. And then consider
a lecture given by the ever observant Miss Lucy (Sally Hawkins),
one in which she sorrowfully explains to the students that,
while most children can grow up and be anything they want,
they will never be anything; their paths have already been
chosen for them. Do the students understand this? They may
hear the words, but I imagine it would be difficult for
them to fully grasp their meaning, especially when the only
world they've ever known has been the grounds of a boarding
school.***
Emphasis is placed on artistic achievement, specifically
poetry, drama, music, and - most importantly - drawing and
painting. The best pieces are chosen by an elusive figure
known as Madame to be displayed a section of the school
called The Gallery. They're encouraged to participate in
sports and eat a healthy diet. They earn colored tokens,
each having monetary value; every so often, they can use
their tokens to buy assorted knick knacks, all delivered
to Hailsham via truck.***
Three students are introduced: Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy.
As adolescents (played by Isobel Meikle-Small, Ella Purnell,
and Charlie Rowe respectively), they dutifully engage in
strict regiment, although they also develop as individuals,
forming a close friendship in spite of the cliques students
are often separated by. Kathy is observant and calm. Ruth
is bold and opinionated. Tommy is a shy boy who isn't as
creatively inclined and is picked on by other boys. As adults
in 1985 (played by Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and
Andrew Garfield respectively), tensions rise when they're
sent to a residential community that grants them more exposure
to the outside world; not only do they not know how to cope
in such a place (they're incapable, for example, of deciding
for themselves what to order in a restaurant), they're also
at odds over their needs and desires, Tommy's physical attraction
to Ruth seemingly upstaged by his emotional attraction to
Kathy.***
The film ends in 1994, at which point Kathy has become
a Carer and has been separated from Ruth and Tommy for years.
I dare not reveal what a Carer is, nor should I say anything
more about Ruth and Tommy, for their fates are too attached
to the secret the story revolves around. It's revealed not
as a surprise twist but rather as a disturbingly slow unfolding
of events, all of which lead to a devastating conclusion.
This in itself very easily could have been weepy and melodramatic,
but director Mark Romanek and screenwriter Alex Garland
instead opted to handle it with a fascinating sense of acceptance
- sad, but inescapable, like death.
|
