by Jillian Butler, Ampersandology
Never Let Me Go, based on the novel of the same name by Kazuo Ishiguro, is just as dour, bleak and depressing as the book. And I mean that in a good way!
*spoilers follow, if you`ve never read the book, heard an interview or seen a trailer for this film at all*
Never Let Me Go takes place in an alternate 20th century. In this Bizarro World, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy are just a few of the many children who live at Hailsham, a boarding school that evidently has more to its makeup than meets the eye. The children are told repeatedly how special they are, and live lives under careful scrutiny for their diet, behavior and activities. Gradually, it's revealed that they are part of a mysterious, unexplained medical process that allows humans to expand their lives comfortably, but only at the cost of human donors. The three children are these donors, raised with the expectation and assumption that someday, they too will undergo the procedures that will give life to other people while taking their own away.
Now I'm a big believer that when facing adaptations, you need to judge a film independently from its source material, to a certain degree. They're different mediums, and as such, aim for entirely different goals, executed through different modes of communication. The screenplay was the work of Alex Garland, better known to Jill and those like her as the man behind The Beach and 28 Days Later, but the effort in transferring the source material to the screen plays is evident.
The problem with this adaptation, of course, is that the surface of the source material isn't much to stand on, as far as third acts go. Never Let Me Go isn't a plot driven story--it's tragedy comes not from sudden, life-shattering events but rather, the gradual and inevitable end of these three characters that hangs over every page. Ishiguro's deft blend of narrative and characterization that makes it compelling, not the plot. If that leaves the film as a character piece, then all the better, but what ends up onscreen from the novel is only the tip of Hemingway's iceberg.
Still, taken as a work unto itself, then, Never Let Me Go is a restrained work of mysterious qualities, and I could see how someone who had never known the book or its story could be satisfied; most of the central characters seem to shift and mutate like shadows on a wall--identifiable yet somehow otherworldly and operating under their own laws.
It's still a beautiful film, don't get me wrong. Only the second outing of Mark Romanek, he plays with a muted color palette that holds no suggestion of youth or vibrancy, suggesting the neutered potential of these short lives to dazzling effect. The actors, especially Carey Mulligan as Kathy and Andrew Garfield as Tommy, tease out careful, deliberate portrayals that do a great deal with the little they're given to build on.
But what was perhaps most interesting was the Q&A session after the film, which, along with the cast and the director and production team, was attended by Kazuo Ishiguro himself. He, said, in response to the very simple question of why the donors never tried to escape (please note here, I'm parapharsing from memory):
Chilling. I only wish that nuance could have translated onscreen.
World Premiere; cast in attendance.
Never Let Me Go, based on the novel of the same name by Kazuo Ishiguro, is just as dour, bleak and depressing as the book. And I mean that in a good way!
*spoilers follow, if you`ve never read the book, heard an interview or seen a trailer for this film at all*
Never Let Me Go takes place in an alternate 20th century. In this Bizarro World, Kathy, Ruth and Tommy are just a few of the many children who live at Hailsham, a boarding school that evidently has more to its makeup than meets the eye. The children are told repeatedly how special they are, and live lives under careful scrutiny for their diet, behavior and activities. Gradually, it's revealed that they are part of a mysterious, unexplained medical process that allows humans to expand their lives comfortably, but only at the cost of human donors. The three children are these donors, raised with the expectation and assumption that someday, they too will undergo the procedures that will give life to other people while taking their own away.
Now I'm a big believer that when facing adaptations, you need to judge a film independently from its source material, to a certain degree. They're different mediums, and as such, aim for entirely different goals, executed through different modes of communication. The screenplay was the work of Alex Garland, better known to Jill and those like her as the man behind The Beach and 28 Days Later, but the effort in transferring the source material to the screen plays is evident.
The problem with this adaptation, of course, is that the surface of the source material isn't much to stand on, as far as third acts go. Never Let Me Go isn't a plot driven story--it's tragedy comes not from sudden, life-shattering events but rather, the gradual and inevitable end of these three characters that hangs over every page. Ishiguro's deft blend of narrative and characterization that makes it compelling, not the plot. If that leaves the film as a character piece, then all the better, but what ends up onscreen from the novel is only the tip of Hemingway's iceberg.
Still, taken as a work unto itself, then, Never Let Me Go is a restrained work of mysterious qualities, and I could see how someone who had never known the book or its story could be satisfied; most of the central characters seem to shift and mutate like shadows on a wall--identifiable yet somehow otherworldly and operating under their own laws.
It's still a beautiful film, don't get me wrong. Only the second outing of Mark Romanek, he plays with a muted color palette that holds no suggestion of youth or vibrancy, suggesting the neutered potential of these short lives to dazzling effect. The actors, especially Carey Mulligan as Kathy and Andrew Garfield as Tommy, tease out careful, deliberate portrayals that do a great deal with the little they're given to build on.
But what was perhaps most interesting was the Q&A session after the film, which, along with the cast and the director and production team, was attended by Kazuo Ishiguro himself. He, said, in response to the very simple question of why the donors never tried to escape (please note here, I'm parapharsing from memory):
I didn't want to tell the story of humans persevering against incredible oppression. That story didn't interest me, because it's been told so many times, the slaves breaking out against their masters. What interested me was the slaves that didn't break out of their servitude, that accepted their miserable lot in life. I was interested in what could have happened in the minds of those people that just gave in to greater social forces, and what effect that has on your humanity.
Chilling. I only wish that nuance could have translated onscreen.
Have a suggestion for a future Ampersandology topic? Got something
you’d like to say? All feedback welcome! Shoot us an email at ampersandology@gmail.com, or follow Ampersandology on Facebook.
No comments:
Post a Comment