Never Let Me Go Review

Never Let Me Go, is a 2010 under seen and underrated film directed by Mark Romanek based on the novel of the same name by Kazuo Ishiguro. The film deals with a group of children raised in an alternate, future reality in which sets of children are designed strictly as organ donors. Specifically the film follows three donor children who are quarantined at a boarding school until they are adults and can start to undergo their required painful surgeries. Those who live to see three surgeries are considered lucky. The film is a coming of age journey cut short and although highly depressing, it is a good watch.

Armond White's review of the film, which one can find through this link, is a combined review of Never Let Me Go and Easy A (you can ignore the Easy A parts). Although he likes this particular director he hates the film. He blames the film's shortcomings on the source material, saying the book was so devoid of any historical/social connection he has no interest in the story or characters. Adapting the novel, in the first place, was his problem. In fact, the only scene he does appreciate in the film was not in the book. He blames the author for inept characters, having no personality, therefore no place in society. Although the film takes place in a very historical time period, these donor children seem to find no place in it. The 1960s and 1970s was a time of rebellion and these children never even question why their bodies are treated like medical school dummies. Therefore who cares about them or their fate?

This is where I disagree. First, the book as does the film, takes place in the alternate reality. Therefore how do we, as the viewer, know that the radicalism of the 60's and the 70's even still exist. The viewer sees very little of the outside world, so for all we know, the world is still stuck in the conservatism of the 1950s. Secondly, I feel the book and the film both comment on something much bigger. The children are secluded in a boarding school and know nothing other than the life that was taught to them. How would they know anything of rebellion? Or why would anyone of them necessarily have much of a personality, something which is acquired through interaction with the outside world? I disagree that they have no personality anyway, but that is a whole different digression. The story is commenting on what it is to be human, as many clone/test tube baby stories do. Could we ever live in a world in which we treated human life as meaningless? Could humanity ever get so cold? But it also comments on something even bigger than that, encapsulated in the last line of the film (in which Armond hates). Everything ends and it's up to us to determine how we deal with that.