Suspension of disbelief - Never Let Me Go (2010) Discussion

[–] Groveful 13 years ago

I think the idea that it wasn't very explained was because in this particular society, the people behind the cloning and harvesting kept the clones and what was happening to them out of the view of the public because they didn't feel that people wanted to have to decide how just or unjust the ordeal was. As long as they didn't have to think about it, it's like it wasn't happening. I mean there are a TON of examples where horrible things have happened that a majority of people, for one reason or another, allowed to happen without really questioning the morality behind it. i.e the Holocaust, internment camps, and so on. I can understand how you don't feel you can extend your imagination enough to picture the story realistically , especially with how little it was explained; people for the most part want things explained.

reply

[–] evinjan 13 years ago

This comment is for thegroveful and to some extend for phelim3

I am perfectly able to extend my imagination, but like I said, given the fact that we are supposed to believe it's happening in a quasi-parallel society to ours, I am just not willing to surrender to the circumstances that arose. I get the whole 'genetics evolved faster, life expectancy expanded' thing, but I for one would find it HARD to believe that this 'matter' - i.e. the cloning and farming of people, would happen in EXACTLY SUCH a way. I think the (im)morality of the Holocaust was never questioned per se, not from the 'outside'. It's just a great Milgam-esque case of submitting to an authority without question. But I do agree that we evolve morally through time, as a people. It is just my humble belief that (like I pointed out in my post) it would have been done differently. This measure (cloning and farming people) seems quite radical and unnecessary to boot. If genetics were to advance so quickly, they would've been able to just grow organs, hell, they're doing it nowadays (with limited success, I admit, but still).

So in a sense, yeah, I do find it hard to extend my imagination into THAT SPECIFIC DIRECTION. And regarding the 'need for explanation' you can spare that comment. I don't need a Hollywoody movie with all things served on a platter to get into it. But I also don't like it when I smell too much *beep* (again, FOR MY OWN taste) in a premise that someone is trying to sell to me.

And don't get me wrong, I didn't touch the movie from an analytic point of view. I totally get some of the things the author tried to communicate - like appreciation of life, the parallel between our existence and theirs (we in a sense are also stuck living lives like they are). @phelim3: We don't need to 'think that something like this can happen to us', it already is in a certain sense. It's just that I didn't find the movie 'immersive' enough due to the points stated above.

Again to address phelim3 more specifically, I did not miss the exposition of context, I just couldn't immerse myself into it. Is it so hard to believe that's possible (even for a lover of all films)? I also love it when films break convention and put you as an observer 'in medias res' but this one just didn't cut it for me (again, due to the points stated above). You both moved the argument from the film itself to my being an amateur filmwatcher and Hollywood fanboy and concluded that that's the reason why I can't appreciate the premise. Surely this can be the only explanation right? :P And if we're talking unconventional, I can say that I loved 2001 and I especially loved Synecdoche, New York, which I find to be COMPLETELY unconventional in terms of storytelling. Yet I could immerse myself into the movie fully. It had me laughing and it had me crying, it is truly a masterpiece in terms of introspective analysis. With this one, it just didn't do it for me.

But I do understand you both and that you could get into it unlike me. And I'm glad that you shared your views, even though you could have spared the judgement of my imaginative abilites.

reply

[–] Groveful 13 years ago

Ah yeah, I do see now how my comment about needing things explained was poorly worded and insulting. From what I took from your original post, I thought you meant the circumstances for how it all came about (the harvesting/cloning) should have been...well, put into a more precise context for you to picture it better. Really that might not be a good way to put it either. I watched this with a friend who didn't accept the situation as willingly as I did because he wanted more of a reason. Not exactly to be beaten over the head with explanations or anything, and I didn't mean to suggest that is what you wanted. I do agree with you that if this whole thing were to happen, it is a bit of a stretch to see it played out the way it is. I just took it as 'this is the way things are' instead of really trying to get a good grip of how or why. Anyway, again I didn't mean to point a finger and suggest you don't have a good imagination.

reply

[–] phelim3 13 years ago

Kazuo Ishiguro uses the topic of Human cloning to examine the experience of Human Mortality. The film is written in a way that could happen. The story is one way that genetics could alter the world. The key word is could. People could be weak enough to allow this to happen. The story is set in an alternative version of the recent past where the technology is advanced to the point of being able to grow humans.

One of the scariest possibilities of genetics is the creation of cloned people, who would by definition have no rights or legal protection. A story where scientists grow artificial livers wouldn't have the same impact. Why does the story have to 100% scientifically accurate? There is a difference between believable and realistic.

There is no such thing as moral evolution. The quality of a society is determined by socio economics. Simply put people are unwilling to listen to extremists while their stomachs are full. This is what led to the rise of the nazis. people who laughed at Hitler in 1925 voted for him in 1933 because their children where hungry. Modern society is no different in this respect.

I think that your ability to immerse yourself in Never Let Me Go is down to your view of society and human nature. You seem to have a more optimistic view than me.

I wasn't trying to have a go at your taste in cinema by the way.

reply

[–] daryl-b-t 13 years ago

This what led to the rise of the nazis. people who laughed at Hitler in 1925 voted for him in 1933 because their children where hungry

You'll be interested to know then that at Yale, (I think it was), they did a survey of freshmen in 1939, they were asked who they thought the greatest living man in the world was. Einstein was voted second, Hitler first. Now I don't think this could be attributed to hunger, obviously.

reply

[–] phelim3 13 years ago

Have I written anywhere in this thread (or anywhere ever) that support for fascists only existed in impoverished countries? Every country on the globe has some sort of extremist fringe. It has been well noted that sections of the moneyed classes in Britain and America had sympathy with Hitler.

By 1925 the German economy was beginning to recover from the effects of the hyper inflation that rocked the country after the First World War. The Weimar Government and many German businesses borrowed huge sums from American banks. When the stock market crashed in 1929, those same banks called in those loans thereby bankrupting the whole German economy.

Germany was one of the worst affected countries in the great depression. Millions of people lost their jobs. The Nazi's appeared to offer a solution to the problem and an easy finger of blame to point. People listened who might not have in better times. That's not to say that people didn't support the Nazis for other reasons such as their anti Semitism or ultra nationalism. But the depression did garner enough support for the Nazis to get a foothold in the Reichstag.

America and Britain, which had much older democratic traditions than Germany, managed to survive the effects of the great depression.

Beyond this I'm not sure what you're trying to say in this post. Unless you think that America was ruled by a fascist dictator because Ivy league students admired Hitler?

reply

[–] daryl-b-t 13 years ago

It has been well noted that sections of the moneyed classes in Britain and America had sympathy with Hitler.

And what popular history conveniently forgets is that Hitler was highly regarded in the rest of the world and in other sectors of society until he declared war, well until it was England anyway.

I've actually asked someone old enough to remember if this was true. They said "Oh, yes, people thought Hitler was a great man because he brought Germany back from the brink".

Now this I find interesting and when people start drawing on these supposed truths of history to illustrate a point about how things work it's worth noting just how different it is to what you think.

I suppose the parallel is that it doesn't take people choosing something bad for something bad to happen, they almost always think they are choosing something good, or that good things will simply happen.

The most disturbing thing about Never Let Me Go is the way they accept their fate. Not because it's unrealistic, but because it strikes a chord with how we really think. That 'going along' to get along sums up the majority of the population. Watching it horrifically exploited by privileged society justifiably makes you uneasy.

reply

[–] FryHigh 13 years ago

I think you've hit the nail on the head. I can totally see how this could actually work out, and that's why I found the movie so disturbing.

I've just watched the movie just now, and I'm afraid some of the people commenting weren't paying close attention and/or just weren't making the connections. The schools were a pilot program, evident from the 'research' aspect of it. This is evident when Tommy and Kathy are asking for a deferral and the reason for the art gallery is explained. Another hint people missed, is Tommy saying that there are no more schools, that people are raised in battery farms.

I can only conclude that people either didn't pay attention, snoozed, or the movie flew over their heads.

reply

[–] mkersting 10 years ago

Hey, if you were an MLB owner and the league read this thread, you'd be forced to sell your team for being a racist!

reply

[–] daryl-b-t 10 years ago

If it's any consolation there is probably some small twisted bizarro part of the Universe where your comment actually made sense.

reply

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

"Kazuo Ishiguro uses the topic of Human cloning to examine the experience of Human Mortality. The film is written in a way that could happen. The story is one way that genetics could alter the world. The key word is could. People could be weak enough to allow this to happen. The story is set in an alternative version of the recent past where the technology is advanced to the point of being able to grow humans. "

thanks captain obvious.

as for the rest:

read his post again.

reply

[–] erwinvegas 10 years ago

I agree with you whole heartedly phelim3. Late to this party only because I can't keep up with movies anymore, for both physical and mental health reasons (only one of those treated so far... pick one).

The void of moral evolution is something I suggested to a girlfriend a couple times only to be chewed out because she believed we were on our way to that very goal. I came to understand it was something tangled between her misunderstanding of the term "evolution" and her strong wishes of the possibility of using it as a tool for societies morals. It sickened me to hear her spin whatever example I gave her to prove the contrary, such as the self-preservational history that seems to repeat everywhere, including the people voting for Hitler. I couldn't think of a better example.

There are many subjects in which I let my brain move slowly on, one of them being the rights of clones, if they were around. I've thought about it of course, and many wild spin-offs of the idea including manufactured humans such as the replicants in "Blade Runner", another film with flaws that mesmerizes me (in fact the pinnacle of visual bewilderment and gaffs colliding). It's a favorite... that's why I can handle being entertained by "Never let me go". Sorry about the tangent... is it that someone cloned will not have a birth certificate? Just because two people didn't screw to make the kid, can't they get an equal "license" alternative of human creation? Back to religious arguments I suppose. That'll be my stop .

I enjoyed looking at the film, yet even I had to ask; "won't they (the author OR director) visit one character thinking of simply running away? Maybe they're just that mental bound by their purpose through brainwashing? Maybe they can be tracked and that isn't explained...". I can still get into it just from the strong loneliness of the actors looking for a way to be in love. I can hold the problems with the story at memories length and let myself go. Sort of like knowing there's gum smashed into my seat of a roller coaster, and forgetting about it after a few seconds of learning to lean away.

reply

[–] therefdotcom 10 years ago

very well put.

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 10 years ago

Except that some of this has happened in our timeline. During the 40s and 50s the US or State governments sometimes chose who gets to reproduce by sterilizing those considered to have mental disabilities, low intelligence or criminal behavior. The US government did experiment on the Black population by exposing men at the Tuskegee institute with an STD. People are killed for their organs.

Now, about allowing them to live a 'sort of' life.... the best environment for those organs until they are needed is a human body. Just because science expanded in one area does not mean that it extends equally in all areas - we have seen that as advances come in fits and starts.

Was this movie 'one of the greats'? No, but I think it was better than some of the dystopian drivel I've seen recently.

I have not read a lot of Japanese the literature, however the few books/stories I've read have been rather austere, in keeping with Japanese culture. The author, although British is Japanese enough to have a Japanese name (I'm guessing the family has immigrated within a generation or two). This may account for the lack of explanation - the books I read basically jumped in and expected the reader to accept the fictional world as it was.

reply

[–] hexrei 10 years ago

Check out the Tuskegee syphilis study. They told black people they were treating them but secretly were not, just to observe the effects of syphilis. It went on for over thirty years and was not ended until the truth came out and media outlets began reporting on it.

What a lovely way to burn...

reply

[–] Thought_Criminal_J62377 11 years ago

After watching it just now, I have no burning questions. And as for the OP saying this is too much for his imagination or suspension of disbelief, I didn't find that at all. I could easily imagine that in our past an event or a series of events, set humanity on an alternate course from what we in reality know to be true.

This movie was very easy to follow and as for the morality, there is no use for that word unless we believe in God and I thought that had become very unpopular these days. Seems the OP dislikes this movie because it doesn't sit well with his or her religion. I believe in God and had no problems with it.

OP needs to realize, given the right circumstances, humans are capable of almost anything, even contradictions.

reply

[–] YouMightRabbitYouMight 11 years ago

and as for the morality, there is no use for that word unless we believe in God

I've got no quibble with your post except this line, which I think is false on it's face. If you don't believe in a god, then you sure don't need one to have a morality. And if you do believe in a god, but you need him/her/it to have a morality, then you oughta be going to that god's hell anyway.

Morality exists outside any of the many myths man has created. It can get down to as simple as don't treat people in ways that you wouldn't want to be treated. If you need a god to have that, you're already broken.

reply

[–] Crista480 10 years ago

Morality exists outside any of the many myths man has created. It can get down to as simple as don't treat people in ways that you wouldn't want to be treated. If you need a god to have that, you're already broken.

That concept of treating others as you want to be treated has pervaded society after the spread of Christianity. Before that, it was ok to just want to be treated better than others and seek your own interest. For example Ancient Rome: people had slaves, it was ok for women to be treated as property (some exceptions did occur), there was no notion that slaves were somehow people themselves and deserved equal treatment to their masters. That society's morality was modeled after the morality of their gods: Zeus was a rapist and a tyrant who only sought his own pleasure and to hell with the rest.
During the Inquisition, the morality of society was modeled after the twisted way the Catholic Church of the time chose to interpret and propagate their particular fake Christianity: you were tortured and killed if you were unwilling to follow their rules, even if that meant you were following the scripture. Most people couldn't read and the Bible wasn't translated in their language anyway, so the morality was whatever the "Church" chose it to be.
The morality of the majority is modeled by the religion that has the most traction in that society. Which is actually precisely why many atheists are against religion in the first place, because they believe it brainwashes people into those dogmas.
Of course, as a logical being who does not want anarchy, I am bound to believe it is better to live in a society modeled after the New Testament dogma of treating others as you'd want to be treated and loving your neighbor, than in a society modeled after the morality of Zeus: do what thou wilt as long as it advances you it's ok (and don't give me that crap about how it's "do what thou wilt as long as you're not hurting others", since 1. that last part is not remembered anyway and 2. it is irrelevant in the context, which is why it was abandoned to begin with.)

reply

[–] YouMightRabbitYouMight 10 years ago

Pretty much everything you wrote is transparent Christianity cheering thoroughly contradicted by any dispassionate reading of history and reality.

Slavery persisted until the Enlightenment took firm hold. Just refer to 19th Century America and the deeply Christian south to put a mockery to the lie that the spread of Christianity was the source of it's demise.

Your own example of the Inquisition was one of the many demonstrations of the horrors of Christianity with unfettered power, and just one of many proofs that government and spirituality must be kept distinctly separate with firm firewalls between them.

And the new Testament has much that many to this day still use to defraud, injure and oppress. And that is not even broaching the subject of that font of narcissism and viciousness and immorality that is the Old Testament.

The "don't treat people in ways that you wouldn't want to be treated" idea predated Christianity by millennia, and in fact other religions encapsulated and in fact do encapsulate it many times better.

As stated before:
Morality exists outside any of the many myths man has created. It can get down to as simple as don't treat people in ways that you wouldn't want to be treated. If you need a god to have that, you're already broken.

reply

[–] Crista480 10 years ago

Actually, pretty much everything I said is true. If your anti-Christian bias does not allow you to view the reality in a dispassionate way, that is honestly on you.
Being a Christian is not about proclaiming yourself one. It's about following the one law of the New Testament: love each other. Any other mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant.
Your example of the "deeply Christian south" (slavery has nothing to do with being a Christian and neither does proclaiming yourself to be one while blatantly disregarding the above-stated command) as well as my example of the Inquisition are meant to emphasize the idea of an ideology that was turned on its head by people who proclaimed to be Christians, while going against the very core of Christianity.

And the new Testament has much that many to this day still use to defraud, injure and oppress.

Are they being Christians when they do that or are they just being selfish and totally anti-Christian by doing those things?

The "don't treat people in ways that you wouldn't want to be treated" idea predated Christianity by millennia

Yeah, but would it have pervaded our culture had it not been for Christianity?

As stated before:

Just because you rewrite something without taking into account the other person's argument does not make it true. It just means you are entrenched in your own dogma. You have disproved nothing, you merely obfuscated the argument.

reply

[–] YouMightRabbitYouMight 10 years ago

Actually, pretty much everything I said is true. If your anti-Christian bias does not allow you to view the reality in a dispassionate way, that is honestly on you.

Tee-hee. You so funny!

Being a Christian is not about proclaiming yourself one. It's about following the one law of the New Testament: love each other. Any other mumbo-jumbo is irrelevant.

Love each other. Dump on anybody you feel like judging. Say stupid things with a straight face like you need a god for morality or theft prevention staff to keep you from robbing Walmart blind every time you visit. Constantly tell imaginary friends that you aren't worth a crap without them, because you had the great temerity to have been born. Cannibalize them and drink their body fluids, etc. Kill people for believing god is 3 in one. Or, hell, kill people for believing Jesus was a man distinct from god. Or chant to a sky santa and call other people crazy for praying to a mother Mary. You know, all that sane stuff.

You were the one who brought out slavery and how the Great Zombie solved it, and then when pointed out how slavery thrived with Christianity, you then say "they weren't real Christians!". Classic stuff.

Are they being Christians when they do that or are they just being selfish and totally anti-Christian by doing those things?

They're all being massive deluded hypocrites, much the same as you.

Just because you rewrite something without taking into account the other person's argument does not make it true.

I addressed your "points" directly. You just say "nuh-uh", and then recite a bunch more counter-to-reality preaching chants.

It just means you are entrenched in your own dogma.

 So amazingly self-oblivious.

You have disproved nothing, you merely obfuscated the argument.

Hallelujah sister! Now go drink some blood and have a Jesus biscuit.

reply

[–] Elynne 9 years ago

Dump on anybody you feel like judging. Say stupid things with a straight face...

Now, 15+ months after you wrote that phrase, you reminded me about the "Rise of Donald Trump," and especially about how many of the Religious Right Republicans in the USA are backing him, in spite of his multiple affairs & marriages and his narcissistic bid for power beyond the selfish use of his wealth ~~ all as he continues to malign and insult women, minorities, other religions, other nationalities, and anyone else that he deems unacceptable.

How do the so-called "Real Christians" accept him and follow him and still perceive themselves as "Real Christians," since Trump's expressed attitudes and his behavior has been and continues to be so different from Christian teachings?

I am having trouble suspending my disbelief about Trump's popularity much more than suspending my disbelief about this atmospheric movie in question, which is told through one person's brainwashed-since-childhood POV. The whole point of this film is that we see the circumstances of their upbringing through Kathy's eyes and are led to identify with her and those like her who are the "unacceptables" within the film's society.

It's not that difficult to speculate about the direction that the USA is headed for many so-called "unacceptables" if Trump becomes its leader. So why is it so difficult to believe in the lack of societal concern for the plight of "unacceptable" clones in this film?

reply

[–] phelim3 13 years ago

There was no way that you could achieve suspension of disbelief. Perhaps if you had paid more attention to the film you might have gotten more from it. Each act of the film is introduced with the year that it takes place in. 1978, 1986 and 1994. So, yes the film is set in the recent past

The easiest part of the film to suspend belief in however, is that society is capable of acting this way. Look at the world we live in. The last 75 to 100 years many societies have 'skipped' levels of morality. Appalling treatment handed out to groups of people because of meaningless differences. If The Nazi's aren't enough, how about the decades long medical experiments conducted on African Americans. The Phoenix Program, The 1962 massacre of Algerians in Paris, and the children sent to Australia by the UK after the second world war. Please understand for your own sake that there is nothing moral about society.

From what you have written, any film that deals with science in a speculative manner is by default unbelievable. "The Time Machine", rubbish because time travel is impossible. "2001; A Space Odyssey", a bad film because we haven't colonized the moon or travelled to Jupiter. All the film asks you to do is consider that genetics could have developed quicker. The film is fiction with emotional rather than literal truth at it's heart.

The film is closer to "THX 1138" than "Star Wars" in that there is a refusal to contextualize the world that the characters inhabit with dialogue. That is to say there is no exposition explaining the world to the viewer. Instead the world is depicted visually and aurally. The entire film is shot from the point of view of Kathy H, the only information that we have is what She sees and knows. The idea of this is to make us identify with this character.

The fact that Kathy is unexceptional and unimportant( in terms of the society She lives in) is valuable in that we are made to identify with the ignored or unvalued. That is to say we empathise with Kathy because of the thought of something like this being done to us.

Your argument seems to be that the film wasn't created conventionally enough. If the film didn't work for you, that's a shame. But maybe you should broaden your horizons as to what can be done with film.

So in answer to your question; no. I don't feel the same way as you about this film

reply

[–] Mwtby 13 years ago

Just watched this movie and I have to say I agree with the Op here... I just can't look past the fact that they seem to be perfectly functioning people and have never thought about running or somehow protest their fate. I agree that some of the donors are probably meeker and since they've been brainwashed since childhood would just accept their fate, but some of the other donors in the movie (those they met in the cottage) seem to be a lot more rebellious and I have a hard time believe that they would not escape because it seems so easy to do. The movie is asking us to believe that somehow these people are perfectly fine at feeling anger but somehow just can't do anything about it.

But why even start there, like the Op has stated, why not just farm these donors in some ranch in the first place and forget about the whole education part if that's what they're intended for anyway. That's what they did in the Matrix!! (although I don't agree with the premise of that movie completely either, but that's another story) The pretense of asking us believe these perfectly healthy (before donation), eloquent, sentient young people capable of loving would somehow lack the urge to seek freedom really turns me off about this movie.

Many people are drawing the cloning story parallel between this movie and the Island. I didn't watch the Island because I heard it was lousy, but I was equally disappointed by this movie as well. Dare I say (now this might draw a lot of flame) that the celebrated author of this work is probably more capable of conveying moods and atmosphere, but probably not as good, or not interested, in explaining the logic behind the plot. Overall the acting is great by the main actors, but the lack of logic really turned the film into more of an elegant acting exercise to me rather than a good movie. Sorry, I guess I'm just not able to suspend my disbelief in some areas but not the others.

reply

[–] evinjan 13 years ago

Couldn't have put it better myself. Exactly the sentiment I was going for with my post. I really appreaciated the sense of atmosphere that was conveyed and if one is to accept the premise without question, it is a striking and very emotional movie.

And yes, The Matrix was more on the bat (in this regard) with their humans = batteries idea. Maybe a counter argument here could be that these children had to grow up physically AND mentally for them to be the best possible donors, but this again fails from a logical (and pragmatic and utilitarian) viewpoint. Maybe it's not my (our?) optimism (in regard to a reply by phelim3 above) that makes us unable to believe, maybe it's our belief that we as a society (vile as we are) would be more sparing in terms of commodities such as time and money when making such organ donor progams. The kind of system presented in the movie just seems too elaborate and complex to justify. :)

reply

[–] phelim3 13 years ago

So is your argument that a work of art has to be entirely logical? As I wrote before the scenario of the film or novel is one troubling way that genetics could take us. The film is more about how one would or could imagine such a society to be.

I actually don't care about the specifics of how the national donor service would work. I do care about the fact that the film has a profound emotional truth about the experience of being human. People die in the most unfair ways and even with all of its pain and horror, life still feels too short.

Not every film needs to be a Hitchcockian masterpiece of suspense and plot logic.
Have you ever considered that in many ways plot and story are sometimes the least interesting elements of a film. That anti climax and lack of resolution are just as interesting as cinematic story telling devices and actually more realistic.

The plot of this film is quite thin and rather than driven by plot revelations.it is driven by the relationships that Kathy has to Tommy and Ruth.

Not everything is literal, The plot of the Matrix was just a way to explore the nature of reality and man's relationship to technology. Taken literally humans turned into batteries is a ludicrous idea, but it works on an emotional level.

You question the practicalities of the national donor programme, but let me ask you this. If you look at the manpower and resources that countries have ploughed into nuclear weapons. Essentially a path to racial suicide,is it so hard to believe that societies would devote vast sums of money towards expanding the human lifespan and ending the curse of terminal illness. I think that you would be quite surprised with what people would be willing to turn a blind eye to.

I'm enjoying this discussion with you evinjan by the way, much more enjoyable then the usual 'why didn't they run away' recycled *beep*

reply

[–] Mwtby 13 years ago

Just speaking for myself, although I suspect some here would agree with me that we're not arguing about the atmosphere or mood of the movie. I imagine if I could accept the premise it could certainly be a very moving movie. Heck I'm a big fan of David Lynch's movies and many of them (none?) don't make real sense, but I enjoy the suspense and unease that he creates and I can understand why he's appreciated by many.

I agree that the idea of human battery in the Matrix was also ludicrous precisely on a similar reason, it's probably a lot more efficient for the Matrix to harvest other animals rather than humans to obtain the same amount of energy. Similarly here, they could have just raised these clones without regards to their education or anything else other than their organs. I don't care if it's in a parallel universe or some colony on Mars, but no society has unlimited resources and would waste money and energy to educate their crops. (Unless like the OP suggested, the education somehow improves the harvest.) It's a question of economics. But I understand it would make a rather dull movie to watch whole bunch of livestock moving around. (Or it could actually be more interesting if it was made well. Certainly would make more sense.)

But we're probably delving too deep into the science here. I know it's not the point that the filmmaker is trying to make, but to me the film felt rather manipulative and disingenuous because the lack of logic fails to make me relate to the characters. They're asking the audience to accept that these are perfectly functioning human beings with seemingly complete human emotions living in a society similar to ours but somehow devoid of one of biggest human characteristics. There are millions of other stories (subject of slavery, racism, or other devices as suggested in other threads) the filmmaker could tell to illustrate the fleetingness life and the unjustness of class but he chose one that he just couldn't finish. The plot of a movie is important that it helps the audience relate to the characters. Yes, it doesn't have to make sense 100%, but if one is SUPPOSED to feel sad by watching a film without regards to the plot, why not just ask the actors to cry on screen for 2 hours? Would have saved a load on screen writing fees.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] phelim3 13 years ago

You admit that the film works on an emotional and atmospheric level, but dismiss that, because the plot isn't logical enough? Clearly it has provoked an emotional response in you, other wise you wouldn't be here discussing it.

People other than you (for example; me) are worried less by the science of genetics, then the propensity of our society to take such powerful technology and totally abuse it. Never Let Me Go articulates those fears and gives them a human face. Is the national donor programme something that could still happen, probably not, but we have the ability to create something just as ugly. And create it in such a way as to only realize the hell We have created when it is too late.

You seem to have totally missed the point of both Never Let Me Go and The Matrix. The theme of The Matrix is how easily our sense of reality can be manipulated, not about the logistics of (literal) human battery farms. The theme of Never Let Me Go is wanting to live longer and knowing that you aren't. Never Let Me Go isn't about the logistics of the national donor service, because that isn't good cinema. The scene between Tommy and Kathy on the pier is.

As a comparison the society in Nineteen Eighty Four is less believable than the one in Never Let Me Go. How could a society literally watch every single person in the world? It couldn't, yet Nineteen Eighty Four feels emotionally truthful

You don't strike me as a stupid person, so I don't understand why you can't accept the idea that a society could be this cruel. This is nothing to do with the quality of the film you understand. But I think that it is important to make the point again that people are capable of anything. Maybe by imagining the extremes that our society could go to we may be able to stop it.

reply

[–] legendlength 13 years ago

You don't strike me as a stupid person, so I don't understand why you can't accept the idea that a society could be this cruel.

Why do you keep trying to defend this as a possible reality? It absolutely doesn't work in any type of moral framework. In my opinion you're missing the intent of the filmmakers by even suggesting it's possible. You're trying to justify something that wasn't intended to be justified.

To the OP, I agree with everything you said. I found it difficult to suspend disbelief. But for this film in particular i get a strong feeling the writers also knew it was hard for people to swallow.

The film seems to give up on even trying to explain the logistics of such a moral structure. 90% of the film focuses on the cinematography, music and of course the allegory / analogy to real life (as the last line of the film bluntly reveals), and of course the love story.

It was unsettling for me because it was so hard to believe. As a very analytic type of person I was trying to find their justification for how that type of society could be. Why were people accepting it so easily, why not run away and go commando? There are no answers to these questions of course.

The only way to enjoy this film is to try your hardest to ignore the logistics. It's difficult (I struggled) but the more you can do it the more you get out of this one. Other films I don't give as much leeway but this one more than makes up for it in the other areas.

reply

[–] phelim3 13 years ago

Being that every event has almost limitless outcomes, why do you suppose that the reality of Never Let Me Go is any less possible than any other historical eventuality? For instance if genetics was the pre eminent science of the 20th century rather than physics the breakthrough might have been cloning rather than nuclear weapons. I think that the reality in this film is as possible as any other nightmarish alternative history. Like the Nazis winning the war for example.

As for 'moral framework', there is no such thing. There are only socio economics. You and I happen to be living through the most prosperous era of human history.(In west at least) Because we are well fed and housed, we can allow ourselves such illusions as a moral framework. When the next global disaster comes around see how moral our society will be.

All that being said. None of this is what Never Let Me Go is actually about. All of the speculative material about genetics is only a background for a story about the ephemeral nature of human experience.

reply

[–] princess_heartbreaker 13 years ago

Through about the first half of the film, I had the same problem. I kept thinking, "Why show them funny movies? Why teach them about sex? Why even teach them to read and write?"

But when adult Kathy and Tommy sat down with their headmistress, it started to make some sense. Miss Emily immediately showed some fondness towards them. It was clear that she was in an awful situation: She always knew that her students would become donors, but she wanted them to have a happy childhood. She wanted to show that they had souls in order to prove that they should be treated humanely.

The big question that I can't wrap my mind around is this: Was Miss Emily's approach to running this idyllic school a good thing, or was it cruel? Maybe it would have been so much more humane to keep the students ignorant about art and grammar, and just kept it to the bare basics.

reply

[–] bayphatt 13 years ago

Where were they going to run to? I'm sure they had no papers identifying them as non-donors, they knew very little of the outside world, they had no practical skills to survive, plus they were tagged with their bracelets and for all we know they might have had a chip in them (much like pets) that identify them as donors. Also they were regarded as property, they belonged to the government for their vital organs - their society did not care about them in an emotional way, thus I see very few people that might have hid them from the government if they in deed did try to run. And if there were people who did in fact try to hide them what were the consequences for the people who helped them? Given the story, I don't see a way for them to hid and if they did the end result would be the same, it would only be a matter of time before they were caught. The only real way out of their situation that I could see was to try to destroy their own bodies with alcohol, smoking and illegal drugs in the hopes that their organs would not be usable for donations but if that was the case then the government could have brought them to complexion sooner and use whatever they can. In other words, there really was no way out.

reply

[–] Jubileus 13 years ago

Just wanted to make a quick comment here.

"why not just farm these donors in some ranch in the first place and forget about the whole education part if that's what they're intended for anyway."

Well, I think that, since they are human, if you treat them and raise them like livestock then they are bound to run away someday.

In this case, they have been educated from the very begging that their life was meant to be like that and were raised to "treat their body well and stay healthy" for when the times comes for their organs to be harvested.

Look at society today, some people have different religions and live by their teachings and even thou it may be hard to follow sometimes, they accept it because they know that that is how things are, a few examples;

- Muslim woman are wedded to husbands they don't even know and love. You can be sure that they do not like this (at least some of them), they simply accept it because "That's just how it is, I'm a Muslim woman";

- I don't believe that every soldier that goes to war believes in what he is fighting for or is willing to fight for that purpose, but they have to go because their name came up and they are obligated to "serve their country". Just look at pictures of soldiers saying goodbye to their families, it's obvious they would rather stay, but they don't;

In my point of view, the OP is wrong about this.

You may have noticed at one point in the movie, when Kathy and Tommy go show their paintings to prove their love, the teacher said that Hailsham was the only/last school for clones that was still fighting a "moral war" in favor of the clones, trying to answer a question no one was asking by using the gallery.

In a way to make you feel better, you could have supposed that some good people out there, after seeing what society was planning on doing to "evolve medicine", fought to at least give the clones a short but decent life. Obviously not every single person would agree with this and since they could not stop it, they could at least fight for the rights of the clones has to not be treated has livestock.

Sometimes we have to be creative, I think that this is the best part in watching movies, the fact that you are able to build a world in your mind to match what you are seeing. I don't mean to insult the OP in anyway here, just saying that things could have been more realistic if you were more creative.

reply

[–] strassenflirt 9 years ago

I love "The island", saw it 5 times now, but later only up to the part where they run away. After that, it is too much action for that kind of movie.

reply

[–] BooksArsenal 13 years ago

"the others after them being raised in battery farms, as said by Tommy."

I wondered what the hell a 'battery farm' could be?

Girl with the Dragon Tattoo: 9/10
The Descendants: 9.5/10
War Horse: 8.5/10

reply

[–] Doc35 13 years ago

I agree with most of the objections to the rich lives these young people were given, the fact that there was no rebellion, etc etc. Still, the movie has had a haunting effect on me, so on some level other than intellectual/analytical, it is very powerful, and beautifully performed (and directed and written).

This one exchange that you mention, might shed light on it, if it is more developed in the novel, which i intend to read: it suggests to me that Hailsham was an unique breeding facility engaged in some unique moral/psychiatric/psychologic research.

Subsequently, the ethical dilemma was solved (not in the right way, which i can easily accept) the research lost its funding, Hailsham was closed, and presumably the early lives of the cloned people are not allowed to develop such agonizing depth and emotion in "the battery farms."

reply

[–] angelos-bakas 12 years ago

All the time I expected someone to just run. Nobody did, or even talked about the possibility of it, and that was it. I didn't enjoy it, couldn't enjoy it, cause if these people had feelings, could love and laugh and wish for more life, then some would run. They didn't, so the finger to a director who assumes I'll follow in his world without a brain of my own. 3/10

reply

[–] YouMightRabbitYouMight 12 years ago

All the time I expected someone to just run. Nobody did, or even talked about the possibility of it, and that was it. I didn't enjoy it, couldn't enjoy it, cause if these people had feelings, could love and laugh and wish for more life, then some would run. They didn't, so the finger to a director who assumes I'll follow in his world without a brain of my own. 3/10

How do you know none ran? We only know that the main characters didn't run.

And you can't ignore indoctrination from birth, coupled with force.

As unlikely as this would be to form in the world we currently know, given the other horrible systems that have actually occurred throughout history, it wasn't difficult at all for me to suspend belief enough to have this story of an alternate history move me.

reply

[–] saluk64007 11 years ago

You are taught that this is true because most films that have a basis in a corrupt society focus on a hero who makes an attempt to break out or subvert that society. The story of those kinds of films is generally to teach you about how to spot corruption and what to do about it. It's a very Western idea, to be independent rather than conforming. Figure out what's best for yourself and do that.

This film follows more from the Eastern than the Western tradition. Things are very different there. Society is more fixed, and corrupt society stories tend to be about adapting or coping to that situation and doing what's best for the group rather than fixing your own situation.

It's pretty rare as a Western audience to be exposed to a corrupt society that actually functions, so if this is what you are very used to it can be jarring. However, corrupt societies do function for long periods of time. Open a history book.

We also are given a very narrow lens at which to view the story. The three main characters are heavily brainwashed, and aren't given much opportunity to interact with non-donors, to see what their lives really are like. They no they don't want to die, but they are also taught that being a donor is a high honor. It's an inner conflict that they have to deal with their whole life - and in fact it is an inner conflict we all must deal with. How many of us really hate our jobs but stay their for years because we are taught that making money is a high honor? How many of us marry or stay married to someone we don't really love because we are brought up thinking that you are worth more if you are married?

And how many die for their countries in war because of honor?

We all choose what we value, what is honorable. Why is it so hard to believe that a society with human clones would have different values than ours?

But it's also not hard to believe that the revolution will come at some point. It just didn't happen while we were watching.

reply

[–] Milkyway123 10 years ago

by saluk64007

You are taught that this is true because most films that have a basis in a corrupt society focus on a hero who makes an attempt to break out or subvert that society. The story of those kinds of films is generally to teach you about how to spot corruption and what to do about it. It's a very Western idea, to be independent rather than conforming. Figure out what's best for yourself and do that.

This film follows more from the Eastern than the Western tradition. Things are very different there. Society is more fixed, and corrupt society stories tend to be about adapting or coping to that situation and doing what's best for the group rather than fixing your own situation.

It's pretty rare as a Western audience to be exposed to a corrupt society that actually functions, so if this is what you are very used to it can be jarring. However, corrupt societies do function for long periods of time. Open a history book.

Great post!

reply

[–] Elynne 9 years ago

Thank you for bringing up the concept that being a donor was brainwashed into them from early childhood as a high honor. Your analysis is excellent!

reply

[–] Oblivion14 13 years ago

It is actually explained in the movie that Hailsham was the last "school" to ever attempt to actually let the clones have lives and to question the reasons behind it. Hence "The Gallery", a soul-seeking in the literal sense. Examining the art done by the children in an effort to see if the children did indeed have the spark of creativity and thus "souls". They failed to convince anyone, and by the time Kathy and the others were adults, there were no further such efforts. Tommy describes the contemporary "schools" as "battery farms". I suppose that meant clones who were grown ("farm") kept in a vegetative state until the originals needed to recharge ("battery").

And you underestimate the capability of human beings to become blind to evil simply because it benefits them. Slavery for example, was once possible because even if the excuse that blacks did not have souls was very flimsy, everyone wanted to believe it. It was the only way they could justify treating human beings that way for their own gain. Even today it is still happening.

I don't know why you can't relate to it though. I did, perfectly. I suppose it might have something to do with me being one of the "outcasts" of society though, haha. I regularly escaped through "alternate realities" like this one as a kid. Y'see, I'm a gay man, and I've lived almost my entire childhood and teenage years in silence. To be melodramatic about it, waiting for the day I could "break out" of the prison I was born into, heh. No one to turn to, not my friends, my family, not even religion. In fact it was your "levels of morality" that put me there.

I grew up to despair and claustrophobia and the certainty that I was the most diabolical form of evil ever born. And that no matter what I'd do in life, whether good or bad, I will end up in hell. Imagine being 12 years old and realizing that. I know now that young people like I was still remain four times more likely to commit suicide like I almost did. It poisoned everything.

Ironically I was one of those who laughed in the bullyings of kids who were braver than I was. I'm sure I wasn't the only one to realize it was wrong then. But to speak out would mean making myself a target as well. And with the weight of "moral righteousness" behind such cruelty, who would really dare to question it? When the push becomes a shove and the kid commits suicide, observe how everyone reacts. They either completely deny it ever happened or justify it by blaming it on the supposed innate evil of the kid.

Morality are simply rules made and imposed by society. Rules that are there so we can reassure ourselves that we are "good", even when we aren't. In most cases, they are the farthest thing from true goodness.

So no, the film does not skip levels of morality. It IS a level of morality. After all, they were saving lives.

reply

[–] MrAgmoore 13 years ago

You can go on www.Google.com and type "define battery farm". It's the concept of keeping animals in confined cages. There is a 10 minute documentary called "Meet your Meat" that will show you what battery farming looks like:

It's graphic so I wouldn't eat while watching this:

http://www.chooseveg.com/meet-your-meat.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_cage

reply

[–] cynmac07 13 years ago

Having first read the book, the thing that struck me is that cloning would not probably be widely available. Just as many people are 'priced out of' life-saving medical procedures now, this type of set-up would most likely be available to only the rich and powerful. I could easily imagine someone like Dick Cheney, who has had numerous heart surgeries, buying a clone to ensure he had the organ available for his eventual transplant.

And I imagined Hailsham as a sort of no-kill shelter of the kind people set up for pet adoptions, as a sort of salve against the fact that many more pets are bred than could ever be adopted. But that human greed and human failings keep the pet population problem from being solved.

reply

[–] bron-tay 12 years ago

>>They failed to convince anyone

Well, not quite. It was clear that donors have souls, but that was very hard for society to deal with, so donors' souls were no longer nurtured in schools like Hailsham. It was easier on everyone's conscience to raise donors like dumb animals and then harvest their organs.

~~~~~~~
Please put some dashes above your sig line so I won't think it's part of your dumb post.

reply

[–] fayesbridegroom 13 years ago

What I took from this film was a juxtoposition of the organ selling that happens in 3rd world countries. put to 'pretty western faces.' that made it's horror real to western European culture.

reply

[–] anaritamfolgado 13 years ago

"As a comparison the society in Nineteen Eighty Four is less believable than the one in Never Let Me Go. How could a society literally watch every single person in the world? It couldn't, yet Nineteen Eighty Four feels emotionally truthful."

I took the time to read what is being written at these boards and I took the time to review this film. It got me interested, it got me curious. I have been thinking about it.

I did not cry (even though I'm the most certain person to cry at a movie) and I'm not sure I can explain why. I do not question the realistic aspects of this film, that is not an issue to me. I can relate to this story if I bring its many aspects to my reality and I can understand the reasons behind their behavior. I can make the parallel to our lives. To the lives we are stuck with. What doesn't make this an exceptional film is, to me, the emotional aspects of the characters. Somehow the way they act does not seem believable to me. The not running away is quite similar to the way we accept the things we have to face but in a way, what feels strange to me is the general way the characters conform to this fact. No matter what we have to accept, the desires and hopes of our hearts usually manifest in a way that shows, that shows in more than a scream. The not running away thing can be a final decision, but at least there should be more of a desire for freedom, more of a desire for a different life. The smooth, almost nostalgic way they face their faith is not HUMAN. I felt, through the whole film, that the emotions, the love, the friendship humanized the characters - but their lack of will, their lack of desire for freedom, did quite a bit of the contrary - as if they weren't quite as human as they could be. It also felt very strange the whole passive behavior of Kathy, relating to Tommy and Ruth - above sadness there was acceptance, there was understanding - which also felt very inhuman to me. It seems strange that I should say understanding is an inhuman quality, but facing the horrible aspects of our lives, understand is usual something that takes part almost only at the very end. We do not easy into that gentle night.

1984 is such a more unrealistic story? I am not sure. But at least I felt like I was there, like I could be someone there. With this film, the characters felt so unlike me that I couldn't keep up with their feelings. There was not a significant emotional part of any of the characters that made me think it could be me, or that it could be a part of my life.

I liked the film. I just didn't relate to it in a way I do with the films I love.

reply

[–] lojo414 13 years ago

Thinking back on the film I think, of the three of them, Ruth might have been the most "human". She tried to eek out a little life for herself, she tried to feel things that weren't really there.
I love this movie for the message I got from it. Years ago, I DID run away but I shouldn't have. I should have stayed, I should have told the person I loved that I loved her more than I did. I made a feeble attempt and then took no for an answer because she was sick and we were young (we were both in our early 20's). I left with her blessing and she died two years later. I still love her. I have had a few very good relationships, but I would give anything for those two years back. Even if she was sick, I should have fought to be with her. Those days watching movies, sitting in hospitals, watching her get sicker would have been better than every flower I have left on her grave.
Be with the one you love. Even if you don't know how they would feel, tell them how you feel and ask what they want. You might be embarrased. But eventhough what people say about hindsight being 20/20 is true, it's a truth that really sucks.

"No Good Deed Goes Unpunished"

reply

[–] Oberlai 13 years ago

Although I enjoyed the film immensely, I agree with evinjan, the movie lacked explanation to too many things. My first disagreement being that materialism/corporatism push things in only one direction. A human being working for a whole life would be FAR more worth to the state than raising a human into its 20s, harvesting its organs to put into an already sick/dying/old human being, extending life for maybe 10-20 years. This human probably wouldn't be productive after such a huge intervention, not to mention the age.

I have no problems with Star Wars, it's thousands of years in the future and although Lucas never over-explain things they are presented in a way that makes his hyper-reality believable.

reply

[–] e_esoteric 12 years ago

Is the production and consumption of tobacco and/or alcohol productive to the state? What about individual vehicles that often have 3 empty seats but still clog the air with pollutants instead of a mass transit system? Wouldn't it be far more worth it to the state to have everyone live in multistory apartments, thereby being more space efficient, than having McMansions in Suburbia?

You speak as if societal institutions are always to the benefit of the State, an ambiguous term at best. But a cursory glance at history, especially recent history, tells a different narrative. Most often, it is the impulses and cravings by the individual that brings about major changes in society as a whole. Therefore, the entire basis of your argument is moot.

If an individual wants to extend their lifespan (and I suspect that a great many of us do) and the technology is there to permit it cheaply, there is little in the way of it becoming widespread. In terms of morals, well consider the meat industry, which is not very different. Of course, there will always be vegans but they will also always be a minority.

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 10 years ago

Ok, FIRST of all, the very first thing we know about the Star Wars universe is "Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.".... so much for the future.

Young organs are better replacements than older ones.... who is to say how long a person could live with unlimited replacement parts - immortality or the closest we would have to it? Many people have heart, lung or kidney transplants and are quite productive. Heck, people can survive with part of their lungs missing completely, not to mention the thousands of Wounded Warriors who are quite active and productive with prosthetic limbs... think about how much more functional those limbs would be if they are human, not plastic... if connecting nerves, vessels, tendons were perfected.

reply