MovieChat Forums > Never Let Me Go (2010) Discussion > people who don't understand why they did...

people who don't understand why they didn't run...


are brainwashed. There's no other explanation for your lack of realization that childhood indoctrination is one of the most powerful determinants of who you are as a person. They were raised told they were different, with strict rules dictating their behavior 24/7, eliminating any semblance of individuality. They were even made aware of their purpose, and the way they say "complete" with no knowledge that it's a disgusting euphemism suggests they consider what they're doing to maybe even be noble.


Barring all that, what the hell do you expect them to do after they've escaped? Join the system, start a business and live happily ever after? They didn't know anything about the world, they had zero identification or record they exist anywhere other than clone facilities. Coupled with the fact the corporation that made them wouldn't be too thrilled about escapees ruining potential future business.



Anyway, a recurring principle in greedy elites who put people situations like this, is they know FORCING people to work for your interests against their own always comes with risk of revolt. But, if they convince the victim their interests coincide with the "master's", they get a much more reliable result. That could even be one of the comments the movie makes, about how our society HAS become a bunch of followers, working against our interests, when the gate to our freedom is right in front of us.

reply

[deleted]

For one, that's retarded about Muslims and you clearly have done no research on the subject. Most Muslim extremists who commit a "terrorist" act against the US are raised middle class and tend to have university degrees... It's a tiny number of people.


Two, you say "teenagers aren't so passive." You've never seen teenagers raised like this, so what experience are you drawing from? And about the deferral, them ASKING for time off clearly shows acceptance of their subjugation to the system. As does the guy (can't remember his name) screaming while he's completely free still, he "knows" there's absolutely no way around it.

reply

Okay, my problem isn't so much that they don't rebel. My problem is that none of them rebel. C'mon! Don't try and tell me that it was the way they were raised or indoctrinated. People have been trying to indoctrinate kids for centuries. It only works to some degree and teenagers who never rebel? It's what they do! That whole age range is about rebellion. These kids not only never rebel, they're totally clueless as to what is happening to them until they have it spelled out. They weren't mentally deficient, mentally handicapped, abused or broken down in any way. The worst thing I saw happening to them was that they were told bogus horror stories about the outside world which I'm positive at least some of them would figure out by teenage are BS. As far as teenagers "raised like this", I've seen teenagers raised in much more oppressive and abusive ubpringing. Some respond by becoming passive, some by being overly rebellious. It depends on the personality of the child. Children who grow up in caring homes also can become passive or rebellious according to personality.

I don't see that not being exposed to the "outside world" has anything to do with their ability to survive in it. This is what slaves were told when it started becoming a conflict between the north and south. Slaves were told that they would no longer be taken care or of that they couldn't survive on their own but they still wanted their freedom. They were black and knew if they escaped, they would be spotted easily and forced back but it didn't stop slaves from making attempts to flee. You talk about them as if they are so abnormal they couldn't function alongside other people. That's ridiculous. And what does having papers have to do with their ability to escape and make it in the world like anyone else? Hell, with the easy access to all kinds of technology, they could fabricate birth certificates and get IDs or fake IDs.

"Wait a minute. You know that scum? He licked my window!" --Amanda (Diagnosis Murder)

reply

Again, this film is shot from the perspective of of a single character. For all we know, rebellions were normal at any number of the other schools, which could have been the entire genesis of running a school like ?Helsham? in the first place to see if it was worth the effort.

Also, "Learned Helplessness" is a very real and disturbing psychological concept. And when I think back to all of the little devices used in the film that I didn't give much thought about at the time (Stories to keep children from running off, the positive reinforcement token system, when they go to the diner and are much more bashful than the other couple from the different school, then mimic their orders, when they are on the beach with the wrecked boat and Ruth says something along the lines of "?Isn't that the whole point?" in regards to Tommy saying he is a good donor, and even the deferral myth/gallery}, were all used to give them just enough false hope to keep them in line, but not enough to give them the courage or independence to try or even really want to change their situation.

Anyways just me two cents, personally I enjoyed the film and didn't think the plot was any less or more absurd than any other "Utopian" or science-fiction type of plot.

reply

[deleted]

My problem is that none of them rebel. C'mon! Don't try and tell me that it was the way they were raised or indoctrinated.
We don't know that and indeed when Kathy and Tommy show up at the madame's house one of the first things they say is that they are not there to make trouble. This suggested that others did make trouble.
Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

reply

For one, that's retarded about Muslims and you clearly have done no research on the subject. Most Muslim extremists who commit a "terrorist" act against the US are raised middle class and tend to have university degrees... It's a tiny number of people.


How about the ones who commit terrorist acts against other Muslims?

reply

Terrorist attacks aren't inclusive to the US and western world; many suicide bombers within the Middle East and Africa have unfortunately been children and people with learning difficulties.

But relating to not running away, I imagine if anyone was successful no one would ever hear about it as not to inspire copycats.

And if all your friends are 'completed' and you have no family, who do you live for?

reply

if all your friends are 'completed' and you have no family, who do you live for?
This is a good point that's more focused upon in the book than film. There is a groupishness to the characters of the book/film that is more conscious than it is with us/me in everyday life.
Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

reply

My thoughts were along how can they escape. They were obviously wearing bracelet-like tracking device. So first they'd have to find away to remove it. Probably the removing of it was hazardous. It would likely remotely notify they're handlers and possibility adversely effect their health, i.e, it was probably programmed with some type of booby trap device. Even if they could figure out how to have it safely removed. (I'd thing there would be a thriving underground market for this). Then they'd may have to content with the "backup" system. In this type of society there'd probably be an imbedded chip as well, that would likely require surgerical intervention. Again, the black market industry. My guess would be that the black market facilitators wouldn't come cheap and where could this group get money from. Lots of obstacles faced this group. However, I do believe that where's there's a will there's a way. And if at 1st you don't succeed, try, try again. I'd think there'd be rumors on how to remove the tracking devices and escape. If this could be overcome, relocating, fake IDs and fitting in, in comparisom would be a piece of cake. IMHO.

I really enjoyed the movie and thought it was well done. But I was a little disappointed when Kathy H. didn't at least try to escape after losing her friends or better yet b4 losing her friends. I wished they'd all tried to escape together.

reply

The question is whether or not there is anywhere to escape to. This is a civilization gone mad. Most of the people are elderly. These donor kids have been taught no survival skills whatsoever. I think if they tried to escape, it would end in disaster. There are other reasons they never rebel or try to escape which are explained well over the course of the film. Kathy wasn't going to try to escape. That's as plain as day.

reply

Exactly right. If you truely understand the film, you would not even question why the children/young adults never run, or rebel. There are certain truths that can be deduced about the society depicted in this film, that we never see. Surely, it is a society gone mad. Most of the people are elderly, so healthy young people stick out like a sore thumb. Recall the scene where the kids go into a small town looking for Ruth's "original".

reply

"Most of the people are elderly..."

What makes you say that?

What people are you referring to? Non-donors? I saw no evidence that 'most people were elderly'. When Kathy, Tommy and Ruth go to that travel agency (or whatever it was) to look for Ruth's 'original', the people working there were young, in their 20s or 30s perhaps.

Otherwise I agree with what you've said that these kids for the most part accepted their fate because that was just the way the world worked. If I were in their situation I might want to run for it, but that's because I'm talking from the point of view of someone who has grown up with freedom: the freedom to do and be whatever I want. These poor buggers were not given that chance.

If they tried to get away, where would they go? How would they fit into this society? They had no records or birth certificates (I'm willing to bet). How would they find employment, or a place to live without these sorts of records? Would non-donors be on the look out for 'run-aways'? They'd be living their entire lives fearful of being discovered.

On a side note, probably the most distressing scene for me was when Ruth was laying on the operating table with her eyes left wide open as they took most of the contents of her stomach out and bagged it up for some 'lucky bastard' - like she was nothing more that a piece of meat. Then she 'completed' and they just left her like that, didn't drape a sheet over her face or close her eyes. It was just so mechanical and unfeeling.


Look at this, it's a nighty. She would look sexy in that, you'd look like a moose!

reply

Well, I shouldn't say all civilian citizens appears to be elderly. But, in the scene where the five youths go into a small town cafe because they think one of their "originals" lives in town, the only other people there were an elderly couple, that obviously recogized who they were. Also, in the scene near the end of the film where Kathty and Tommy go to the head master of their childhood boarding school to see if rumours are true that there is an exception for couples that are in love, and if they can get a few more years, almost all the people in the street appear to be elderly.

Also, I would say its logical to believe that in this sordid social system, eventually you would start to see more elderly, and fewer younger people.

reply

I'm still not sure that by seeing a few more elderly people we were meant to conclude that there were more of them than younger people.

Perhaps placing more elderly folk alongside the protagonists was the directors way of driving home the fact that this was a stage of life the donors would never reach due to their own short life-spans.



Look at this, it's a nighty. She would look sexy in that, you'd look like a moose!

reply

God you're pompous as ****

reply

[deleted]

I haven't read all the replies... don't really want to. Can I pop out an idea that the reason they didn't run was because... uhm... i don't know... they have a microchip in their damn wrist?

Think about it. Several times throughout the movie, we see them entering their permitted living area, and what do they do? Scan their wrist past the machine.

Obviously the company responsible for these things are monitoring them. If they disappear one night, the company will know because they don't scan themselves. There is likely a GPS tracker in the microchip as well, where they can locate any runaways.

When they were kids, they scared the kids into not running away, by telling stories of girls jumping the fence and starving to death, and boys getting mutilated with their hands/feet cut off.

As adults, they probably just realize that it's pointless to run away, when you've got a machine implanted in you. Yeah, they could remove it, but they're totally isolated from the rest of the world and have no idea how it works.

The whole "they've been brainwashed" thing works, and it's likely a big factor in explaining their behavior, but if there are any doubts about that, the fact that they're microchipped should shush any skeptics.

reply

jpga666^

"...When they were kids, they scared the kids into not running away, by telling stories of girls jumping the fence and starving to death, and boys getting mutilated with their hands/feet cut off...."



** mini spoilers **

And, for all we know, the stories about these kids meeting horrible fates for wandering outside the boundaries could have been about actual children who may have tried to run off & could have in fact been killed by them. The rest of the story could have been embellished as a cautionary tale to the children at the school of what could happen to them if they tried to leave the school grounds.

With a system such as this one, where the clones are considered nothing more than walking/breathing future meat factories and as less than human, why shouldn't we think that if one, say, came down with some kind of systemic disease, that the child wouldn't just be killed off (a very late-term type of abortion, so to speak) and then another one started in his/her place.

Same with incorrigible rebellious kids -- If too much trouble, they just could be 'vanished'.

Who would care?







"I'm here because I believe in a free Narnia."


reply

Brainwashed? The kids were raised in an almost totally normal way. Just by telling them that their future is to die for strangers in the end won't make all of them zombies who cannot question that statement.

The film constantly depicts the "clones" as human beings. They fall in love, they bully, they envy, they laugh, etc. Yet people in that society don't seem to realize it. The women who ran the house told them the Gallery program was to see if they had human souls, but even without that program any person with eyes and brains could see that they indeed were completely human, yet no one did anything.

Besides, these "clones" had pretty much a lot of freedom to go out into the world. Even the most brainwashed would have immediately seen that they were just as human as the normal people and would have consequently questioned the roles that were thrust upon them.

Its hard to accept that these clones would be proud to give their organs to others human. That's like thinking that slaves who were taught since they were born that their role was to serve the whites, would always be proud to do it.

As far as what would they do and where they would go if escaped, that doesn't really matter when the next option is unavoidable death.

Finally, regarding the "microchip" argument. Yes, it seems they might have had some device in them but: according to the film, this cloning thing started around the half of the twentieth century. A big medical milestone. Yet in the other aspects, society doesn't seem futuristic, but rather what how it was according to those times. So it doesn't seem likely that the technology in these "microchips" was very advanced, and even if it were, that would imply other technologies like the internet, which means higher difficulty to maintain stuff hidden. There's no way society would allow human organs trafficking. If the society was indeed mad, why weren't the clones? they were depicted as regular human beings. There was also Miss Lucy, and the pictures of society don't show organizations much different from those we have now



reply

Brainwashing can be very subtle. This could be a little off-topic, but you might be familiar with Steven Stayner, a boy who was kidnapped in 1972 at the age of seven. His kidnapper (Kenneth Parnell) had told Steven that his parents could no longer afford to keep him, and that Parnell now had legal custody. Steven was renamed "Dennis" and lived with his kidnapper for seven years. Throughout those seven years Steven was repeatedly subjected to sexual abuse at the hands of Parnell. Yet he was given plenty of freedom to do as he pleased, he went to school, had friends, rode a bike, did all the things that other kids do. Steven had many chances to escape, but he didn't. He even went on a school trip to San Francisco at one point, but he still went back to Parnell, because he thought he had no one else. As Steven himself said: "Don't expect abducted children to come up and ask for help. They're totally dependent on their abductors." It wasn't until Steven was nearly 15 that he did something about it. Parnell kidnapped another boy, five-year old Timmy White, and told him the same lies he told Steven. After three weeks, Steven took Timmy away while Parnell was working a night shift. The two boys made it into town and Steven told Timmy to walk into the police station and identify himself. Steven was STILL going to go back to Parnell afterwards, but the police got to him first, Parnell was arrested and Timmy and Steven were reunited with their parents.

"Besides, these "clones" had pretty much a lot of freedom to go out into the world. Even the most brainwashed would have immediately seen that they were just as human as the normal people and would have consequently questioned the roles that were thrust upon them."

In the novel, when Kathy, Ruth and Tommy moved into the Cottages, Kathy tells us about fellow students from Hailsham who went on to other places:

Cynthia E. ... went on to Dorset with the rest of her crowd. And Harry, the boy I'd nearly had sex with, I heard he went to Wales. But all our gang had stayed together. And if we ever missed the others, we could tell ourselves there was nothing stopping us going to visit them. For all our map lessons with Miss Emily, we had no real idea at that point about distances and how easy or hard it was to visit a particular place. We'd talk about getting lifts from the veterans when they were going on their trips, or else how in time we'd learn to drive ourselves and then we'd be able to see them whenever we pleased.
In the novel there is no mention of "tracking bracelets". The Cottages were run by a grumpy old man called Keffers, who would come by in his van. Kathy said:
Of course, in practice, especially during the first months, we rarely stepped beyond the confines of the Cottages. We didn't even walk about the surrounding countryside or wander into the nearby village. I don't think we were afraid exactly. We all knew no one would stop us if we wandered off, provided we were back by the day and time we entered into Keffers's ledgerbook. That summer we arrived, we were constantly seeing veterans packing their bags and rucksacks and going off for two or three days at a time with what seemed to us scary nonchalance. We'd watched them with astonishment, wondering if the following summer we'd be doing the same. Of course, we were, but in those early days, it didn't seem possible. You have to remember that until that point we'd never been beyond the grounds of Hailsham, and we were just bewildered.
It's a bit like when criminals are released on parole - they still have to check in and report to their parole officer. The clones live at the Cottages for a couple years, having their movements monitored until it's time to start donating. Unless they become carers, that is.


reply

OT, somewhat, but there was another situation more recently (discovered in 2007) that sounds almost exactly like the Steven Stayner kidnapping: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Devlin


________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

reply

Bill O'Reilly was callous enough to suggest Shawn Hornbeck had enjoyed his time of captivity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKI5S4wShqo

reply

Unbelievable.

Or, maybe not, knowing Bill O'Reilly. He's despicable.



I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

reply

I think there are many ways of possibly answering the question of why we don't see the characters rebel and run from their fate. Many of the reasons provided here, from brainwashing to learned helplessness and even electronic monitoring, are valid interpretations which lead to their own insights.

But I wanted to add that the author of the book that the film is based on, Kazuo Ishiguro, answered this question in the DVD extra "The Secrects of Never Let Me Go". My sense is that he would not object to the other ways of understanding the characters actions as alternate interpretations, but he has given his own answer.

His main intention in the story is summed up in Kathy H's last few lines:

What I'm not sure about is if our lives have been so different from the lives of the people we save...We all complete...None of us feel we've had enough time


Directly addressing the question of why the characters don't run, Ishiguro explains:

It doesn't occur to them...It's beyond their horizons. I structured the whole things as a metaphor for how we face mortality. We can't run away from that...there is nowhere to run to.


The characters have no choice to rebel and run, since we have no choice to escape from our own mortality.

reply

I haven't seen the movie, but just finished the book. Another thought that occurred to me is that the people from whom they were cloned could have been selected in part because they were docile and compliant. But I do like Ishiguro's comment about mortality. As I approached the end of the book, it struck me how much the fate of these individuals was so much like everyone else's after all. (OK, perhaps not the people to whom they donated, but those of us in the "real" world!)

reply