Mark Romanek directs Never Let Me Go, adapated from novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, starring Sally Sparrow, Keira, and Spider-man 2.0

first wave of reviews are in

I know nothing of the book. I am intrigued.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kymQcM4ej3w

It can't be as good as this promises: "This film feels like the product of Kubrick and Malick's bastard son," suggests David Poland at Movie City News. "In fact, it seems to me that had Kubrick lived a bit longer and met Romanek, he might have handed AI to him instead of Spielberg."

There was a bit of discussion on the book over on ILB - I enjoyed it although I did have some criticisms, and it got me reading a lot of his other stuff. I'd be interested in seeing this, the trailer seems to capture the atmosphere of the book quite well.

It's the kind of story that could be ruined as a movie though, as the book is almost excrutiatingly understated in the way it's written.

Looks like the kids are electronically tagged in the movie, which puts to rest one of the key questions of the book, for better or worse.

Agreed that it looks waaaaayy more intense than I remember the book being, but whether that means ruination of the story or not, I wouldn't like to say. Think I might have to reread this asap.

Must have been shot near here, that's Clevedon Pier.

The innate, almost overwhelming sadness of the book is intense enough. But I do see why they'd have to ramp things up a bit. Or more specifically, given the relative ease of emotional manipulation via film (as opposed to prose) I can also see why they'd want to ramp up the intensity. Not that said intensity is unjustified. In a weird way the novel is every bit as about repression, station and tragic inevitability as "Remains of the Day," but that movie/book is about adults. This one is about teens, who are (natch) more volatile, emotionally.

gonna go see this this week...

think im interviewing bromanek next month... wish it were coming out here sooner tho

I found the book disappointing because the world in which all this stuff took place never convinced, at least outside the school. The film might do a better job of this, simply by being filmed in real places.

I've started the novel twice.

x-post I never quite understood why a sci-fi dystopia need "convince." But I see your point. I assume the scope of the book will have to be more than a bit wider, since much of the novel is so internal. I'm hoping they're strong enough to resist a voiceover.

Romanek, not surprisingly, is a really bright interview.

Per the novel, I wonder how effective it is once one knows the "twist." Or at least once one realizes what is going on. I seem to recall that gradual suspicion and discovery being a source of a lot its power, but clearly the film has no problem alluding to it in the trailer.

I've started the novel twice.

i finished it once, against my better judgement. really terrible book.

I never quite understood why a sci-fi dystopia need "convince."

eh?!

is this the organ harvesters of england thing?

so is this like a remake of The Island?

no its about the lasting trauma of being socially unpopular at boarding school

so it's a remake of School Ties?

I seem to recall that gradual suspicion and discovery being a source of a lot its power, but clearly the film has no problem alluding to it in the trailer.

Yeah, this.

im not too keen on the novel -- really flat narrative voice (deliberately, sure, but boo to that), lost-esque refusal to give up pertinent information. rather it had more sci-fi/action-adventure shit.

I never quite understood why a sci-fi dystopia need "convince."

Not sure what you mean exactly, but I'd always rather a world in a novel that feels real and lived in, rather than a flat screen with the characters acting in front of it. Jim Crace's 'THe Pest House' had the same problem--it didn't feel as though there was anything going on beyond where the main characters were standing at any moment.

i guess first-person novels have two main conceits, which are that the narrator is adept at 1) concealment and gradual disclosure of information (common to many other novels too) and 2) writing as well as a novelist. narrator of NLMG is fine at 1, but not 2.

i finished it once, against my better judgement. really terrible book.

Insanely rong.

i guess first-person novels have two main conceits, which are that the narrator is adept at 1) concealment and gradual disclosure of information (common to many other novels too) and 2) writing as well as a novelist.

Don't agree with 2 at all.

Really looking forward to this, although I hope they address the question of why no one ever goes batshit and riots.

I never quite understood why a sci-fi dystopia need "convince."

I think the idea is that the dystopia need not necessarily be a plausible future scenario. So just because there's no danger of us starting to create clones purely for organ donation, doesn't mean the book loses its impact.

'flat' narrative voice is of course partly ishiguro's schtick, but in this case i thought it mostly worked as tribute to john wyndham (ie mainstreamish science fiction novel w. a powerful central idea and a rather pedestrian prose style) - the novel's slightly 50s/60s ambience/feel seemed tied in to this (and i believed in the world rather than more than i believed in the actual plot mechanics - ie i didn't really buy that this wld ever be an actual solution to disease etc).

the scene in the nov where the narrator and her boyf visit (charlotte rampling in a wheelchair) is a v clumsy bit of exposition, imho - and it looks like the film is even cruder in this regard

Never read the book, but the trailer is absolutely laughable in its stuffiness and triteness. People (including me) were literally laughing and groaning at the trailer the last time I saw it in the cinemas.

The movie looks absolutely awful, which is a shame given the cast.

Really looking forward to this, although I hope they address the question of why no one ever goes batshit and riots.

Ye Olde English Class Divide, innit. you dont dogs and barbed wire to put the lower classes in their place.

Not sure what you mean exactly, but I'd always rather a world in a novel that feels real and lived in, rather than a flat screen with the characters acting in front of it.

Thought this was quite appropriate for this specific story (and for Remains of the Day) - the eeriness of the isolation is always there so when they do go out into the wider world you kind of feel the shock.

it didn't feel as though there was anything going on beyond where the main characters were standing at any moment

I disagree- there's a huge 'mystery' going on behind them all the time. You know the teachers etc are hugely uneasy and there's this big horror we don't really know about, for most of the first half. As a reader you're constantly trying to pick apart every little detail for clues as to what Cath's NOT telling us.

Re never rioting: I think this should definitely have been given more time in the book (or ANY time) as it seems the author just chickened out of trying to articulate a good reasoning for it. But, I really think this is the core of what the book's about: how these kids go along with what they're told, how much they fully understand, how much they realise this isn't 'normal', the fact that none of the others seem particularly perturbed by it (would make one person rebelling seem like a weird idea), the ways in which their uneasiness and unspoken fear do actually manifest themselves.

Jim Crace's 'THe Pest House' had the same problem--it didn't feel as though there was anything going on beyond where the main characters were standing at any moment.

― ... (James Morrison), Monday, September 6, 2010 1:24 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark

otm. this quality is very strong, and i have to think intentional, in ishiguro's recent novels (the unconsoled onward). there's a sense of almost pathological disassociation, characters who see the world only as a series of tableaux through which they move. this weird distancing and simplification is much less present in never let me go than in unconsoled & when we were orphans, but still there, and creepy as fuck. anyway, i loved this book, but would much rather see when we were orphans as a film. that's some kafka-quality fucked uppedness there

kind of agree abt the fundamental unreality of the concept: the seemingly unquestioned, unchallenged acceptance of this status quo. it doesn't make sense, doesn't convince on any level. there would be, at the very least, massive political disagreement about the use of donors, and some attempt made to create the impression that they were happy to "give" in this manner. it's a very old-fashioned book in this sense. ishiguro misses or isn't concerned with the ways in which inhumanity is marketed, made to seem acceptable, and struggled with. the book reminds me of 1984 in this sense. as orwell failed to anticipate that the sale of contentment would accompany and disguise late 20th century social control, ishiguro fails to understand (seemingly) that inhumanity is both political and personal.

as much as i liked the book, it didn't work for me in this sense. the unconsoled and when we were orphans are explicit about and make virtues of their unreality, of the sense that they're not a portrait of reality, but of self-centered individual perception. in those books, we don't see the real world; we see the way the world is understood. in never let me go, i gather we're meant to see the world as it "really is", and the fact that the world described doesn't convince is a problem, whether or not that world is meant to function as a metaphor.

the seemingly unquestioned, unchallenged acceptance of this status quo. it doesn't make sense, doesn't convince on any level.

but the book is strictly from pov from some1 who doesn't know any better/different. they accept the status quo just as we do.

but we don't. we complain bitterly. we disagree with one another at every turn not only about what the status quo should be, but what it actually is. we protest, argue, fight, agitate, publish, act, etc. there's no sense that this is happening in the world of never let me go, and that strikes me as a failure on ishiguro's part. he's not interested in that level, the demographic, the political. he's only interested in interpersonal negotiations, to the point where it begins to seem like a limitation. again, i think his best books make a virtue of the limitation.

trailer looks like sentimental, insipid, conveniently placid (though i thought this about the book too, just hoped the film might make it seem a bit more provocative) pap. lol@from the director of one hour photo.

re my xpost: not just a question of POV, either. by the time they mature, the characters are not shielded from what's going on in the world around them.

but we don't. we complain bitterly. we disagree with one another at every turn not only about what the status quo should be, but what it actually is. we protest, argue, fight, agitate, publish, act, etc. there's no sense that this is happening in the world of never let me go, and that strikes me as a failure on ishiguro's part. he's not interested in that level, the demographic, the political. he's only interested in interpersonal negotiations, to the point where it begins to seem like a limitation. again, i think his best books make a virtue of the limitation.

― having taken an actual journalism class (contenderizer), Tuesday, September 7, 2010 11:05 AM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

we dispute over certain things; other things are so much in the background we take them for granted.

I think contenderizer's right in that Ishiguro isn't concerned with how this scenario would play out irl, but this is a very deliberate omission. He's not interested in the direct political or societal consequences of this highly unlikely bit of inhumanity - he's taking all that for granted, and then investigating the personal consequences from that point on.

That's the sense in which the book is sci-fi - or even more appropriately, speculative fiction. It's not set in this world, but one which looks very very similar when viewed up close, yet grows disconcertingly different with distance.

(many xposts)

he's not interested in that level, the demographic, the political. he's only interested in interpersonal negotiations, to the point where it begins to seem like a limitation.

absolutely, yes - up to the part about seeming like a limitation. i can see that pov but for me the interpersonal stuff is enough, bringing in the political would be pretty boring and obvious.

Static, Romanek's first movie, is really gd and strange, so he's by no means the worst choice for this material (tho' yeah, the trailer looks a bit insipid)

we dispute over certain things; other things are so much in the background we take them for granted.

is this true? what's the real-world analog? the undisputed, unacknowledged, taken-for-granted inhumanity/atrocity? i don't think that such things exist anymore. we now examine and attack every aspect of our existence and culture. that's why the book seems old-fashioned to me. it seems to reflect a quiet, buttoned-down, "leave well enough alone" approach to human society, and that approach strikes me as archaic, nostalgic.

i'm not saying that we're now able to see ourselves perfectly, or that we no longer brush unpleasant truths beneath the carpet. i accept the novel as a metaphor on that level. but as realistic world building, i think it's got some problems. it does not seem reasonable to think that such a thing could go on with no public controversy. erhaps the problem is that ishiguro doesn't try hard enough to differentiate his imagined world from our own. we can't see the mechanisms that socially justify this radical divergence from our own world. we can take them for granted, if we choose to do so, but the novel never attempts to persuade us to do so. it just seems to assume that we will.

this is the only ishiguro novel i'd say this about. the complete unreality of when we were orphans, in contrast, is justified by the narrator's psychology.

i liked the novel quite a bit, but couldn't stop mentally complaining about these discontinuities. i mean, i wish i could see it as ledge evidently did, as that seems to have been ishiguro's intent. but i couldn't. i wanted the world described to make more sense, to better reflect the real world as i understand it.

what's the real-world analog?

that's the point, we wouldn't know

it would be a different novel if it got into the politics of cloning

not necessarily a worse one imo, but that wasn't what he was going for

I liked the book when I read it, but was left with a big feeling of 'shouldn't this be a bit better?' that I did not get when I read Michel Faber's Under the Skin.

Yeah, there's this sense throughout that it's building up to... something... and then the ending is clunky and not particularly satisfactory, imo. Although I think he leaves this huge sense of dissatisfaction on purpose - in The Remains of the Day it was entirely appropriate, for example.

I thought this book was hundreds of times better than Under the Skin, which I liked up to a point and then just hated for some reason. Looking forward to the film but assuming it will be disappointing.

think im interviewing bromanek next month... wish it were coming out here sooner tho

― i am legernd (history mayne), Monday, September 6, 2010 12:44 AM (3 days ago) Bookmark

it's on like 60s actress-comidienne eleanor bron

one of my friends from dublin is the irish guy driving the car with a little bit of voiceover in the trailer! so cool to see him in something like this, think it's quite a small part but a good part.

the only review of the book that i even remotely agree with is Philip Hensher's in The Spectator.

"The result, alas, is a novel quite without vulgarity, but one where the situation is totally implausible on every level."

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/21309/school-for-scandal.thtml

i'm totally baffled by any love for the book. the writing and plotting are shockingly poor.

liked the book!

ffs this isn't out till next year over here! just reread the book and really stoked for the film.

Just the read the book and agree w/those finding it unsatisfying. I don't need a huge amount of backstory or explanation to sink me into a world, but when it's a world just a hair's breadth from our own and yet somehow people act in utterly alien ways I need a little *something* to bridge the gap.

As it is, the book's "power" comes from pathos, but it's unearned because he contrives a world that allows nothing else, a strawman of sadness, and then goes "look how sad it is, in this world I have built of sadness".

Anyone else seen the film then? Had a free pass so watched it and found it pretty faithful to the book (to a point), and Andrew Garfield was made for this role.
The main disappointment for me was Ruth's character - very well observed and convincing in the book, yet reduced to a one-dimensional desperate & jealous girl in the movie. A lot of what we learn about Hailsham in the book is through Kath's observations of Ruth, yet a lot of the Hailsham stuff is glossed over in the film (would be too long if they included everything).
The ending with Madame is briefer, probably for the best. I was surprised they left out what (to me) was one of the more poignant details - when they go to get their deferral and Madame or someone says that the rumours of love=deferral seem to crop up all the time, independently. Like that's some inevitable outcome of their situation. Also, it seemed a shame they left out the stuff about Norfolk being a lost property bin - could've doen with a bit of silly humour.
We learn fairly early on what the deal is with donations etc - I was worried they'd build this up into some horrible 'twist'.

I was surprised they left out what (to me) was one of the more poignant details - when they go to get their deferral and Madame or someone says that the rumours of love=deferral seem to crop up all the time, independently. Like that's some inevitable outcome of their situation.

aww. haven't see it, but it'd be a shame to lose this detail. one of the book's most subtle and devastating bits of business (though you knew it was coming).

i saw this last night. it's very contained, emotionally and as a film. i wld have perferred to see it in a smaller theatre - seemed strange to see it in a place meant more for grand spectacle.

the weird thing, is though the premise is all very sad (as said above, sad story in a world of sadness), it comes off quite subtly for the most part - we're not overwhelmed by it - maybe this could be called 'reserved' (haha or 'british', i don't know), but there's still power in it - and in how the film manages to hardly waver from that overcast, limbo-zone feeling. it's rivetting in a different way...

i think the creepiest thing about the world of the film/book is how we hardly see the world of non-donors or people not directly involved with the program - like there's a pane of impenetrable glass btwn the two. these characters are us but not us, that cyborg-like uncanniness, which makes it all something we do relate to, yet can't get close enough to really understand. it's very odd; it's a thinking film mascarading as a feeling one, imo.

I never felt the author's intent was to delve any deeper into the system at work - the whole book's intent was to convey the feelings of those fated. I admittedly really wanted the children to face the gov't (they somewhat did) or somehow escaped their fate, but upon ending I really thought Ishiguro excelled in not giving you any sort of catharsis. The feeling of impending doom was as close to death as I've ever felt in my life, (aside from getting incredibly sick a yrs back).

The ending of the book was such a great line, tho... iirc correctly it goes, "Now I've got to go to wherever I must be". Fah! Fantastic, I thought.

Also once they're out of Hailsham they don't actually have any visible authority figures, which makes it harder to challenge them. Tommy only starts raging until it's way too late to do anything about it.

The scene where Ruth was on the operating table and they were just letting her die was the creepiest bit. It's just not something you'd ever see here.

not read the book, and i get why they accept their fate, but i thought it should have done more to show what the external forces that prevent them from doing anything are. why does nothing twig til so close to the end? i know theyre vaguely zombiefied and look drugged out for most of the film so they arent all there but even so, it seemed to assume too much prior knowledge on part of the audience. as if too much of anything like background would disrupt the atmosphere. it is a beautiful film (i liked the title screens alot too), and it seemed very 'british' or english at least, with a gently sad/chilling feel to it. but considering we see them in the real/outside world, how come they seem so unaware of the diffs between them and normal people? i get that the novel was never meant to be about the sci fi elements but it seems almost like a cop out not to. on one hand without all the rships, love, general circumstances to hang on the whole point of their existence, it could probably still work just as a story about relationships/acceptance of fate/having no control etc, but as it is there, it seems a bit lame not to explore anything to do with it.

well actually they are aware of who they are, arent they, just remembered the travel agent scene.

Their predicament is basically inexplicable anyway; any attempt to probe into it and it dissolves utterly under its own implausibility.

^OTM

this was the only review of the book i even remotely agreed with

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/21309/school-for-scandal.thtml

i'm still at loss why isiguro even chose to note that it was the 1990's. seems like time period was relevant once every never.

no cell-phones i guess? i still think it would've been the case at hailsham 2492

maybe to specify that this isn't a dystopian-future novel?

I still thought of exclusively as a parallel universe, tho, not "what you didn't know about your organs"-esque. When you receive a donation, you usually get to know who's giving them to you. And they tend to be dead.

the dates were pointless. i couldnt tell if this was meant to be some parallel version of the 1990s or what. why not just use the present time. cant see what diff it would have made. the world shown in NLMG didnt seem 'whole' enough. not saying they have to rebel like most characters in books/films would, but theres no explanation of what the benefits of accepting that conditioning were. its not like theres anything to risk if they dont donate is there?! (not that i saw) apart from the fact theyre just clearly not able to really think for themselves. tbh i think the whole lightweight sci-fi concept (which im not mentioning just in case someone reading doesnt know yet) slightly ruins what would otherwise be a good story about passivity/life/human emotion etc. without that, it would be much less problematic.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/21309/school-for-scandal.thtml

that is a great review. i did start the book years back but hated it too much to keep reading.

I think the prose is defensible, the strange slang and the flat affect both an artefact of their unusual and sheltered upbringing. As for the plausibility, it seems there are just two types of people in the world, those who can accept the scenario at face value, and those who can't. I am somewhat surprised to find myself in the former camp tbh, I tend to be a stickler for plausibility; but it is quite clear that constructing a thoroughly coherent and believable world is not Ishiguro's main concern here.

my problem was mainly that the characters were all p stupid

like the plausibility of the they-are-clones-for-organs bit (fu) isn't really the issue, the fact that the whole plot based on their thinking they can find a way to get out of it by drawing monsters or whatever is so flimsy, that is the issue

i think the idea is that they are stupid because they are cloned from the 'dregs of society' so drawing monsters can seem like a likely way of getting out (plus they, tommy esp, look quite gormless for large periods of the film). exactly why they cant get out anyway, when they can drive, there are no security guards there to hunt them down, and i dont think there was any great acknowledgement of anyone turning them in either, was less clear to me.

But they're basically uneducated and kept in the dark about the world they live in for most of their lives. They're not really given much opportunity to grow out of a stupid cosseted childhood. The whole point is that they're kept in their place psychologically rather than forcefully.

matt otm

i prefer the film coz in the end i just want to read the good shit, not someone pretending to be less than great. i think i've already posted this. hungovr.

thats true. they are basically brainwashed.

surprised no one (unless i missed it) has brought up 'but this is how we all are, we all live unquestioningly, accepting what were told and given' metaphor point yet.

(just cos thats made pretty directly near the end of the film)

You missed it.

i think the idea is that they are stupid because they are cloned from the 'dregs of society'

this is eugenic, not actually present in the novel

they're basically uneducated and kept in the dark about the world they live in for most of their lives

they know about the deal from pre-puberty, the narrator has a postgraduate degree

i just want to read the good shit, not someone pretending to be less than great.

What do you mean, HM?

the book is written 'as if' by someone with a less than scintillating prose style

i just want to read good prose

they know about the deal from pre-puberty

Lots of people know about their predicament, their place in the world, from pre-puberty. Doesn't mean they know how to do anything about it.

the narrator has a postgraduate degree

Don't think she does. She goes straight from the cottages to being a carer.

Also they only know about their deal through the actions of a renegade teacher/authority figure who rapidly disappears.

no, they're told before that; it's just that none of them process it until she, er, reminds them? because, i repeat, everyone in this book is stupid

it should have just been about kids with learning difficulties, rather than clones.

no, they're told before that; it's just that none of them process it until she, er, reminds them? because, i repeat, everyone in this book is stupid

No, when she tells them is the first time they hear anything. They're completely in the dark before then. The whole point of Hailsham is to allow them to live normal-as-possible lives for as long as possible.

"you've been told before, but none of you have taken it on board, you've been told and not told"

surprised no one (unless i missed it) has brought up 'but this is how we all are, we all live unquestioningly, accepting what were told and given' metaphor point yet.

isn't this specifically w/r/t boarding school / school stories? which is ... another way in which the logic of this novel is bonked, in that we're meant to take this point on board whilst also taking the narrative at face value that hailsham is the liberal and nice end of things -- if the book's ideas had their clothes on then all the clones would be public school kids. or none of them

"Told and not told" kind of implies crucial information that's been retained though.

isn't this specifically w/r/t boarding school / school stories? which is ... another way in which the logic of this novel is bonked, in that we're meant to take this point on board whilst also taking the narrative at face value that hailsham is the liberal and nice end of things -- if the book's ideas had their clothes on then all the clones would be public school kids. or none of them

Well, no. The debate is going on among the people with the knowledge and power. The book isn't saying that everyone in the world is a mindless drone, either in its own world or in ours. Hailsham is the last stand of the fluffy liberal end of things, by the end of the book they're basically all battery farms.

yahhh -- which is silly, because hailsham is the nearest the book gets to an idea

I dunno, all this debate is a bit like asking why there aren't any clone armies/labour camps/brothels. It's outside the very limited scope the novel sets for itself.

Was the "slang" really that strange? Not English here. I thought "daft" and "thick" were just usual vocab for the average islander

don't say "islander"

semi-continent

A tedious film, paralyzed by good taste and sadness. The actors looked frozen.

enjoyed this, w reservations - but thought the score was TERRIBLE, obvious, syrupy rub that undid a lot of the restraint owise shown by the filmmakers

also, can't help thinking that romanek's 'hurt' music vid was actually a better, more moving account of loss and memory

Finally saw this.

It has the feel of a film that somebody on the blogsophere will hail as a masterpiece in about 2 years time, and everyone will re-evaluate it as a lost gem. Right now I'm not terribly convinced, like there was something wrongheaded about the whole thing. It might have worked in the book, but not so much in the film. It feels like the obvious emotional pull comes from people knowing they are going to die and how they deal with it, and if that's the case then Roy Batty>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>these three chumps.

Still better than The Island though.

although thinking about it The Island made some effort to deal with the ethical issues (asshole rich people) even if it did end in "Human" Spirit Triumphalism/explosions.

It might have worked in the book

it didn't but i think you may be overthinking the whole blogosphere lost gem angle.

dunno have you been to the blogosphere lately?

Roy Batty>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>these three chumps

Ha ha, so OTM

just watched this on sky, it's bollocks

Roy Batty>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>these three chumps.

yeah that's it really

What happened to this guy? He always seemed to be talented, at least as far as skills go, but he hasn't made a movie since this one, 25 (!) years ago. I can't imagine this is what put him in movie jail/perpetual production hell.

(Mark Pellington was another music video hot shot of that era who has at least been productive but whose career didn't amount to much. I guess they can't all be Jonathan Glazer. Or Spike Jonze. Or Michel Gondry, who has remained productive but who seems to have fallen out of favor.)

Or McG, even. And does calling oneself McG guarantee a limited artistic shelf life?

2010 was a long time ago, but not that long!

Feel like McG was more of a slick-mode director. No one ever thought of him as, I dunno, a potential next Kubrick or Oscar-contender, not like those other aforementioned dudes in the MTV stable.

Doing Chipotle ads apparently

https://www.shots.net/news/view/anthony-edwards-feels-different-with-chipotle
https://adage.com/article/creativity/mark-romanek-starting-new-chapter-commercial-directing-superprime-films/2539206

Oof. Well, maybe it's an Occam's razor situation and he's just hard to work with, or has substance abuse problems or both or whatever.