Review: Never Let Me Go

Because I keep up with the careers of so many British actors, I invariably hear about movies before I discover their release plans for the United States. Some movies open nationwide, some are limited to New York and Los Angeles, and some fall under the radar completely. Never Let Me Go was given a limited released last year, but I was absolutely convinced that it would gain some Oscar nominations and gain a wider release. Unfortunately, this wonderful movie disappeared almost completely after a half-hearted attempt to promote it, and I just now had the opportunity to watch it.

Based on a highly-acclaimed novel by Kazuo Ishiguro (that is on my reading list), I had heard mixed reviews about the film adaptation. Some people loved the movie while others argued that it failed to capture the spirit of the novel. I decided it would be best to watch the movie before I read the book, and that was completely the right decision. I went into the movie knowing practically nothing about the plot, except that it dealt with cloning humans and that the ending was not a happy one. Since I didn't spend the entire movie comparing it to the book (which invariably happens when I switch the order around), I was able to appreciate the film and the story on their own merits.

Set in an alternate universe where medical science has decided to clone sick humans in order to harvest their healthy organs, Never Let Me Go follows three "donors" over the span of twenty years. One thing I loved about the story was how the children knew exactly as much as the audience about the world they lived in and the fate they had to accept; that is, they knew nothing in the beginning and our understanding grew only when theirs did. I also appreciate books and films that can fall into a variety of genre. Never Let Me Go can be described as a tragic love story, a coming-of-age story, a science fiction story, a cautionary dystopian story, etc.

Besides telling the finite story of three clones, Never Let Me Go forces the audience to contemplate current medical practices and their moral complications. Cloning humans isn't a moral quandry that society has been forced to face quite yet, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility in the near future. If and when it does arise, then the most glaring question to be discussed is the one presented by Ishiguro; namely, are clones any less human than their "originals," or do they have their own unique soul? However, plenty of parallels can be made regarding euthanasia, stem cell research, and other recent medical developments.

Rating: 4 out of 5 stars - So many things worked in this film, from the acting to the setting, and I genuinely felt like I was watching another society instead of my own. My only problem was that the friendship between the three children felt unnatural, and there were very few moments where I understood why they were such good friends. This was probably more of a failing on the part of the screenplay than the novel (and building relationships is a common enough problem with 90-minute movies), but I have to admit that Keira Knightly felt out of place.

Accuracy in Historical Fiction

As a historian, I have a love/hate relationship with historical fiction, in both movies and books. When done correctly, there's nothing I love more than picking up a novel set in the Middle Ages (either about commoners, such as The Pillars of the Earth, or about royalty, a la Jean Plaidy and Sharon Kay Penman). When done badly, though, I tend to completely reject its existence (little known fact - there was no Oscar for Best Picture in 1996 because Braveheart was never made).

From the time when I was eleven and saw Titanic and Anastasia, I've been critiquing the historical accuracy of books and movies. I used to think that describing the correct years, names, places, actions, or consequences was all that contributed to a text's historical accuracy; however, in the past year I've begun to realize that a second aspect can undermine it completely. A historical novel can contain engaging plots with themes that resonate with modern society, but it would completely fail as historical fiction if the characters are not believable in their setting. If an author or screenwriter isn't going to take the time to thoroughly research a time period, why bother basing an entire story around it?

I've noticed that many authors employ the same formula of an "enlightened protagonist" clashing with the "ignorant/racist/etc" supporting characters who are actually more representative of the time period. I can think of two reasons for this trend. Either the author picked the historical setting exclusively to point out the flaws in past cultures, or the author mistakenly believes that an audience can only relate to a story where the protagonist shares its views on women, slavery, religion, etc.

For example, if a novel or movie is going to be  set in the United States in the early nineteenth century, then slavery is obviously a topic that the author must address as some point. More often than not, though, the protagonist just happens to be the one person in the family who believes that slavery is wrong...even if the family owns slaves! Watching the protagonist interact with slaves, struggling with his belief system, and eventually form his own opinions instead of relying upon society is one thing; in such cases, the story is very emotionally compelling. But casually writing a scene in order to acknowledge that the protagonist is aware of slavery, yet not supportive, just seems lazy.

I'm half-way through World Without End, the sequel to The Pillars of the Earth, and as much as historians (including myself) love to pick on Ken Follett for his artistic license, I've realized that he does understand the medieval mindset and creates appropriate characters. Some bishops and monks are earnestly religious while others are ambitious; the nobility change frequently allegiances in their efforts to gain more land and power; and the working class struggle from year to year in order to put food on the table. Each character's actions come from believable motivations, and never once have I felt like Follett was using his text to preach to me.

Clearance Sales and $1 Movies, aka, The World of Unemployment

When you're as lazy as I can be, you tend to postpone running errands until you have so many that you're gone all day.  Yesterday was one of those days, and I can gladly say that I successfully accomplished all three missions: flail over The Social Network, buy a new top and a little black dress, and have a fun dinner date with friends.

Since I've been unemployed since last May, I've had to severely limit my spending on books and DVDs.  The Social Network was released last week, and I've spent every day since gushing over the clips and quotes from all the glorious special features; however, I was very good and didn't buy it.  Instead, I went to the $1 movie theater and saw it on the big screen again.  I loved it just as much the second time around, and the fact that I knew every twist and turn meant that I didn't embarrass myself with incessant giggling.  One other point worth mentioning: I was the youngest person in the theater by A LOT.  Everyone else was at least sixty years old, so I kept wondering why they were seeing a movie about facebook.  I mean, at its heart it's really the story of a friendship betrayed (the friendship of HOT YOUNG ACTORS, that is), but surely understanding the social media context leads to a greater appreciation.

When the movie ended, I had two and a half hours to kill before I was going to meet my friends for dinner.  I've been trying to bulk up my wardrobe with professional clothes, so obviously I decided to go shopping for the one thing that I can buy.  I went to Burlington Coat Factory for the first time, and I have to say I was terribly disappointed, mostly by the horrible organization (if I'm looking in the "medium" section, I expect there to be mostly medium sizes, not a jumble of everything!).

My disappointment was short-lived, though, because I hit the jackpot at TJ Maxx.  I went in on a mission to find a simple long-sleeved black shirt (the one I currently wear with skirts is several years old), and I found one on the first rack.  With time to spare, I wandered over to the dress section, and I founded the cutest little black dress there.  And it was in the clearance section to boot!  It's a short-sleeve dress with a scooped neck and a bell skirt, originally priced for $129, and I bought it for only $20.  I tried it on again at home with a skinny red belt, and it is GORGEOUS.  Best dress I've ever owned.

After TJ Maxx, I headed down to Alabaster to meet my friends.  This week, we went the cheap route and ate at Chick-fil-A, but no one complained because on the plus side, we got to eat at Chick-fil-A! We had to break apart right after dinner, rather than meandering around the bookstore like we usually do, but it's so nice to have free time to see each other that none of us minded.

The 2011 Golden Globes

As a TV, movie, and actor junkie, it should come as no surprise that I'm a HUGE fan of  awards season.  Every year, I faithfully watch the Emmys, Golden Globes, and Oscars, and if I lived in England, I'd happily watch the BAFTAs too. 

Usually I have to watch the awards shows by myself, but last year I discovered a kindred spirit in my roommate Shanda.  This year, we no longer live together, but since we're both done with graduate school and back in the Birmingham area, we got together to watch last night's Golden Globes at her house. 

The two movies that really stood out this year, at least to me, were The King's Speech and The Social Network.  Shanda and I were thrilled when Colin Firth won Best Actor (Drama) because out of all of his memorable roles, King George VI is without a doubt his best performance.  And since Geoffrey Rush's character and performance was so integral to the success of the movie, we both wished that he had won a Golden Globe alongside Colin Firth.

As much as I loved The King Speech, I was SO EXCITED when The Social Network won Best Picture (Drama) because a) it surpassed everyone's expectations and was GREAT and b) it's sure to be a movie that defines my generation.  Similarly, I believe that David Fincher and Aaron Sorkin deserved their wins in their respective categories, Best Director and Best Screenplay.  Without these two solid foundations, The Social Network would have been as laughably bad as people expected it to be, even with the actors' amazing performances.

For the television awards, I had a much hard time picking out my favorites because there are so many quality shows on the air right now.  However, I think the Golden Globes completely missed the boat in several key categories.  I really enjoyed the first season of Boardwalk Empire, but I wouldn't name it Best Television Series (Drama) like the Golden Globes did.  Steve Buscemi definitely deserved to win for Best Actor (Drama), though, and Kelly MacDonald was robbed of her award,  Their scenes were always amazing, and their performances instantly elevated the quality of individual episodes.

In the comedy category, I didn't approve of the way that Glee dominated with Best Television Series (Comedy), Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress.  I adore Jane Lynch, but that award should have gone to Kelly MacDonald, and Glee is too uneven to be called "the best" when Modern Family is consistently hilarious.  I am glad that Chris Colfer won, though...anyone who watches Glee can tell you that he deserves all of the praise that he receives.

The only award I'm truly upset over, though, is Best Miniseries or TV Movie.  I've never heard of Carlos, so it might be wonderful....but how did The Pacific not win???  I'm completely obsessed with The Pacific (I've seen it three times and it just gets better and better with each viewing), and I totally went into that award with a false sense of security.  "Of course The Pacific is going to win, just like it did at the Emmys and just like Band of Brothers did...it's just the best!"  Ugh, I am so disappointed in you, Golden Globes.

Pea Coats and Geeky Movies

Since church on Sunday, I've spent day after day watching television shows on hulu and catching up on my reading list.  However, today I braved the Christmas shoppers of Birmingham and ventured out into the real world.  After my parents and I ate lunch at Jason's Deli, I went to Target because I needed to pick up a couple of things.  It was going to be an in-and-out trip, with no time to be distracted by all the shiny scarves and purses and shoes in stock, but then I saw it.  A lone pea coat sitting on a rack.  I've been dying to buy a pea coat for ages, but every time I find one, it's either too expensive or not my size.  With trepidation I cautiously approached the coat, fearing the worst.  I tried it on, and it fit PERFECTLY.  Then I looked at the price tag, and it was only $50, which is fairly reasonable for a heavy winter coat.  So...obviously I bought it.  Next on the list - find the perfect yellow trench coat.

A friend invited me to see Tron: Legacy, and, as usual, I said yes because it had a couple of obscure British actors in it.  Of course, I obviously wanted to hang out with my friend, but as geeky as I can be, Tron was never my cup of tea.  I watched the original movie once with my old roommate, and I wasn't very impressed.  I don't remember anything about the characters or the plot, so I can't explain why...it just didn't make an impression on me.  Although I must admit that I love the movie poster.  Chuck Bartowski (from the show "Chuck") has one hanging on his wall, and I always notice it when they film a scene in the character's bedroom.

I didn't originally plan to see Tron: Legacy, but when my friend suggested it, I thought "'hey, why not."  I then went to imdb.com to look at the cast list, and I was excited to see Cillian Murphy, Michael Sheen, and James Frain were in it.  Turns out, Michael Sheen was the only one who counted.  Cillian showed up for all of two minutes, and James didn't look at all like himself in the bald cap and white makeup.  However, I would recommend the movie alone for Michael Sheen's character.  It was very David Bowie-esque, and it was deliciously over-the-top.  The plot was fairly generic (Jeff Bridges has been stuck in the grid for 20 years, son finds him, they have to find a way to get home without the villian following because he wants to take over the world), but the special effects were top-notch, and the score was fantastic.  The acting wasn't anything too special (except for a handful of scenes by Jeff Bridges, obvs), but no one was glaringly bad, either.  The special effects were supposed to be front-and-center, and they are definitely what I'll remember.  I'd give it an 8/10 for its first viewing on a big screen, but I'm willing to be that it would drop down to 6 or 7 during repeat viewings on a television screen.