Through all of cinema, one cliche has stood the test of time to aid the lazy storyteller. If you have a bad movie, you simply start the movie at least halfway through the story with some shocking or intriguing snippet, then jump back and show us how the film got to that point. It shows that the filmmaker either knows they have a dud, or simply do not trust the audience to appreciate their film without a carrot at the end of a stick. You could probably count on your two hands the number of films that have pulled this gimmick off with any shred of dignity. Never Let Me Go is not one of those films. We start with Kathy (Carey Mulligan) standing wistfully in a meadow, as her voice over recounts the mysterious and tragic events that just maybe could have been avoided. If only they'd known back then what they know now. Etc, etc. Why does the film do this? Because the film then spends the next chunk of the film with a bunch of child actors no one knows and doesn't come out and say what is going on right away. We're simply too dumb to appreciate the film unless we know Carey Mulligan will show up and lend us her star power as she faces tragic circumstances. But Never Let Me Go would not be a bad movie if this cliche was the only thing wrong with it. No, there is plenty more wrong with this film than that.Never Let Me Go revolves around a central concept that is conveyed to the audience fairly quickly if you pay attention, and it is given away in the trailers, so I will delve into it here as well. It's almost impossible to dissect what went wrong with this film without doing so, so you are warned. Kathy, as well as Ruth (Keira Knightley) and Tommy (Andrew Garfield) are attending a school for clones. These children are raised to know nothing of the outside world, so that they can easily be harvested for parts later in life. It's actually a really interesting concept, and the film invites questions about a society that would allow this to happen. Unfortunately, it also makes for some of the least interesting characters in recent memory. See, because they've been raised to not understand basic concepts or emotions, these characters are all hollow, empty vessels. There is simply nothing engaging about any of them, only their situation. Often they do things only because they are aware it's what people do. For example, Kathy finds and reads a porno magazine at one point, but she simply stares at it and flips through it. She is neither excited by it or repulsed. There is no emotion at all. These moments (and they come often) are creepy and not engaging.
It's frustrating because we should care deeply that these human beings are going to be killed for their body parts, but I started to feel like they really will be more useful as parts than as human beings. It also makes for three boring central performances (and in Andrew Garfield's case, notably awful acting). All three turn in impenetrable performances that make it hard to care or be engaged. Ruth and Kathy have a bit of a feud over who will get to be with Tommy throughout the film, but with only a few exceptions it feels like neither character really cares about Tommy. Nor do we really understand why anyone would care about him. He hardly talks, and seems to be mildly retarded. And yet both women love him simply because he is there. That isn't enough. There is a moment near the end of the film where Tommy finally gets a moment to emote, but instead of having any sort of gravitas, it elicited laughter from my theater. Garfield's low monotone line readings and inability to engage with his costars makes Tommy into a pitiful fool of a character, and it sinks the core character relationships throughout.
In spite of all this, visually the film stands out. The writing and acting may not have gotten to the heart of what emotions this story should convey, but the alternately sparse and dreamy cinematography certainly did. The film looks like it takes place long ago, only to slowly reveal itself to be more futuristic than we expected. One shot in particular actually stands out as one of the more memorable of the year: a lone boat stranded on an empty beach, mirroring the isolation and displacement these characters must be feeling in the world outside of their school walls. But smart visuals don't make a movie good, they just draw attention to how much everything else seems to be lacking.
I've not read the book upon which this is based, but it seems like the kind of story that works so much better on the page. It's certainly a great concept, but those very basic emotional flaws make it nearly impossible to do with any justice. The core idea of the film is we're supposed to care about these people, to be outraged by the things our society would do to improve life for the wealthy at the expense of others. But at no point did the film engage me with its characters, ideas, or story. And that opening is just the insulting cherry on top of it all.
