LibraryThing Movie Night — Never Let Me Go

Given how many movies based on our beloved books there are out there, we thought LTers might enjoy a movie night!

This Friday, Oct. 27th, at 9pm Eastern (US) join us right here in Talk to discuss the film adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go.

Never Let Me Go is streaming on Netflix in some countries, or you can rent it on Amazon or iTunes. Check out the trailer on YouTube, if you're not concerned about mild spoilers.

Please keep this thread spoiler-free until movie night! When in doubt, use the spoiler tag.

We'll talk about both the book and the movie, of course, though you're not required to have read it.

If you're a Twitterer or Facebooker, we'll be using the hashtag #LTMovieNight on those platforms. Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/2272282946331745

Full details are on the blog.

I'm busy this time, but I really like this idea!

I'm not allowed to be up that late for my wife! ;)

Wish we had had a bit more warning about this :) (DIdn't see anything until State of the Thing arrived today.) I own the book and have Netflix but doubt I'll be able to both read the book and watch the movie by Friday. Nice idea though.

>4 LucindaLibri: It looks like this is supposed to be stream the movie starting at 9 pm, and discuss it while watching. Not watch (or read) before hand then discuss.

>5 gilroy: That's right! I, for one, haven't read the book, but will be re-watching the movie. Neither is a requirement for joining in, although we certainly think watching along is a good idea. :)

It's like a Mystery Science Theater 3000. What should the silhouettes be?

>7 elenchus: Yes! Tim and the office dog (I may be partial - the dog is mine), naturally, for 2 of the 3... :)

Tim in his pirate tricorn would be appropriately distinct.

elenchus & kristilabrie A book for the third?

I love this idea! I'm not sure I'll participate this time, but I will certainly be watching for other movie nights!

I'm excited about this! Looking forward to watching and discussing it with everyone

>10 katekintail: Maybe a book cart?

>13 lorannen: isn't it obvious? TinyCat!

I've put it on my calendar and am looking forward to it! I finally read The Remains of the Day this year, and am intrigued by the author.

Movie night sounds so fun! I'm thinking about asking a friend to join me.

Also, I really want to see the silhouette of pirate Tim, buccaneer dog, and TinyCat.

>10 katekintail: Ooh! Maybe the Monster Book of Monsters from HP. :) Of course, it would just be trying to eat Tim's face the whole time, so perhaps not...

gran bella idea, devo capire in Italia quando si apre la conversazione e soprattuto come vedere il film, non essendo qui disponibile su Netflix. Sarebbe interessante se Library Thing creasse una finestra di streaming per questo tipo di conversazioni on line. In Italia Mymovie offre questa opportunità creando una sala virtuale in occasione sopratutto dei Festival di cinema. Gli utenti che si prenotano per la sala e vi entrano quando il film è messo in streaming possono chattare tra loro durante la proiezione.

>14 rosalita: and there we have it!
>15 MrsLee: I'm pretty sure I can convince my dog to don a pirate's hat, at least enough for one photo! :)

>17 anamorfo: Very cool! There will be a Talk thread going, of course, as the movie runs, though (personally) I do wish that Talk threads automatically updated with new posts without you having to refresh the page. Would really help for instances such as this.

For the Facebook-inclined: we also set up an event page for movie night! https://www.facebook.com/events/2272282946331745.

>5 gilroy: ahhhh, even less likely that I would do THAT. Talk/chat during a movie! I'm the one shushing everyone so I can be absorbed by the film. Also soneone who watches the credits and won't go in if the film has already started. I did finally start the book this morning, but not sure how far I'll get. I have problems reading about bullying. Flashbacks and retraumatization.

>7 elenchus: I do enjoy Mystery Science 3000, but only for films I've seen enough times that the talking doesn't make me miss anything. And I was a big Rocky Horror fan, but saw the movie without the antics first.
and so far the book seems too depressing for fun banter

Enjoy everyone.

>22 LucindaLibri:

I agree that the MST3000 approach is best for films I've seen multiple times. I also prefer to be immersed the first time through, and stay to the end of the credits. I admit, though, to being challenged when watching a fav film with someone who's screening it for the first time: I want to talk & giggle! -- but have to remind myself, let them see it undisturbed the first time.

>22 LucindaLibri: Oh, depressing? :(

The nice thing about chat, is that you can watch the movie all the way through before joining in, or even read the book, then watch the movie, then read the chat thread when you are finished and want to chime in. A different experience, but still valid. :)

The movie is definitely not a picker-upper. We chose it because we all loved it, and it seemed topical. I think it's quite the movie. But I could see the argument that's pretty dark for a group view. Good movie, though.

I read the book a few years ago and have been putting off watching the movie. Looks like my excuse to watch it has arrived.

A bit busy tonight, but definitely interested in the next one of these!

I was going to start playing the movie and pause it until 9 but I keep getting an error message saying I can't view the movie. Anyone else having this problem?

My internet isn't working OMG!!!!!! No, this can't be happening right now!

(I've seen the movie twice this week, and I saw it when it was released. That is, I'm not actually watching now--I'm watching my kid.)

I first saw the movie not knowing anything about the plot. (This is rare for me.) I suspect others may be in the same situation. I think I may have even come late, missing the very start. So one thing to look out for is, I think, the viewer's creeping sense of what's really up, especially as it swiftly seems to turn toward being a familiar member of the "school story" genre.

In retrospect, of course, even the song at the beginning tells you what's going on, even if it's adapted from a real school anthem ( see https://genius.com/Rachel-portman-hailsham-school-song-lyrics and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_Years_On_(song) ).

I haven't read the novel. I was going to start last night, but for some reason my wife has every OTHER novel Ishiguro wrote. Does the novel have a slow-reveal? Does it feel like it's going to be a more traditional school story?

This was, I think, the first film I saw Andrew Garfield in, and he's since become a favorite of mine. He was excellent in Scorcese's Silence. He gets to scream in emotional torment in that one too.

I also think this is my favorite Keira Knightley film too--her scenes at the end are perfect. Normally, she almost creeps me out, to be honest. Reviewing her filmography, I see she played "Sabé," the decoy of Natalie Portman's queen in The Phantom Menace, because of her "striking resemblance to Natalie Portman." I… guess? What a terrible movie that was!

Unless Netflix is down? I can't watch any movies... but my internet is working

Netflix is working for me. This is exactly what I imagined Hailsham looked like when I read the book.

Mine will not work. Is anyone else struggling?

I am too

I'm glad I am not alone. Dang. I really wanted to do this. You guys are like my own personal book club

>30 timspalding: The novel DOES have a slow reveal. It's haunting and unsettling but also strangely lovely at the same time.

Brittney.2 go through the troubleshooting on Netflix.com. I unplugged my wii for a minute and plugged it back in and it works.
Ok I'm behind but watching it!

>37 booklover3258: Glad it's working for you now! I'm a couple minutes behind because my mother picked now to call me on the phone to chat about her dog. Bad timing!

Got it! Thank you

>39 Britney.2: YAY!!

I never read the book so I can't compare it.

I just got the book today. Very excited!

Does the whole story take place with the kids or do they switch back to adults?

Let me know when y'all get 25 minutes into the movie. I don't want to spoil anyone!

Not to 25 yet. No spoilers!

only at 15 minutes

Bill Weasley!!! I didn't know Domhnall Gleeson was in this! Pleasant surprise!

wow im at 25 minutes did not see that coming

Bill Weasley!! I'm at that point now

So, I earread the book a few years ago, knowing nothing about it but recognizing the author's name. It was the WORST possible time for me to have read it, as it turns out, because I had gallbladder surgery shortly after finishing the book. My recovery from surgery was okay, but for the first day, as I was still taking painkillers, I was really freaked out that they had somehow also started removing my vital organs. It took a while to talk me out of the irrational fear. As such, I'd been a bit hesitant to watch the movie.

Looks like Kathy was reading The Hobbit

katekintail... I could imagine that would've freaked me out too when I had my gall bladder out lol

>51 booklover3258: Oh, I didn't notice! Awwww!

What do you think about Miss Lucy revealing the truth to the children in a way they would understand? And DID they actually fully understand? It seems Kathy understands more than the others.

But what's it like to know your time is limited and your role in life is clearly defined and inescapable? The different characters react to their fate differently, but the students from other schools seem to know more about the real world. Was their sheltered life at Hailsham a good thing or not?

I liked the fact that she was brave enough to tell the children and it was sad for the school to let her go due to being honest with the kids. I think some understood but yes Kathy understands a lot more. I really don't think the sheltered life was good for them since their life is so short.

Were they considered test tube babies?

>56 booklover3258: I can't remember ever finding out about their origins. And because of the point of view used, we don't really get to see many outside views of the donors. We get little tastes, like Miss Lucy, or the looks people give them in town. But I don't think we ever really find much out (though maybe I've forgotten something). They're definitely viewed as valuable but disposable commodities. Though some people are sympathetic and some have problems with the situation.

Makes sense.

I'm probably going to put this book in for my book club... this will make a great book discussion with my group

The limited POV is interesting to me. It means some details in the world-building don't have to be explained... but they can be hinted at enough to get us speculating/wondering.

One of the things I like about adaptations of books is seeing possible extra things explained or expanded upon. In the Hunger Games movies, it was interesting to see the people controlling or orchestrating the games, whereas in the books we only get it through Katnis's POV as a tribute in the games.

This is a pretty close adaptation to the book as far as details go, it seems. There are a few things added and a lot of details removed, but it's doing a great job of really showing Kathy's experiences in this "world."

That is true about the Hunger Games where we got more information with the host of the games, etc. That's why 90% of the time I'll read the book before seeing the movie so I can see the differences.

What are the purposes of the cottages? There is still National Donor Programme control, but why would the people orchestrating all this allow valuable resources to do things that might risk their lives like driving themselves or eating unhealthy things? Or potentially killing themselves?

What they've been taught is so firmly ingrained in them, maybe the donors don't think seriously about doing risky things? And perhaps acting like real people makes them more content to stay put and healthier as individuals?

Or is the purpose of them just to give them a glimpse or feeling of normality? Is it supposed to be a kindness? Or is it just giving them more chance for false hope? Or is it just a placeholder--somewhere to put them before they're old enough to be donors?

I would think a placeholder.. somewhere to be until they can be carers/donors. But yea weird that they were allowed to be on there own eating bad food or a chance to get injured.

I love seeing Kathy as a caregiver here. It seems natural to her. She's understanding and sensitive and supportive... she fits into the role well but also brings just enough humanity to it. She knows just what to do/say.

I really like watching her interactions with the donors as well as with her friends who are donors, that brings that extra level of emotional complexity.

Yes she is definitely natural at helping people, Nice of Ruth to help them out finally.

I was reading the trivia on IMDB and it said that Carey was dying to play Kathy since the book was her favorite and that she had to learn how to drive for this movie.

>66 booklover3258: Oh wow! This is a powerful book, but I can't imagine it being my favorite. She played the part with amazing sensitivity and emotion.

And it was hard to make Ruth plain (since Kiera is so beautiful) and that she had a hard time playing Ruth since she had to be involved in a love triangle. She did the movie because Carey was her friend and asked her to do it with her.

well that was a slap in the face. poor tommy

>68 booklover3258: I got a bit of a Winona Ryder/bad girl vibe from her in her portrayal of Ruth. In the book, we have more time with them as children to develop the relationship among the three of them. But I thought Kiera did a good job with Ruth; it's a hard part to play--someone who betrayed a friendship but also going through a lot internally... and also manipulating her friends in order to see them happy because she knew she would complete soon (and she felt regret for her actions).

dang tears... snif

The concept reminded me of the movie The Island in which rich people have "insurance policies", clones who are kept unaware in an underground city.

"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. Maybe none of us really understand what we've lived through, or feel we've had enough time."

This is the scariest part of it, for me. They grow up not knowing what's going on, then they are told and the ONLY thing that makes it bearable is that they're doing this to help people and save lives. But the fact that she realizes those people are going to die eventually anyway... what a realization for her to make as she transitions into being a donor.

But it's true--none of us really understands what significance parts of our lives have until we're well past those parts of our lives. And, at some point, it's too late to figure out what it's all about. For the very thoughtful, like Kathy, there's never going to be enough time. But I do wish she'd had just a little more time with Tommy at the end of it all.

I loved that line at the end of the movie. I enjoyed the movie very much and look forward to reading the book. I'm glad I was able to discuss it with you. Hopefully next one we'll have more people to talk to about the movie.

>72 Taphophile13: Yes! I'm a Ewan McGregor fan. I've seen that movie far too many times :-) Two Ewans in the same scene. Gotta love that.

But in that world, they were completely sheltered from the truth in order to control the clone population. Both dealt a lot with the close POV and ethics of the situation, though.

But The Island had more explosions. heehee

Well, it wasn't depressing to me, or even sad really. The main character was so removed from emotion that I wasn't affected. Also, I pretty much wanted her "best" friend to start her donations, so no biggy there.

I wasn't caught off guard, twigged to the "mystery" as soon as it went from the hospital arena at the beginning to the school. Only I thought I must be wrong because I didn't know this author wrote this kind of story.

Not very believable to me. Not boring though.

So now I'm wondering. Were the characters so uninteresting because the author was showing them as having no soul actually? Was this supposed to make us question what a human soul is?

I do not think the premise of this movie is feasible if we are supposed to think they have souls.

It's past finish-time, so I won't mark my spoilers except to say THERE ARE SPOILERS.

Looks like Kathy was reading The Hobbit

Nice catch.

Or is the purpose of them just to give them a glimpse or feeling of normality? Is it supposed to be a kindness? Or is it just giving them more chance for false hope? Or is it just a placeholder--somewhere to put them before they're old enough to be donors?

I think it's a placeholders. Presumably school, while necesarry in some sense, is expensive. The cottages sounds cheap.

The Gallery

Again, I haven't read the novel, but I gather from the descriptions that the headmistress is more sympathetic in the novel.

It may be that the implications of the novel--that Halesham was "the last place to consider the ethical implications"--are not as solidly conveyed in the film. To me it seems to nod in that direction, but very incompletely. Madame is portrayed as more sympathetic than the Headmistress, yet also very subordinate and unsure of herself. Critically, when she says goodbye and calls them "you poor creatures," I think you're supposed to be slapped in the face by the insufficiency of "creatures," rather than the sense anyone "gets" it. It connects with her squeezing by the children in some fear earlier.

Ending

I find the ending, about how we "all complete" perhaps its low point. It feels incredibly trite to me.

It's trite to begin with. If it's true--if the story shows it--you don't need to say it. But it's also, in my view, false. I may not have thought so earlier in life. But, well, life is a good deal more than the end of what 20-somethings experience, so, indeed dying young is not just like dying old. Had I "completed" at 28, you could perhaps have made a similar movie about my life. At 46, the touchstones of the my life then, and of the movie--finding self, finding love, and the fate of peer-group coevals--would bulk far less large in the story. Connection and forgiveness would be constant.

Touches I appreciated

1. The "market," especially the drivers' reactions, and that of miss Lucy.
2. How the medical room at Hailsham is much nicer than the other rooms.
3. Slowing it down, you can see that when Madame arrives at the school, she drives by a sign with the NDP logo we see later on the van.
4. The clothing and props are exceedingly well chosen, especially the toys and ill-fitting clothing.
5. The old couple in the background during the restaurant scene, seemingly identifying them as clones

Questions

* What's with all the similar-sized cardboard boxes in Miss Lucy's room?
* What film are they all watching?
* The play-acting scene, connects to both clones and the later food-ordering scene. But it feels undermotivated. Why have such classes, really?

Low points

1. The ending sentiment, about "we all complete," is trite (see above)
2. I don't believe that Kathy could be a carer, exposed to the wider world and the whole clone process, and portrayed as something of a clear-headed pro, even identifying the deferals as untrue, and also believe there exist, or ever existed, any deferrals. Perhaps the implication is that she did know, but I think she'd have acted differently if so--not let Tommy get his hopes up.

Were the characters so uninteresting because the author was showing them as having no soul actually? Was this supposed to make us question what a human soul is?

My take is that they obviously have souls. They're just British. :)

I think the point of the thing has to be to posit general social acceptance and compliance of the National Donor Program, and work out the details of coping from there.

Thus religion is absolutely removed--something children in regular schools in Britain at the time would have had some of. And there's no sign of human-rights opposition. The only hint of anyone doing anything other than accepting their fate is in the first scene, where Kathy describes that her patients were "rarely agitated." Even Miss Lucy only wants them to know so that they can "lead decent lives"—she doesn't suggest anything more, and I read her references to "children" being able to do anything as grammatically opposed to whatever they are. Clearly the natural, "American" plot would be for Miss Lucy tell them they were people entitled to free and happy lives, and have star-crossed lover-clones assert their self worth and break away, to America or whatever, preferably after killing some evil people. (If given the chance, that's what I would do, or would hope to do.) But I think it's a much more interesting with its severe constraint--that everyone fundamentally accepts the situation.

>78 timspalding: "that everyone fundamentally accepts the situation."

I agree, interesting. Incomprehensible to me, but interesting.

I had to wonder, and the movie simply doesn't tell us, why were they so easily identifiable to the elderly couple? Were they donors to older folks? Were the "originals" elderly, or were they ruining their livers with alcohol and needing the donors early in life?

It wasn't really said if the woman they thought was the "original" for Judy was or was not the original, she didn't really look like her aside from hair and body build, but we never got a clear look. Is there any office anywhere which would go on functioning normally with five people cupping their hands and pressing their faces against the window? I want to try this.

Judy was ranting that their "originals" were from the gutters, etc., but wouldn't they have been from wealthy people? I mean, to have the perfect organ donor situation, the clones would have to be exact, right?

Judy was ranting that their "originals" were from the gutters, etc., but wouldn't they have been from wealthy people? I mean, to have the perfect organ donor situation, the clones would have to be exact, right?

So, I think it's understood that this is a socialized, national program--hence the National Donor Program--run like the National Health Service in the UK, and everyone benefits.

I had to wonder, and the movie simply doesn't tell us, why were they so easily identifiable to the elderly couple? Were they donors to older folks? Were the "originals" elderly, or were they ruining their livers with alcohol and needing the donors early in life?

There's a lot of world-building off screen. It's also unclear how what seems like a small number of donors could be saving all of Britain from diseases--the number of organs doesn't work. I suppose one could imagine that the donors' organs are augmented somehow, but mostly I think the movie isn't interested in fleshing out such questions, er, as it were.

>80 timspalding: Not to mention the concerns such as feeding them all. If the program is truly socialized and for each member of the population, then it would double the population. Meh, that's why for me it's better not to think too hard about these sorts of stories. Being a practical get 'er done type of gal, I stumble over the logistics of making it work in the real world.

The movie they were watching was "To Hell with Hitler" from 1940.

>82 booklover3258:

Nice.

Wow, what a first movie to host for LibraryThing Movie Night! I vote for something a little lighter next time. Still, this was quite good.

I have a lot more thoughts to post later, but overall think that the movie is a beautiful depiction of the various tragedies we all experience growing up and in our early adulthoods: bullying, first loves, broken trust with friends, the growth that comes with time to accept certain realities of life, and even instances of trying to fix our own past mistakes, learning that often it is just too late and you can never undo what has already been done. This one definitely pulled on the heartstrings.

>79 MrsLee: "...why were they so easily identifiable to the elderly couple?"

I wonder, was it their bracelets that they wore, which seemed to keep track of the donors' comings & goings? I don't remember the scene exactly but perhaps the way the group behaved—as if they'd never been in public—caught the couple's attention, and then they caught sight of the bracelets... that must have been the tip-off, I'd think.

"It wasn't really said if the woman they thought was the "original" for Judy was or was not the original..."

I don't think it was Ruth's original—when she leaves the office she says that it wasn't her original, and she's angry for having been fooled into thinking it might have been. If it's true that National Donor Program took clones of people "from the gutters", it would explain Ruth's frustration. Of course she would never be cloned from someone in a respectable position of society, and she felt foolish for hoping that she might have come from an office worker... at least that's the impression I got.

I watched the first 10 minutes and it looks quite good. However, the new season of Stranger Things was just released and that will monopolize our Netflix viewing for the near future.

>85 kristilabrie: Ah, I forgot about the bracelets.

I rather like that you looked to the heart of the message and threw the whole clone-alternate reality plot out the window! :) You are right, it is that kind of a movie, but for my mind, the practicalities of the world over-shadowed the humanity.

>87 MrsLee: True, good point. I had a rather hard time imagining the practicalities of their world, one in which they are okay with cloning and harvesting from (and subsequently killing) other humans! I'm much more drawn to the humanity of both sides, the connections between the two.

If I think about it, perhaps that was part of the message—that, no matter clone or original, we're all imperfect humans muddling through life and never feeling like we have enough time to "figure it out".

I loved the idea of movie night, but I've seen this and had no desire to watch it again. Personally I much preferred The Remains of the Day as an adaptation of a Kazuo Ishiguro novel, and one worthy of discussion, but that could be due to my antipathy of all things Kiera Knightley. If anyone would like to peruse our group for film ideas, they're more than welcome. http://www.librarything.com/groups/movieloversplus2

>89 .cris: I loved the novel, The Remains of the Day, which is why I decided to watch this movie in spite of Ms. Knightley (to be fair, I thought she did a fine job of her character in this), but when I tried to watch the movie of TRotD, I promptly fell asleep. I may have to try it again, perhaps earlier in the day.

>89 .cris: I joined in watching Never Let Me Go because I had enjoyed watching TRotD so much. While the cinematography was beautiful and I always enjoy English accents, the story left me cold.

We'd love to turn this into a regular thing--perhaps sponsored by your group? And Remains of the Day would be a good choice. But we've learned from previous book events that, if something is not generally available, people will object. I think that in the current environment that means, at a minimum, currently available on Netflix.

So, what's on Netflix that we should choose for the next one?

>92 timspalding: Are you looking for a film adaptation from a book?

>93 .cris:

I like that idea, generally: it goes with the "all things bookish" culture of LT without necessarily adulterating the cinema appreciation side. It also helps narrow down the massive number of choices to otherwise pick.

How about Slumdog Millionaire? Unusually, I though the film was better than the book. I'm in the UK, so I'm not sure what is readily available on Netflix, Amazon or other channels in the US.

>92 timspalding:

Yes. I think we could do a non-adaptation if it were literary in character--about an author writing something, for example.

>95 .cris:

Oh no! Now you've done it. I've got Jai Ho going in my head and can't stop it.

>96 timspalding: One of three closing credit scenes that makes my heart soar. The other being: The Blind Swordsman: Zatoichi and Boy

>97 .cris:

Heh. Yeah.

Kazuo Ishiguro’s ‘Never Let Me Go’ Is a Masterpiece of Racial Metaphor:
His characters may not be Asian, but the book is an incisive commentary on nonwhite experience
by Mimi Wong, Electric Lit
https://electricliterature.com/kazuo-ishiguros-never-let-me-go-is-a-masterpiece-...

>99 timspalding: Brilliant. Now I want to watch it again. Rather, I want to get the book and read it.

This quote is what I loved about The Remains of the Day, the only book I've read so far from Ishiguro, but hopefully not the last.

"The experience of diving into an Ishiguro novel becomes a process of excavation, of uncovering memories that the narrator has meticulously buried over a lifetime. But don’t expect any big reveal; instead, we must be satisfied with fragments of truth. The author’s gift lies in his ability to use those fragments to construct a portrait, which, in the end, resembles something more of a mirror."