Book vs. Film – Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go (2005) by Kazuo Ishiguro

Never Let Me Go (2010) by Mark Romanek

Yes, I have written about this movie before but now I have also read the novel. And let me tell you: it is just as good. Actually book and movie are not that different. And this is quite an accomplishment if you consider that the book is written by I-narrator Kathy. Ishiguro has written the screenplay together with Alex Garland and they succeed in telling the same bittersweet, touching, and complex story.

Obviously, the novel takes a closer look at the feeling of the narrator, the reader learns more about the issues of the homes and the kids that are to donate.  But Kathy and her peers seem just as naive as they are in the movie. Miss Lucy tells Tommy that things are not explained enough and this holds true even in the novel. Sometimes it gets a little tiresome to have Kathy explain things repeatedly but it works well within the context of the story, Kathy’s wish to preserve memories.

I wrote in my former post that I read some subtext into Ruth’s feelings for Kathy. This also holds true for the novel. Ruth does not seem to care much for anybody, at least not romantically, yet she is bound to Kathy not only by acquaintance, or the coincidence that they grew up together. And one has the feeling that she always fights Kathy more than is necessary…

The book tells us more about Miss Lucy’s story. She is a key character in both versions but the book explores her more thoroughly, is giving her more time with the other characters – especially with Tommy. Tommy’s dilemma with his art and creativity is further elaborated on which is good because this aspect of the movie seemed rather confusing. In all, the novel fills the gaps that the movie cannot fill. It is also well-written. If you find the time, put it on your reading list, it certainly is worth your while.

Advertisements

Drive

Drive (2011) by Nicolas Winding Refn

I sometimes wonder if I know anything about movies at all. I know I am different in my observations of movies a lot of time, so maybe writing reviews is not really something I should do because 89% of you people out there who read this will probably be of a different opinion about a movie… it’s possible. Well, I like doing this, I like putting my opinion out there maybe especially because it is different from so many others. And having now looked up “Drive” on imdb.com and noticing the splendor of the “Best Director (Cannes)” emblem on the poster, I know that many of you will definately not agree with me. But that’s alright.

So, I went to another sneak preview last week and they showed “Drive.” The movie is about a stuntdriver/mechanic  (Ryan Goling) who at night earns his money as get-away driver. He falls for his beautiful neighbor but unfortunately she has a husband (and a son which is not really a problem, just mentioning it so you know) who is just coming out of jail as our hero tries to get cozy with the missus. Because he is a good guy and tries to be helpful he ends up getting into a lot of trouble when the husband is blackmailed into another heist.

Things get ugly and our hero barely survives – end of story. Well, I wish it would have lasted only the two minutes it took me to retell it… because then I would not have sat through those 100 minutes bored out of my senses. As you should know about me by now, I am generally a little impatient with stories about male heroes. It’s nothing personal, there are just so many of them out there and they are all so similar and taking themselves for so important – well, not to me. But judging by the reactions of the rest of the audience, I wasn’t the only one who was bored.

The title of the movie sure does indicate a fast movie – cars chasing around the city and all that stuff that men love so much, well, there was a little of that but mostly it was about the driver (he doesn’t have a name, I looked it up) looking longingly at Carey Mulligan’s character and trying to keep up with her questions. And I could never tell if Gosling was either as bored as I was or trying to portrait a guy who has fallen on his head too much. That was my impression – although the poster tells me that “Some heroes are real” – which I guess should indicate that this is supposed to be a portrait of a real hero… Joe Average kinda-guy that saves the girl he cannot have but still loves.

Well, needless to say, he wasn’t that to me. And he wasn’t that to a lot of other people in the audience. Maybe this is too American a subject for us to relate – although there rarely is one too American for Germans, we are that Americanized – but maybe the movie is just plain bad, idiotic, boooooring (there ought to be more “o”s in there but I don’t want to bore you by putting all of them that I feel adequate in here), annoying, and stupid. That’s what it felt like for me. Half an hour in I wished I could fall asleep during movies but unfortunately I cannot.

Make no mistake, this is the worst movie I ever watched at the movies. Van Helsing has filled that spot until last week, Van Helsing! It is just a shame about the actors. I mean, how can you not love Carey Mulligan? The cast (I would say except Ryan Gosling) was actually quite good… but WTF?!

Maybe Albert Brooks made a meta-comment when he said that the films his character used to make were considered European… I don’t like European films much, they are too art-sy for me. And maybe this movie is just too sophisticated for me to understand, everything’s possible. But honestly, I don’t think so.

Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go (2010) by Mark Romanek

Unexpectedly, I watched a really good movie this week. Why unexpectedly? Because I watch movies for the strangest of reasons. For Never Let Me Go the reason was that the novel it was based on was written by Kazuo Ishiguro and I remembered that he had also written The Remains of the Day. Not that I have read either novel but I do believe that some novelists write perfect stories for movies and I guess Ishiguro is one of them – all based on the fact that I love The Remains of the Day.

I did not read the short synopsis for the film so I was utterly unprepared for what was to come. The movie catapults us into a strange ultimate universe – without telling us so, after all everything looks just like good ol’ Britain to me – where clones are bred as inventories for human spare parts. The kids that grow up to be donors live in special homes out in the country without interaction with the outside world.

The story follows three of these kids, Kathy (Carey Mulligan), Ruth (Keira Knightley), and Tommy (Andrew Garfield), whose lives are interwoven as they befriend and fall in love with each other. Ruth turns out to be rather selfish in that love since she pretty much steals Tommy away from Kathy out of – as she later confesses – jealousy. Though she states that she was jealous of the love that grew between Kathy and Tommy there are also indications that she may have been in love with Kathy (I don’t know what the novel says about this but I may yet find out…).

As they grow up their paths devide but will ultimately reunite the three. Ruth makes her confession and Kathy and Tommy try to recapture what they had. But their time is short as they are heading toward their conclusion – which is just a nicer way to say: death.

The story is captivating, the idea of a world where humans breed clones for spare parts is scary but is never really moralized over within the movie, the spectator is to draw their own conclusions as to the question: do clones have souls?

The acting is great. Besides the wonderful three leads (and also the very talented younger selfs – Isobel Meikle-Small, Ella Purnell, Charlie Rowe) we have Charlotte Rampling as Miss Emily who leads the home the three live in, and Sally Hawkins as Miss Lucy, a teacher who critiques the system a little bit too audibly. And let me tell you, Keira Knightley can be quite scary!

This is a great movie and finally an innovative story. Hollywood does not do innovative that much these days so maybe we have to turn to Brititsh movie making to see something good these days…