Emotionally detached? Well, it's a perfect adaptation of Ishiguro's novel then.

I'd also argue Kathy and Tommy DO question the confines of their existence by requesting the deferral. Considering their characters, their upbringing, their limited perspective, their inwardness, etc., this is a significant step for them. It's a polite plea for survival. Anything more liberal or loud would be completely out of character and just to appease mainstream expectations of how people should behave.

The "beating heart," to use Mike's term, though, is, again, the idea of mortality. The clones die in their 20s/early 30s, many of us will reach old age, but the core idea--the amassing of connections made and lost, of regrets, of passions, of distracting and frivolous confrontations and jealousies, all building towards an inevitable end--is the same, and it's very moving to consider, I think.

And I did love that about it. The final words are thought-provoking.

You raise a lot of great points. I'll be revisiting it soon. Also, I didn't get to watch it on Blu-ray because my video store didn't carry it on Blu-ray. They just had 3 DVD copies, so I'm looking forward to seeing it in HD.

The Blu-ray is absolutely gorgeous. The details--the ivy-covered walls, the frayed sweaters, the wet and lush landscapes--are eye-popping.

A question from a reader on twitter, @OwenNicholls: How do you feel about the fact it is coming out on DVD in the US before it’s in theatres in the UK?
I don’t know why they waited. I think they had very high hopes about BAFTA nominations and they were trying to parlay that into an ideal release slot. And then we didn’t get the BAFTA nominations – which I feel bad about for everyone that deserved them. Everyone had very high expectations, I think, for that awards stuff. And so I think their plan went a bit kerflooey when that didn’t come to pass. You have to ask them, really.

It’s interesting that some people really embrace it, while some are left cold: there was a similar reaction to The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button and Synecdoche, New York: all three films that remind you of mortality. That can be freeing, to kind of embrace, but it’s obviously also very troubling for a lot of people...
I think you hit the nail on the head. I think for most people cinema is meant to do the opposite. It sort of implies – by the very nature of the medium – immortality, by kind of locking down and recording these images, theoretically forever. And they are generally meant to be an entertainment, a distraction. Some people are entertained and distracted by challenging things and most people aren’t.

I found reading the book cathartic. It’s kind of an emotionally fulfilling experience to get that – out of anything! So I was very grateful about how the book made me feel. I’m not somebody that dwells on mortality, but I try to find a sensibility of acceptance about it, because it’s completely inevitable. You might as well try to find a way to be OK with it. When films help me try, or even just scratch the surface of that idea of being OK with it, I feel pretty grateful. And so, hence I get myself involved in a film like this and then realise that’s not everyone’s process!

[...]

One of the consistent questions people have about the film is, “Why don’t they run away?” What would your answer be to that?
There are many ways to answer the question because it’s a question that gets to the heart of what the movie is exploring. I’m always loathe to answer this question myself because if you were to ask this of Kazuo, his response is so astoundingly eloquent, I always feel, “Oh, darn: why do I have to answer this? Why can’t we get Kazuo on the phone?” Kazuo’s answer, in brief, is that there have been many films with stories about the kind of anomaly of brave slaves rebelling against an oppressive or immoral system, and he just isn’t as interested in telling that story as he was in the ways that we tend not to and the ways that we tend to accept our fates and the ways that we tend to lack the necessary wider perspective that would make that an option.

When I have shown the film to Russian audiences the question doesn’t come up. When I show the film to Japanese audiences, in Tokyo, the question doesn’t come up. There are societies where the process of that society and the reality of the atmosphere of that society is so pervasive, since birth, that people are raised to believe that it’s noble to, be a cog, really, and fulfil your destiny and your responsibility to the greater society. It’s just how these characters think. It’s a very western idea and a very American idea that a movie story is somehow broken if it’s not about a character who fights.

If you know Kazuo’s other books and if you’re able in the reading of a novel to immerse yourself in Kathy’s perspective to a greater degree than we were able to depict in a film... that question doesn’t come up when you’re reading the book. It’s... You can tell that it’s obviously about characters that lack that perspective and that the notion of running wouldn’t even occur to them – they’ve been brain-washed since childhood to believe that they’re lucky, that they’re privileged, that they’re providing an honoured, unique service to the society.

That’s just sort of the prosaic answer to the question. The whole idea of the film is really a metaphor. If you take it too literally then you would ask those questions but if you understand that the film is a rumination on the fact of the brevity of our lifespan then that question doesn’t really come up. And maybe it’s a failing of the film that the question comes up as often as it does – I don’t know. What was your feeling about it?

That we have the illusion of choice, but a lot of us don’t run away... You could have had the obligatory scene where someone tries to run away, but I wouldn’t want to see that film. Or, rather, I’ve seen that film...
Well, we suggested it, as Kazuo does - that a mythology, a rumour, rose in the school - over the years - that that would happen if someone tried to run away.

The stories and the wristbands were enough for me...
Yeah, that was just meant to be an Ishiguro-ian, subtle version of addressing that issue as much as we felt it needed to be addressed. It’s funny, amongst critics the film didn’t do very well in New York. A lot of New York critics were more on the side of just annoyed by it. I think most people come to New York to kind of invent themselves – they have run away. That illusion of choice... it isn’t really an illusion in a lot of places. You can just grow up in Kansas or, like Andy Warhol, you could grown up in the slums of Pittsburgh - I say that, because I’m in Pittsburgh now and visited his house, been to the museum here. You know, he saw this more glamorous thing and he picked up and he ran away and became Andy Warhol. So it’s an illusion and it isn’t.

People would get upset about it. Like, in a way I was flattered by it, that they’d fallen in love with the characters so much that they were so enraged by this notion that they weren’t running that they would just be squirming in their seats. In Q&As they were like, apoplectic about it – which was kind of amazing and strange.

http://www.empireonline.com/interviews/ ... p?IID=1192

Yeah, re-watch it. This isn't The Island.

This is now my favorite film of 2010. It takes risks with the adaptation that pay off without losing any of the novel's integrity and feel. It's beautifully crafted by Romanek and the performances are flawless, especially Mulligan and Garfield. And I disagree about it being emotionally detached. Despite it being shown in a mostly cold way the film is filled with emotion and it's truly heartbreaking. I'm glad they opted to go that way instead of the typical Hollywood, all yelling and crying, "we need to escape!" way, which would have ruined the entire film and missed the point. A

Wow, this definitely resonated with me more on a second viewing. It's really beautiful and sad. Carey Mulligan was so robbed this awards season. And the film looks splendid on Blu-ray. The cinematography in this film is beautiful and it stood out even more in HD.

I'd raise my rating to an 8/10 (A-).

Glad you enjoyed it more this time.

No, she was not. I could play her role!

Argos, there is only role in which you'd shine. It's a Gus Van Sant movie, and you'd be spending a lot of time in a hotel with dead animals.

I'd prefer it to be a Hitchcock movie.

No. You're only right for the role in Van Sant's movie.

I have not seen that. So I assume... you are lying.

He'd be perfect playing the lead role in his favorite film of 2010, The Assholes Network. Not because of acting skills, but because how much in common he shares with the character's personality, or lack of one. :p

Yeah if only they were colorful and unlikeable but only to the point where you can still pity them super-original archs as in The Fighter. Cause that's a masterpiece of character construction.

Either I'm an idiot or you are (I hope it's the latter), but I have no clue what "them super-original archs" means. I get the idea of what you're saying, and the dull sarcasm of it, but what are you saying precisely? Arcs? Archetypes?

"Them super-original archs"...hmm...

Enh, it was a fairly incoherent sentence, I'm hungover, blah.

I didn't liked it at all. Mulligan had the same depressed look on her face the entire time and I couldn't get over the fact that they didn't wanted to do anything about their 'fate'. D+

I really liked it but I kinda lost interest in the middle but came back to love it when they went to the beach. What I loved the most was its heartbreaking ending.

A-

This masterpiece was released one year ago today.

A Blu-ray viewing might be in order to celebrate.

Never Let Me Go

This is a beautiful, melancholic science-fiction drama with an intriguing alternative 20th century timeline and a talented young cast. It moves at a slow pace as it unravels its world, which is equal parts interesting, sad, and frustrating. Garfield is sensational. It is a nice film, and I'm glad I've now seen it. Not a masterpiece, but it is thought-provoking, and it registers nicely as one of those films that makes you ponder life and achievement and sacrifice etc. And it features one of funniest non-comedy film scenes I can recall ("Five sausage, eggs, and chips" ... "five Cokes, please"). This really tickled me. I was cracking up. Superbly acted.

B

Whoa, cool you watched this out of the blue. I am glad you enjoyed it. One of my all-time favorites. I love it so much.

Yeah. Had it for a while, and recently I've been watching films that you like so thought why wait any longer just because it's not a 2017 film. Glad I watched it, though. I did not really have any idea what it was about. I vaguely knew it was "science-fiction" but really it's not at all. Science-fiction is certainly the canvas for this story, but I have a hard time classifying it as science-fiction, and even more so as it's set in the windswept, cold, muddy, English countryside. Science-fiction and farms don't mix. Oh, and I had no clue but I guessed Alex Garland had something to do with it and then lo-and-behold his name comes up at the end! Couldn't believe it.

My video store had this in the Suspense section .