Freaks and Never Let Me Go

When we watched Browning's Freaks last Tuesday in class, I had to pull up a transcript on my laptop to follow what Hans and Freida were saying in the movie. Overall, it was a pretty good movie, and surprisingly when I brought it up in conversation to my Uncle-in-law he had seen it too. I'm not too sure how iconic the film is for its time, but it was an odd coincidence that my Uncle who was visiting my family knew about it.

Anyway, regarding the film. The article we read before the film gave me enough context that the movie didn't seem to bring up anything new, I could easily see the empirical evidence supporting the article's thesis in the scenes. I'm not sure if I'd draw the same conclusions due to reading the article beforehand and colouring my view of the movie, but I'd like to think I'd be able to draw similar theories. Freaks was a fairly provoking movie though, showcasing how the characters are human in their interactions with one another. Backstabbing, lynching, and betrayal aren't really freakish acts, they're something all too human.

-----------

I actually started a bit early on Never Let Me Go, reading it after I finished Geek Love because when I opened the book to skim through, it was easier for me to get into than Nights at the Circus. Well actually I re-read A Wrinkle in Time even before Geek Love, but that's beside the point.

While I enjoyed Never, I felt the urge to bang my head against the wall at how docile Ruth, Tommy, and Kathy all are about the donations. While I know it's that they were raised with the knowledge that they're just spare body parts, it just a bit too much to believe that no one anywhere would raise a commotion over not wanting to complete their donations. Or even the fact that they can't have kids.

Since I work part-time in early childcare, one of the most common imaginative games that young children play, is that of nursing dolls. You'd think that at least a few of them would be more upset with the fact that they can't have kids. Then again, since we're only ever given the narrative through Kathy's perspective it's possible that they do in Ishiguro's dystopian world. Or maybe it's my own bias, since personally I can't really imagine not having kids.

The closest thing to rebellion anyone does, is asking for deferrals. The only realistic thing I thought is that of course it'd be a myth. It's our nature to want more time. If a couple was actually granted those extra few years, they'd want to keep extending it for as long as they are happy together.

Overall though, I really enjoyed the book. As I said before, I have a bias towards stories that focus heavily on the childhood of the characters, and a large portion of the story was on their days at Halisham as children. I like to connect the kid to the adult, and how they became the person they are, something that was done quite in the story. Morally though, I'd be opposed to the idea of cloning something sentient, it'd cause too much moral confusion.

What I found interesting though, is that in the story, people were okay with cloning but they're less happy about engineering natural births to give the fetus enhanced genes. Creating 'artificial' life is okay, but modifiying natural birth is abhorrent? I'm not sure how the latter is worse than the former.

That's all for now~