The Critics' Odd Affection for Anti-Cloning Film

By Jack Cashill

Salon's Andrew O'Hehir describes the world created in the new anti-cloning film Never Let Me Go as "morally reprehensible." In this world, "human beings are sacrificed so that others may live," and, as O'Hehir editorializes, "even the most hard-hearted science geek would not defend it."

O'Hehir is not exactly a conservative. He describes the horse movie Secretariat, for instance, as "creepy, half-hilarious master-race propaganda almost worthy of Leni Riefenstahl," and thus, of course, "Tea Party friendly."

O'Hehir is not alone in his affection for Never Let Me Go. Richard Corliss of Time gushes over it and uber-liberal Roger Ebert gives it four stars. What rouses the critics' passion is that the clones are as cute as baby seals-in the case of Keira Knightley, cuter actually -- and are allowed to live into their 20's.

When the clones mature, the science establishment harvests their organs, and their life cycle is "completed." Says O'Hehir, "Things as bad as that have happened before and will quite likely happen again."

A few years ago, to prevent the moral slide O'Hehir fears, pro-lifers in Missouri rose up to battle the progressive science establishment in its effort to pass an embryonic stem cell amendment.

Pro-lifers might have succeeded in blocking the "clone-and-kill" amendment had not the Hollywood left, led by Michael J. Fox, rushed to its defense. Apparently, it did not trouble progressives that humans were being sacrificed as long as the mayhem was taking place in the lab and in the womb where no could see it.

As in the movie, American scientists sacrifice clones that others might live. But in defense of the film's "morally reprehensible" cloners, at least their science actually worked.