What does it mean to be human? Is it something determined solely by our genetic makeup? Who really holds the power? These underlying questions lie at the heart of “Klara and the Sun,” Taika Waititi’s newest film, released Oct. 26. The film adapts Kazuo Ishiguro’s 2021 dystopian science fiction novel of the same title.
“Klara and the Sun” portrays the perspective of Klara (Jenna Ortega), an Artificial Friend (AF) designed to accompany human children. At the film’s beginning, Klara prays “Please let today be my day. Let me be chosen.” Her hope of finding a companion is immediately established, as she waits alongside other AFs inside “THE FRIEND STORE.” Considering Klara is an older model, her chances of being chosen are less certain as newer models become available, nodding at Atoday’s technological revolution.
Klara challenges traditional norms of not speaking unless spoken to, established by the Store Manager (Natasha Lyonne), and interacts with Josie (Mia Tharia), who purchases Klara within minutes.
Ishiguro’s novel spends considerably more time developing Klara’s starting environment. Readers are introduced to other AFs, including Rosa and Rex, who reveal the insecurities that exist among artificial companions. All of the AFs, including Klara, want to be chosen by a child and have a vulnerable wish to belong. The film still indirectly shows the AFs sensitivity to people’s perception of them.
Ishigiro builds Klara’s character as a careful observer of her surroundings, presenting a highly sympathetic response to the outside world. She feels fascinated by the humans’ various emotions and remains inquisitive, contrasting AFs like Rosa who are naïve and struggle to recognize human nuance.
In comparison, the film quickly moves toward Klara’s relationship with Josie, transitioning from the store into a human household. This difference shifts the emphasis from the multiple experiences of individual artificial companions to merely Klara’s individual journey.
Although both versions express Klara’s curiosity toward humans, the film incorporates more humor into Klara’s observations. This humor gives the film a more whimsical tone. Ortega’s rendition has quirks, while the novel’s character has a contemplative, quiet mood. The film manages to blend this new theme and tones well by using Klara’s charmingly awkward presence to balance the plot’s heavier aspects.
While superficial expressions of personality may differ, Klara’s core beliefs stay the same in both. She believes that the Sun is the source of nourishment and life, with its light having the ability to heal those who need it. When she discovers Cootings Machines, which release pollution into the air, Klara becomes convinced that the pollution is obstructing the Sun’s ability to heal people.
Josie has been terminally ill from complications from a genetic enhancement procedure, tying entirely into Klara’s mission to save Josie from harm. She asks the Sun to heal Josie, whom she describes as the “most beautifulist, most coolest, most specialist” person. Her faith isn’t purely an observation about the natural world but becomes the foundation of her determination to save Josie.
Klara’s interactions with Josie’s mother, Chrissie (Amy Adams), reveal a mother grappling with her daughter’s potential death. Having already lost her older daughter, Sal, to natural causes, Chrissie is terrified that Josie will face the same fate. The film explores this strain through an unsettling scene at Morgan Falls, where a resentful Chrissie attempts to drown Klara after she refers to her as an “Artificial Mother.” Chrissie initially is skeptical of Klara, and more specifically, how she can contribute to Josie’s needs. Momentarily, Chrissie asks Klara to mimic Josie’s common mannerisms. This morbidly reveals that, while Chrissie is trying to save her daughter, she is also preparing herself for her own death, where Klara will be Josie’s replacement.
In the novel, this is explored through Mr. Capaldi’s (Steve Buscemi) “portrait” project. Klara discovers that Chrissie and Capaldi secretly hope she can replicate Josie by transplanting Klara’s consciousness into an artificial body to pretend to be her. In the film, Klara discovers she’s meant to become Josie in a similar way. Klara refuses, wanting Josie to live rather than be replaced.
This conflict raises one of the most compelling questions in both versions — can a human truly be replicated? Mr. Capaldi believes that what makes Josie special can be reproduced through careful observation and technology. Klara, however, believes that Josie’s specialness isn’t something contained within her physical appearance, mannerisms or abilities. It’s found in the people who love and remember her.
Toward the film’s ending, Klara takes matters into her own hands. She sets the machine on fire, demonstrating how far Klara’s willing to go for someone she loves. This scene is unlike the novel, in which Paul, Josie’s father, has a prominent role in stopping the Cootings Machine with Klara. The film offers a limited depiction of a paternal figure in Josie’s life.
One of the most profound differences between the film and the novel lies in how each concludes Klara’s journey. In the film, Chrissie and Josie’s strained relationship ultimately heals through mutual understanding, and Josie’s ambiguous recovery begins when she is reached by the Sun’s light.
While the novel illustrates the characters getting older, with Josie leaving for college years later, and Klara being left in a junkyard feeling fulfilled, the film displays Klara residing at “Black Sand Yard Robot Retirement” home. Because she almost died sacrificing herself for Josie, Klara is left with physical and mental impairments, and her already glitchy perception is further altered by memory loss. However, this deterioration reflects the novel’s core definition of love. Ishiguro suggests that true love cannot be replicated or reduced to fate. By showing Klara’s sense of fulfillment despite her cognitive decay, the film demonstrates that love holds a permanent bond.
Given that Klara’s perspective is portrayed as unreliable, the film doesn’t fully nab at a fundamental question: how much can a robot truly understand or communicate with humans? Rather, it presents itself as flawed through the eyes of Klara. By ending entirely within Klara’s glitching viewpoint, the watchers must actively predict what is real and what is a hallucination, leaving the whole conclusion quite unsettling on a philosophical level.
Ultimately, both versions of “Klara and the Sun” may not have the exact same content, but that adds variety to the pieces all together. Instead, the film offers its own interpretation of other human experiences to play. An adaptation doesn’t necessarily have to be an exact replica of its source to offer something meaningful. Sometimes, a different approach allows an audience to experience familiar concepts from another perspective entirely. “Klara and the Sun” reminds viewers that what makes someone special cannot always be replicated. In fact, it just might be found in the connections humans create with other humans.
Julia Magdei is an Arts & Entertainment Writer for the fall 2026 quarter. She can be reached at jmagdei@uci.edu.
Edited by Geneses Navarro.
Interested in becoming an intern or a contributing writer for the Entertainment section?
Contact us at entertainment@newuniversity.org!
