Another Teen Movi...I Mean Flick

For almost a decade teen fiction resurged to dominate popular conscience. One could argue that the Harry Potter franchise raised a generation of readers who are either still reading or encouraging their own children towards reading teen fiction. Twilight, The Hunger Games, Percy Jackson and Divergent are visible results of this dominance. The Giver seems to be the next recipient of Hollywood’s lack of imagination. Honestly, I saw this movie on whim. Like many people my age, I read the novel in high school. My expectations resided in limbo, but my viewing left me dissatisfied. This review will differ from my previous work because the source material will remain as a point of reference. Most of my criticisms can be applied to both the film and novel.

IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes
Genres: Post-Apocalyptic, Dystopia, Action, Drama

Concept:

Timing is a fickle creature wielding a double-edged sword. Time a movie release correctly and people’s wallets are your oyster. Bad timing leaves producers fighting for scraps and premeditating the director’s death. While The Giver hasn’t been received as a cinema disaster, critics were not kind. One problem is this film’s predecessors. The Hunger Games and Divergent don’t wade deeply into political philosophy or definitions of the human condition. Dystopia seen in those worlds are surface level, therefore more entertaining. Despites its massive flaws, Divergent held my attention better than the Giver. The source material provides complications which are summarized in a well known phrase, “the book is always better than the movie.” This rule isn’t set in stone, but analytically consistent. The Giver(book) deals with abstract ideas and concepts that translate well in a written medium. Adapting those concepts to film is a rather daunting task and The Giver suffers for it. Details used in the book to enrich the world must be removed due to time constraints. Sadly this movie is boring. An unoriginal Armageddon narrative doesn’t help either.
Characters

Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is our main protagonist and chosen as the next Receiver of Memories. From the moment we see him something is different. Unlike his friends, Jonas fearfully anticipates the upcoming assignment ceremony. Yet, he is assured these fears are normal. Jonas’ character doesn’t break any archetypal boundaries. A protagonist in a teen film will feel misplaced or alone because most teenagers feel that way. However, Jonas’ demeanor changes as the story progresses. Compared to his parents and peers, he seems energetic and happy due to the Giver’s memories. I enjoyed watching this transformation. Mr. Thwaites did an excellent job acting his role.

The Giver (Jeff Bridges) is Jonas’ predecessor and current Keeper of Memories (not a title used in the film). Bridge’s acting fits an old teacher so well it’s a little unbelievable. His performance really sells the Giver on screen. Jonas’ inquisitive nature immediately allows the Giver to build a strong relationship with the boy. Personal tragedy fuels the Giver’s actions. He passively stood against the rest of Elders. His position gives him unique perspective and a painful burden. All other people in the Community have lost something fundamental to their natures and the Giver must bear the collective memory of humanity. The temptation to share is great, yet he remains silent until Jonas comes under his care.

The Chief Elder (Meryl Streep) controls all decisions made in the Community. She is the final arbiter of authority and correctness, not even the Giver can usurp her power. Her character represents an institution rather than a person, an idea versus a character. Some scenes provide small amounts of insights, but she’s not prospective giving character (literature talk). I wanted to see more of her life because it seemed like her memories remained intact as well, but the movie never explores this possibility.

Fiona (Odeya Rush) is one of Jonas’ childhood friends and pseudo-romantic interest. Besides the Giver and Gabe (a small baby Jonas shares his knowledge with), Jonas tries to share some his emotions with Fiona. While confused and reluctant at first, Fiona does start to understand Jonas’ transformation. A small glimpse of real emotions causes her to help Jonas escape the community as the risk of her own life.

Story:

There’s nothing exciting about the plot in its entirety, but certain moments radiate emotional power. Jonas’ experience of emotions lead to the entire community receiving their emotions. Once he passes that barrier, tears start flowing from everyone’s eye. It’s powerful scene and other moments provide The Giver with a unique pathos. Jonas’ relationship with the Giver is natural and organic which carries the audience through a majority of the movie. A strong pathos doesn’t carry enough of its own weight.

The Giver’s basic format parallels other well known dystopian novels. A status-quo is established as a Utopia. The protagonist discovers a world beyond the Utopia causing a revelation of dystopia. Conflict emerges as the protagonist tries to change the status-quo and new found freedoms embody a resolution with destruction of the dystopia. In 1993, dystopian political concepts weren’t seen in young adult fiction. Critics were impressed with Lowry’s ability to write a story that engaged young people while simultaneously introducing fairly complex political ideas. Unfortunately, the plot was formulaic then and almost cliche now. Too many young adult novels set in a post-apocalyptic world have been written since the book came out. The films seems half-assed and preachy compared to its more trendy contemporaries. What is “the ruin”? It’s never explained at all.

Colors cause people to generate different emotions, thus the Elders decided to remove colors to further enforce conformity. A large portion of The Giver is filmed in black and white. This reminded me of Pleasentville which wasn’t a very good film and the effect is cheesy. Their so devoid of emotion that color doesn’t exist, cue the profuse weeping and gnashing of teeth. “Removing color” and a barrier which blocks memory enters the realm of weak pseudo-science. I understand this story was built on abstract concepts to illustrate the importance of diversity and individualism, but good pseudo-science needs some kind of logic. One can’t remove color unless all people physically become color blind. Simply removing names and concepts would not be enough. The barrier of memory bothers me even more, but a larger question emerges: How or who built this community? If the world was ravaged, how did people have to technology to build a barrier that literally seals memories? A little of explanation would have been nice.

Strangely enough The Purge and The Giver suffer from a similar problem: audiences already know the status-quo is bad. In The Purge, a new government eliminates crime by having one night where everyone can commit any crime without consequence. Putting inherent stupidity aside, some characters defend the purge and the following chaos shows the audience what they already knew: the purge doesn’t work!!!!!!! The Giver’s utopia doesn’t convince me that the Community is actually perfect. No forms of human depravity are shown, but their robotic mannerisms and speech already indicated wrongness. Something about these people didn’t add up. Its dystopic elements offered no revelation or surprise.

Lastly, the ending threw me over board during a stormy night at sea. The book has a fairly ambiguous ending, I wasn’t sure Jonas survived his journey. The movie goes a different route. Revealing narration and improbable circumstances expected me to suspend my belief far too much.
Score: 5.5/10

I blame the timing of this adaptation and poor translation from source material. This film could have been better, but it would have been difficult. Go see this movie if you have nothing else to do. 

Find me on Facebook or on Twitter