The Giver is a
hard movie to take seriously. Based on
the godmother of all dystopian teen fiction that so permeates the cinematic
landscape, The Giver had yet to
receive a big-screen adaptation, despite being an award-winning novel and a
cornerstone to high school English curriculums.
But that was probably a good thing, as the reason the book is so beloved
is that it is largely a symbolic tale, not really concerned with the logistics
of its failed utopia, but more so with using its setting to communicate a
message about our own world. And yes,
that message is little more than an overly-simplified analysis of how the
pursuit of absolute equality can lead to the destruction of our individuality,
but as teen fiction, it’s hard to fault the story for resonating with that
demographic’s primary emotional concern.
The Giver tends to be really
thematically problematic when you really examine it, but for once, I’m not
going to delve into that aspect of the film.
There are plenty of places when you can read about the thematic issues
of The Giver book, especially those
concerning its heavy-handed allegories for euthanasia and abortion. Instead, I want to point out the specific
reason why the film doesn’t work.
As I pointed out, The
Giver is largely a symbolic story, revolving around a society that has
removed all strife and conflict by sapping the world of anything resembling
diversity, whether that be in thought, feeling, or even in the ability to see
color. That’s fine on paper, but in
order to translate that type of story to the big screen, there need to be some
truly ambitious aspirations in order to make something entertaining to watch
while still remaining true to the spirit of the novel. And the film seems to start off with that
intention, keeping the world devoid of color until protagonist Jonas begins to
unlock his potential as the Receiver of Memories. The teen actors are your standard stock
wannabes hoping for a shot at the big time and think this film is it (spoiler:
it isn’t), but Jeff Bridges (the eponymous Giver) and Meryl Streep (the evil
Chief Elder) give performances that seem to demonstrate that they actually give
a damn about the production’s success.
Unfortunately, this is also an attempt to be a summer
blockbuster with a target audience of teenagers, so the film must obligatorily
lean toward action-heavy by the third act.
Jonas comes to a conclusion that he must abduct an infant about to be euthanized
and take it with him outside the community in order to survive, and this leads
to some half-assed chase scenes limited by the fact that nobody in this
universe is supposed to understand violence.
The film’s plot adds this strange condition that, once Jonas escapes his
community and reaches a certain point beyond its borders, everyone will
suddenly remember what it is like to have feelings again. Logistically, I have no idea how this works,
and once that magical turning point is reached, the film sort of just ends with
only a generic voiceover as an epilogue.
The main problem with The
Giver as a movie is that it tries too hard to work the classic novel’s
story into the same framework as modern dystopian teen fiction films, like The Hunger Games or Divergent. By forcing the
film into having an action-oriented third act and a magic happy ending
MacGuffin to drive the plot forward, the story has been robbed of its
identity. If The Giver had been allowed to be its own thing, it probably would
have been an alright movie, inherent thematic issues aside. As it stands, though, it’s hard to hate The Giver, but it’s hard to care much
for it either.
How do you feel about the classic novel? Disagree with me on the quality of its
thematic messages? Discuss in the
comments below.
No comments:
Post a Comment