The Giver - Review

DIRECTED BY: Phillip Noyce
WRITTEN BY: Michael Mitnick, Robert B. Weide
STARRING: Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Brenton Thwaites, Alexander Skarsgard, Odeya Rush, Katie Holmes, Taylor Swift, Cameron Monaghan

WARNING: Spoilers for both movie and book ahead.

Adaptation is a tricky business, especially when it comes to translating a book into a film. I've never understood why people get so up in arms when changes are made between one medium and another, at least not inherently. Film is a fundamentally different medium than prose fiction, so at least structurally changes are pretty much inevitable and necessary. I think a movie's prerogative is to be a good movie first, and a faithful adaptation second. Hell, some of the most famous book-to-movie adaptations bear almost no resemblance to the source material. As long as the film stays true to the spirit and themes of the work it's based on, cutting or altering the plot in order to fit the dramatic needs of the story is acceptable.

The Giver doesn't do that.

In the far future, following some sort of unspecified catastrophe, humanity rebuilds itself into a collection of isolated settlements known as "communities". Here differences and individuality are all but forbidden, emotion is next to nonexistent, but the lack of passion also means no conflict, strife, or disagreement. On the day of his graduation, when all the other kids his age are assigned regular jobs, Jonas (Thwaites) is singled out to be the next "receiver of memory". According to the elderss, this is because he has the intuition and latent capacity to "see beyond", which allows him to do just as the title implies: to be the receptacle for the remnants of the memories and emotions of the old world the rest of the populace has left behind. Why does this position exist? Supposedly the purpose of the receiver is to act as an adviser for the elders, to offer guidance in matters they can't and won't understand.The only requirements of his training are that must attend regular sessions with the previous receiver of memory in order to...well...receive. As time goes by, he discovers that the truth about the communities is far darker than he ever realized.

Superficially, that's pretty much the plot of the book. As far as story goes, The Giver is actually fairly lean in terms of plot, but there's more than enough there to fill out solid run-time. Problem is, that material doesn't fit today's accepted framework of "young adult dystopia fiction". Instead of using what's there, the filmmaker's decide to fill out the short run time of the movie with all the hallmarks of a Hunger Games ripoff. You know what this intimate, emotional parable on the human condition needs? Chase sequences, yeah, and maybe a tacked on romance sub-plot to raise the stakes. Oh shit, we didn't spend enough time hammering in that the communities are bad and emotions are good, lets have Jeff Bridges read that essay I wrote in middle school about the themes of the book to the bad guy so that the audience won't be too confused.

The long and short of it is that The Giver just isn't suited for the big budget treatment. While the film looks nice its production design resembles too many other YA dystopia movies to stand out. The film needed to be slow, it needed to build its setting and rules gradually to draw the audience in, not drop info-dump narration right out the gate. The growth of the characters needed to be organic, rooted in the interactions they have with each other rather than just being informed. No, using stock footage montage isn't effective on its own isn't going to inspire awe and wonder in your audience. I'm glad they stuck with the black-and-white to color thing, but the fact that they play the "monochrome isn't normal" thing within the first couple minutes, it kind of defeats the purpose. The reveal that the people couldn't see color was one of the best "oh shit" moments of the book, and it's just another example of wasted opportunity on the part of the filmmakers. All it accomplishes is to make the audience feel like their being bludgeoned over the head repeatedly with a message. Any depth and subtly in the book is thrown out the window. The filmmakers didn't trust their audience to be able to infer meaning on their own.

In the book, the dystopian nature of the community reveals itself slowly over the course of the narrative. Here we have a villain in the form of Meryl Streep's Chief Elder, who didn't exist in the book (and for good reason). Some might say that this change is necessary to make an otherwise "boring" story more dramatic and suited for general audiences by giving us a singular antagonist to focus on. What the writers and/or producers didn't seem to realize is that lack of a singular antagonistic force was what made the notion of these communities as scary as it is. It's not that anybody is outright malicious, they just don't seem to know any better, and that's horrifying. The fact that its society as a whole that is responsible for the things that happen forces the reader to question accepted ethics in their own society. Instead of that, here we have a clear villain who's outright manipulating people to act against our hero. Its clear that she's phoning it in too. I'm not really on the Meryl Streep hype train like some people are, but she's more than capable of pulling off better performances with much worse.

Thwaites as Jonas does alright with what he's given, though as many have pointed out he's clearly far too old for the role. I suppose maybe it has to do with the fact that it makes the references to his growing sexuality a little easier on the palette for general audiences, but the parallels to puberty the book had kind of get lost when the lead actor is obviously in his early twenties. He does have a wide-eyed cheerful eagerness he has that makes him endearing, but the fact that it carries throughout the film from start to finish makes it hard for be to connect with whatever arc he may be having. His romance with Fiona (Rush) has the unfortunate distinction of being both forced and very clearly telegraphed from the start. A side character in the book, Fiona is here just a token female friend/love interest who exists solely to be saved by Jonas, nothing more.

Taylor Swift makes a brief cameo, surprisingly enough. Honestly, I didn't realize it was her at first, which was a good because stunt casting celebrities usually just takes me out of a story. It seems odd to give her top billing when she's barely in the movie, but I guess the studio needed that extra draw to bring in that teen demographic. Of the main actors, the clear standout here is Jeff Bridges as the Giver. Though the script doesn't give him a lot to work with, every moment he's onscreen you can get a clear sense of the weight of the knowledge he bears. You can feel the profound loneliness that comes with being the only person who is capable of true human emotion. I know that Bridges has been trying to get this film made for a long, long time, and its sad that after nearly twenty years this is what ends up being the result.

The only reason it probably got made at all was to capitalize on this weirdly specific "dystopian teen-lit" trend that's going on right now. I suppose its heart is in the right place, I almost feel as though these movies reflect a growing sense of social consciousness in young people towards oppression and a growing desire for action against repressive regimes. Problem is, it also reflects the tendency for surface level examination of social issues that don't really delve into the reasons why, only that these institutions are bad and need to be torn down. I wonder if the movie's target audience even realizes the irony that for all the talk about freedom and individuality these films are pretty much locked in a cycle of mediocre imitation and shameless bandwagoning. What, with it upping the main characters age and adding action and special effects its clear its just fishing for a piece of that Hunger Games pie, and judging by its box office earnings, its clear the "target demo" isn't biting.