IN “THE GIVER,” ATTEMPTS ARE MADE TO CHANGE A COMMUNITY – At The Movies With Kasey
Anytime a book is adapted for film, there’s the chorus of readers declaring that the book is always better than the movie. While I think that tends to be true, I am also far from a purist when it comes to adaptation. I’m okay with changes being made if the film stays true to the spirit of the book. In the case of The Giver, however, the changes made from Lois Lowry’s novel are so egregious they come off as the cynical marketing ploy that they probably are.
The Giver takes place in a dull utopian future in which the elders of “the community” have abolished all differences in order to create peace. To get rid of racism and other types of judgment, there are no colors or fashion choices. To get rid of famine, there are not seasons or hills. There are also no biological families, no emotions, or love.
All of the community’s decisions are made by the elders and the history of the people are contained by the Receiver, who holds all the memories of the past so he can protect the people from memories of suffering and use the wisdom of these memories to counsel the elders. A young man, Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is chosen to be the new Receiver, so the old Receiver, now the Giver (Jeff Bridges) can transfer the memories to him for safe keeping. As he receives memories of a time before sameness, Jonas also receives the wisdom to see what the community has sacrificed for their supposed utopia. Jonas’s dissatisfaction starts to put him in tension with the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep), leading to a startling plot to change the community for good.
In the novel, Jonas is twelve and his final decision to rebel is spurred on by the desire to protect his foster brother, Gabriel. In the film, Jonas is sixteen and much of the plot focuses on his growing desire for his life-long friend Fiona (Odeya Rush). Their romance triggers the jealousy (in a world without emotions, I might add) of their friend Asher (Cameron Monaghan), a new drone pilot tasked with stopping Jonas. In the novel, Asher is happy-go-lucky and in charge of recreation. They turned a Leslie Knope into the villain. My problem with these changes is not simply that they differ from the book, but that they change the tone and the focus of the story. The novel focused on the love of family and the joy that came from people loving each other, experiences that were missing in a society that simply disposed of the old and weak. In the film, however, the romance distracts from this experience. Instead of his awakening coming from the memory of Christmas morning, Jonas is moved by the memory of a wedding. This is a tonal shift that crams a love triangle into the story where it isn’t needed, a move that looks like a cheap ploy to get more teenage bottoms into theater seats.
I think the changes also make the rhetoric of the film fall flat. The novel was a little preachy, but not bad for a children’s book. The film, on the other hand, makes its point in a heavy-handed manner that is emotionally effective in the way that a good commercial for a digital camera is. The film shows us how beautiful life is, but then lays the cliches on thick.
I can understand the desire to adapt The Giver for the screen. The use of color and memory in the story lend themselves to cinematic interpretation. The novel, however, is short and does not have much plot to work with, so the film had serious challenges to overcome. I think the way the story was expanded to fit a full-length feature did a great injustice to what worked about the novel. The end result is a flat and tedious movie. Even if I cried a bit at some of the memories the Giver shared, I also rolled my eyes, sighed, and badly wanted to leave the theater. I rate The Giver 1/5 stars.
The Giver was directed by Phillip Noyce and written by Michael Mitnick and Robert B. Weide, based on the novel by Lois Lowry. It runs 97 minutes and is rated PG-13 for a mature thematic image and some sci-fi action/violence.
> Read Full Biography
> More Articles Written By This Writer