On the surface, The Giver is yet another in a line of young adult novel adaptations to grace our screens over the past few years. The source material comes from the 1993 children’s novel by Lois Lowry that is cherished by many and required reading in some schools. Interestingly, the rights to a film adaptation have lain with the Bridges estate for several decades. Jeff Bridges wanted to direct with his father Lloyd in the titular role. Lloyd’s death delayed the film, leading to his son finally taking on the role himself. Can The Dude himself prevent another Twilight debacle?
THE MOVIE
The plot centers on young Jonas (Brenton Thwaites), a boy living in a future, idyllic society born out of the remnants of a war torn Earth. Mankind have shed emotions and passion to embrace logic and conformity in order to survive; this is enforced by rules and medical means. This rigid society imposes on its people their “roles” upon reaching adulthood: protector, carer, farmer, administrator.
On Jonas’ day of graduation he is informed he will inherit the role of “The Receiver”, the person who acts as the repository of memory from the time before. The current holder of the role (Bridges), becomes The Giver, to pass on the memories of the past. As Jonas becomes more aware of his feelings and increases his knowledge, his scrutiny of society increases, leading to collusion with The Giver on how to free people from their emotional prison.
Being unfamiliar with the book, I’m unable to compare and contrast but as a standalone piece of entertainment it ticks all the boxes for a typical YA novel: A bit of romance (with a hint of a love triangle), a smattering of action and a lead who becomes empowered while championing a cause or ideal. In these aspects the film is unsurprising. But, idea of this “samey dystopia” is interesting, as is the execution of this monochromatic world. The latter is a literal comment as the film is presented in black and white, with colors being layered in as our protagonist becomes more in touch with his suppressed emotions (bringing to mind shades of Pleasantville).
Certain words in relation to emotion are avoided, “precision of language” is enforced, physical contact outside a family unit is forbidden. These and other small details craft an intriguing, cold, communist feel. Inspiration from Bradbury, Huxley and Orwell is evident. The idea that what makes us human will ultimately be our undoing is a challenging one, especially for children. The aesthetics of this future and its society are some of the more well done aspects of the film, from the repressed behavioral differences to the caste system implementation. A considered approach giving a smart but chilly glimpse of the future.
It is this “coldness” that is perhaps the films fatal flaw. Aside from Bridges, the other roles are incredibly monotone, in spite of contributions from Meryl Streep, Katie Holmes and Alexander Skarsgård. While I applaud films that strive to use unknown talent, the lead here, Brenton Thwaites, is pretty one note in his role. A crucial problem as he starts out as a blank slate and remains there, his response to a influx of memories and emotions being a mildly confused facial expression.
With the plot and setting being devoid of emotion there was a real need for a core of charisma to pull the film along in the central role and that need is woefully unfulfilled. The philosophy of this society seems glossed over, weight sacrificed to make for a more accessible film, which, when coupled with the unmoving acting, just results in a flat endeavor. Glimpsing flashes of real human events, used to represent the memories being transferred, give the film sparks of emotion never matched by any scripted scenes, underlining how lacking the film is. The rallying of human spirit against restraint has never been so formulaic and dull. It does feel like subject matter that would be better handled in a book. The inner point of view and personal perspective of the characters could offer a more interesting angle than this more sterile view, watching things unfold.
THE PACKAGE
The visual style of the film offers plenty of scope to evaluate the transfer of the movie. The transfer is crisp and the colors pop really well, when introduced. Details are clear, most notably facial features and exteriors. Some of the city architecture looks a little soft, likely due to the CG work rather than the transfer.
The package includes a DVD and Ultraviolet digital copy as well as a host of extras. There are parts of the original script reading, notably footage of Lloyd Bridges and others doing a roundtable. There is a Making The Giver feature looking at how it was brought to the screen in the current market and a Press Conference Q&A with cast and crew offering further insights. There are also interviews with author Lois Lowry and composer Ryan Tedder on their contributions, the former reflecting on changes that may have been made to the original novel if written in the present day. There is also a “Study Guide” which presents select scenes from the film with a synopsis and breakdown. Anyone wanting to know more about how The Giver was put together should be more than satisfied.
THE BOTTOM LINEIn a week when another YA adaptation, Mockingjay Part 1, is on release, The Giver doesn’t compare well, losing out in the emotional stakes and plotting departments. It shows an interesting world where conformity has drained humanity of life but it achieves this a little too well, leaving a hollow cinematic experience. The charisma of Bridges is insufficient to raise the film to a level where viewing is required. Fans of the film will be very happy with a solid release packed with plenty of extras but those wanting more substance should look elsewhere.
The Giver is available on Blu-Ray on 25th November, a link to purchase via Amazon is below.
