Skip to main content

When people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong. Every single time.

The Giver
(2014)

(SPOILERS) Could The Giver be an unsuspecting polemic depicting the dangers of all that is left thinking; the final destination of those seeking to treat all equally and fairly (or progressivism, to use the four-letter-word)? If Sarah Palin thinks so, then most probably not. But who knows, perhaps well-known Hollywood liberals Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep, and Oz-man Philip Noyce, took leave of their senses, joined forces with Harvey Scissorhands, and gave the poor neglected right the parable they most desired?


Perhaps, but not likely. Certainly, it would be possible to single out a few elements as feeding into bugbears of the right. But it would also be possible to find something to parallel the extremes of any totalitarian regime of any political persuasion. To that extent, The Guardian, perhaps not so much a bastion of rigorous thinking these days, has it right. Lois Lowry’s 1993 novel has been both a set text and an excluded one in US schools, presumably depending on which side of the perceived political divide the schools lie. Or possibly they just feel threatened at the idea of their pupils thinking for themselves and rebelling against authority. Which is, of course, common to pretty much every single dystopian future society out there, and is absolutely essential to any Young Adult fiction, of which this had a head start.


The Weinsteins continue their current knack for having absolutely no feeling for the YA market (following the bomb that is Vampire Academy), but really The Giver is little better or worse than the other new notables last year (Divergent, The Maze Runner), even though it did only a fraction of their business. Noyce is a solid pair of hands, albeit always more impressive with smaller, more personal projects than as a studio gun for hire. He keeps the pace up; the picture wastes little time getting from Point A to B, while throwing in sufficient time to debating its issues that the thematic content isn’t short-changed.


As is de rigueur with such tales, the focus is on a chosen one, Jonas (Brenton Thwaites). At his career graduation, he is announced as Receiver of Memory. Jonas will be released from the passive, regimented society around him to take instruction from the Giver (Jeff Bridges). The Giver was formerly a receiver and in time Jonas will become the next Giver, etc. The purpose of this? To carry the memories of the time before The Ruin (the name for a non-specific apocalyptic event) and advise the leaders of society on particular key areas where they have limited knowledge. Of course, opening up someone who has been drugged and directed his whole life is unpredictable. So much so, one might suggest that, since the last receiver also went awry, it might not be such a bankable system. Jonas begins to buck this system and so threaten its very foundations.


There are some nice ideas here. The Pleasantville-esque use of black and white gradually changes to colour as the Jonas’ world opens up. But that’s also part of the problem. Much of this is rather familiar. The opening sections, where Jonas and his chums (Odeya Rush as Fiona and Cameron Monaghan as Asher) are overpoweringly similar to Divergent, where everyone is given their set task but the special one finds him/herself without such a comfort blanket. 


Jonas is young apprentice to an oddball mentor, who guides him spiritually, which could be anyone from Obi Wan Kenobi onwards. I particularly liked his description of dreams, "a combination of reality, fantasy, emotion, and what you had for dinner". Jeff Bridges is good value, as ever. He is also a credited producer, having steered the project over the course of nearly two decades (during which he intended the Giver to be his father’s role). The downside is that he seems to have decided mumble-mouth is the thing for him going forward (see also, True Grit, R.I.P.D.). Still, he gets to play the piano, which must have been nice for him.


Some of the tropes and devices are on the simplistic side. This is a picture where someone actually offers the line "What does love mean?" The dystopian utopia looks appropriately pristine, but is equipped with budget-conscious bicycles and drones, We assume the Giver and his connection with Jonas is genuinely telepathic, but Noyce isn’t quite so imaginative with his choices of first person experience (indeed, the whole sled thing is a little twee; I kept hoping Orson Welles would pop out from a snowdrift). When the memory-imbuing climax arrives, it has the élan of a low-rent Terrence Malick.


The passive nature of the society doesn’t bear too much close scrutiny either, although I guess Lowry might have provided more detail in her novel.  Do the Elders take different daily drugs to the rest, in order to have greater wherewithal? Certainly, Meryl’s Chief Elder is much more feisty, proactive and suspicious. Do the guards with sticks have a bit of aggression in their dose?


Or are they like Jonas’ dad (Alexander Skarsgard), killing babies while talking to them softly, unconscious of what he is doing? It is this, and the reading into it of commentary on abortion and euthanasia, which have been held up by many reading this as right-leaning text. Rather more potent is the underlying idea of the passive acceptance of dictated morality, particularly given how easy it is for a nation as a whole to pitch into what would be considered morally repugnant when the right (or wrong) leader comes along and persuades them (or just as bad. they go with the flow).


Robert B Weide (of Curb Your Enthusiasm) and Michael Mitnick can’t get past the pretty big magical wand that needs to be waved in the third act, which rather deflates an engaging first two-thirds. The problem is partly that the world presented is classically futuristic-scientific, yet the barrier Jonas crosses, from Elsewhere to beyond, in order to release memories to everyone, feels rather arbitrarily mystical. It’s not just blowing everything up, as we are used to; it relies on a big “Because it’s so”.


Noyce does his best to pull the scenes off dramatically. Jonas coming across the sled lends a slightly dreamlike spin (the only serious way to explain his saving baby Gabe from certain doom beneath the waves) and his fate is left open-ended (but not by the sequels). Both Skarsgard and Katie Holmes (as Jonas’ mother) put in strong performances of the feeling-but-not-too-much variety (perhaps this was Katie’s Tom-detox role), and Streep manages to make the defence of her way (“People are weak, people are selfish”) almost compelling (and what the hell did they do to her face in the movie posters?) Thwaites, Rush and Taylor Swift (as the Giver’s daughter in flashbacks) are also decent.


There’s nothing here to set the world on fire, but The Giver is at least thematically more coherent than either Divergent of The Maze Runner, even if that wearing of its heart on its sleeve is also part of the reason it dissatisfies. It seems to think its ideas are enough, which they may be as tailored by the right. To the rest of us, well it’s familiar and mostly agreeable (and, if you’re its primary audience, a bit lacking in the action stakes compared to its YA fellows).


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There are times when I miss the darkness. It is hard to live always in the light.

Blake's 7 4.12: Warlord

The penultimate episode, and Chris Boucher seems to have suddenly remembered that the original premise for the series was a crew of rebels fighting against a totalitarian regime. The detour from this, or at least the haphazard servicing of it, during seasons Three and Four has brought many of my favourite moments in the series. So it comes as a bit of a jolt to suddenly find Avon making Blake-like advances towards the leaders of planets to unite in opposition against the Federation. 

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I had that Christopher Marlowe in my boat once.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)
(SPOILERS) You see? Sometimes Oscar can get it right. Not that the backlash post-announcement would have you crediting any such. No, Saving Private Ryan had the rug unscrupulously pulled from under it by Harvey Weinstein essentially buying Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture through a lavish promotional campaign. So unfair! It is, of course, nothing of the sort. If the rest of Private Ryan were of the same quality as its opening sequence, the Spielberg camp might have had a reasonable beef, but Shakespeare in Love was simply in another league, quality wise, first and foremost thanks to a screenplay that sang like no other in recent memory. And secondly thanks to Gwyneth Paltrow, so good and pure, before she showered us with goop.

The Statue of Liberty is kaput.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(SPOILERS) William Goldman said of Saving Private Ryan, referencing the film’s titular objective in Which Lie Did I Tell? that it “becomes, once he is found, a disgrace”. “Hollywood horseshit” he emphasised, lest you were in doubt as to his feelings. While I had my misgivings about the picture on first viewing, I was mostly, as many were, impacted by its visceral prowess (which is really what it is, brandishing it like only a director who’s just seen Starship Troopers but took away none of its intent could). So I thought, yeah Goldman’s onto something here, if possibly slightly exaggerating for effect. But no, he’s actually spot-on. If Saving Private Ryan had been a twenty-minute short, it would rightly muster all due praise for its war-porn aesthetic, but unfortunately there’s a phoney, sentimental, hokey tale attached to that opening, replete with clichéd characters, horribly earnest, honorific music and “exciting!” action to engage your interest. There are…

Move away from the jams.

Aladdin (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was never overly enamoured by the early ‘90s renaissance of Disney animation, so the raves over Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin left me fairly unphased. On the plus side, that means I came to this live action version fairly fresh (prince); not quite a whole new world but sufficiently unversed in the legend to appreciate it as its own thing. And for the most part, Aladdin can be considered a moderate success. There may not be a whole lot of competition for that crown (I’d give the prize to Pete’s Dragon, except that it was always part-live action), but this one sits fairly comfortably in the lead.

I’m the spoiled toff who lives in the manor.

Robin Hood (2018)
(SPOILERS) Good grief. I took the disdain that greeted Otto Bathurst’s big screen debut with a pinch of salt, on the basis that Guy Ritchie’s similarly-inclined lads-in-duds retelling of King Arthur was also lambasted, and that one turned out to be pretty good fun for the most part. But a passing resemblance is as close as these two would-be franchises get (that, and both singularly failed to start their respective franchises). Robin Hood could, but it definitely didn’t.

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

Have you always lived here, Mother?

I Am Mother (2019)
(SPOILERS) This Netflix science-fiction offering arrived with very solid reviews, always a surprise for a Netflix movie, even one they picked up at Sundance. For about two-thirds of the running time, I Am Mother seems to justify the (modest) raves. It boasts assured direction from Grant Sputore (making his feature debut), polished production values and strong performances from a very small cast (basically Hilary Swank and Clare Rugaard, with Luke Hawker in a Weta robot body suit and Rose Byrne providing the voice). It operates intriguing turns of plot and switches in sympathies. Ultimately, however, I Am Mother heads towards a faintly underwhelming and unremarkable, standard-issue conclusion.

It always seems a bit abstract, doesn’t it? Other people dying.

Game of Thrones Season Six
(SPOILERS) The most distracting thing about Season Six of Game of Thrones (and I’ve begun writing this at the end of the seventh episode, The Broken Man) is how breakneck its pace is, and how worryingly – only relatively, mind – upbeat it’s become. Suddenly, characters are meeting and joining forces, not necessarily mired in pits of despair but actually moving towards positive, attainable goals, even if those goals are ultimately doomed (depending on the party concerned). It feels, in a sense, that liberated from George R R Martin’s text, producers are going full-throttle, and you half-wonder if they’re using up too much plot and revelation too quickly, and will run out before the next two seasons are up. Then, I’m naturally wary of these things, well remembering how Babylon 5 suffered from packing all its goods into Season Four and was then given an ultimately wasted final season reprieve.

I’ve started this paragraph at the end of the eighth episode, No One (t…