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).
