Review: "The Giver" is not such a wonderful life

"The Giver" PG 13
This film is actually not bad and is recommended for being actually quite an original twist on the YA genre dystopia stories of late. The novel it is based on is part of a series that predates all of them, the Giver quartet. It seems more like a nod to Orwell and his 1984 than it is to say Battle Royale or Dystopia. Some critics only read the press release. It is nothing like the Hunger Games of Divergeant, except the premise of a fallen utopia, which is a basic science fiction conceit, 'man versus his creation'. Post communist thought is evident in the novel and the movie.

It is worth a viewing and could be watched again on DVD or bluray just to figure some things out, as it is not an easy movie to follow and one can find more in it on a second showing. 

Phillip Noyce, a crime thriller director usually, takes on the adaptation of 'The Giver' by Lois Lowry. The trailer made the movie look like an action thriller with drones chasing bikes and motorbikes, and people screaming. Actually the trailer is ridiculous. If you go in thinking it is going to be an action picture, you will be disappointed. Maybe Alphonse Cauron might have been a better choice of director, but oh well.

The book is a psychological drama set to a dystopian (fallen untopia) future where an idyllic culture only looks great and perfect, but is actually corrupt and rotten. Apparently long ago this society was created to end war, strife and pain, and was stuck inside a barrier system somewhere in the wastelands of the old world.

The movie is different though, as the 1984 vibe is more literal. Big Brother in this case is a sister, and she is literally watching your every move. Thoughts are controlled through medication and some kind of implants that allow for telekinetic and psychic memory implants.

The story is told from the vantage point of a young teenager. In the book he is only 12, and he should be in the movie. The vast difference between the onset of puberty and practically old enough to have a car and a job is astronomical. It would have made much more sense had they cast at least 14 year olds. Then the idea of them being assigned jobs, even as birth mothers, (The baby's mother is a teenager in the book), would have been more punctual. In the books there is that idea, which tells the reader immediately that this society likes child labor, which is already a sign it's messed up.

The boy, Jonas, has two friends in a world where there should be no friendship, and he is judged to be the Receiver, and to have his job be keeper of memories. This would seem a slightly ridiculous idea. If you want to control your society, allowing them access to the very thing that keeps them in line is like saying hey, rebel why don't you. In the book it makes more sense.

Jonas begins to have feelings for Fiona after being given memories from the Giver, the crusty old sage of the village. The old sage failed a decade prior giving memories, (to an obvious Disney princess cameo), so doing it currently seemed like a good plan.

Thoughts and memories cannot travel outside the human brain. People think they can have psychic powers, but it's all fantasy. This is fine, but in this movie it is treated like a download from a memory chip.  Are they all androids? Then it makes sense a little. If they're machines, they can merely imitate their human creators, and would essentially be a modern Frankenstein monster procreates and makes a society. But according to the book, they're just ordinary humans who are in this communist (literally a community of same people), and socialist (but ruled by a dictator who appears benevolent), utopia gone bad, but are not aware they're bad, and misguided, and essentially as bad as the old world in a way.

The moral center from the book is still there, about the denial of love, of color, or music, and even ironically the nurturing the community implies keeps everyone in line. Even the messed up parts from the book made it in. Not giving it away.

Maybe the hero's journey in the story is all a dream and he will wake up? Nope. It's not a dream. Not in the book. It's been out for over 20 years and this is no spoiler. Ignorance literally becomes their bliss. And if you've read the other three books, yes it is not a dream.

So really it's not a great movie but it's entertaining and will teach a message. The movie does get that right. It is quite clear that sameness and perfection would make mankind superficial and dull, and the idea lands squarely in the YA realm, where everyone seems to try and fit in.

Review by Adam Browne