Sometimes, the odd case arises when a film that is beautiful on virtually every level can still somehow fall flat. From the concept to the cinematography, to the acting and to the atmosphere, every piece can function perfectly, yet the overall product somehow fails to be as great as the sum of its parts. This, unfortunately, is the case of Phillip Noyce’s recent adaptation of The Giver.
I remember having my eyes glued to Lois Lowry’s book while in elementary school. I thought to myself, “This would make an excellent movie,” and I really hoped someone would translate the novel to the screen someday. Like many stories I’ve read, I wanted to see The Giver on the big screen, moving, breathing and alive. That was roughly ten years ago, and now I finally know why that book took so long to get a movie adaptation; worse yet, it’s clear why it shouldn’t have.
The story appears at first glance to have all of the necessary components for a compelling, entertaining and thought-provoking sci-fi film: a unique, disturbing and intriguing setting as well as fascinating characters and a sense of direction rarely seen.
The story is set in a futuristic world where strife, discrimination, conflict and unhappiness seemingly no longer exist. In fact, it’s not just unhappiness that’s missing, but the entire emotional spectrum, including all sense of history, memory and humanity.
Through medications and treatments designed to strip away all senses that might instigate conflict or disagreement (right down to the ability to see in color), the government ensures that the world can remain peaceful and prosperous. However, the government still recognizes the wisdom and knowledge necessary to mediate potential outlier conflict situations. Thus, they select one person from their ranks to become the “Receiver of Memory,” who learns of all the world’s prior conflicts and history in order to advise a top government official (played by Meryl Streep).
As protagonist Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is selected to become the new Receiver, he begins receiving knowledge from the Giver (Jeff Bridges), the previous Receiver. Armed with all the knowledge the world has to offer, Jonas must choose whether to continue this cycle of ignorance or to free the world from its bonds, at the risk of reigniting conflicts that may tear the world asunder.
The film offers a fantastic commentary on a number of thought-provoking issues, such as what it means to be human, what it means to live with pain and precisely what role knowledge plays in society. Nevertheless, this commentary falls short because of the way the film presents these elements. Much of the story is conveyed through voice-over narration, which feels incredibly jarring in some scenes and fails to evoke the disturbing immersive quality required in a film with a setting as twisted as this.
As horrific as the world is, and as much as we may root for Jonas in his emotional quest, it is difficult to fully grasp what is at stake. The film seems to deliberately hold the audience back. We are led to believe that the status quo of their society is bad, yet little is done to show why this is the norm or how the world reached this state.
The scenes wherein the backstory of the world is revealed to Jonas are nearly glanced over. Rather than showing us what is at stake, the film is far more content to let Bridges explain to the audience what they should be thinking. While passable in novel form, this style fails to entice people interested in watching a film rather than reading a book.
That isn’t to say that the film isn’t beautifully shot: painstaking detail was obviously put into every set in the film, creating a utopian yet eerily sterile atmosphere that can be unsettling in places. Seamless blending of color schemes, coupled with some rather evocative camera work truly highlight not just how different the world is, but how the people within it see it so differently.
It is masterful to behold, again, when it is actually utilized. Too often, however, the film simply lets this work sit in the background, while piling the watcher with expository material, oftentimes with lines torn directly from the book. And, unfortunately, the dialogue does not translate particularly well from page to screen.
And that seems to be the root of the issue; some stories simply aren’t meant for some mediums. The Giver is a world whose heart and soul can only be truly conveyed through the written word. There is simply too much to say and to do within a 90-minute slot. Perhaps if the film had been longer and had been given room to breathe, it may have developed better, although there is no way to truly know. The Giver stands as a testament that sometimes direct transpositions of books to film simply do not work. While ambitious and functional, it unfortunately collapses under its own weight before it can realize its potential.
Overall Rating: 3/5
Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The News-Letter.