The Giver Film Adaptation

By Kat


Warning: the following rant contains spoilers for "The Giver".

The Giver is one of my favourite books. It has wonderful themes, told in a eloquent manner that still reminds one enough of childhood fiction to be enchanting in the midst of a dystopian world. So when I heard that the movie was coming out, I was both skeptical and excited. Skeptical, specifically, because Phillip Noyce also directed Rabbit Proof Fence, which wasn't a great movie, nor an accurate one. Skeptical also, because the main character in the novel is supposed to be twelve years old.
When I finally watched it, my opinion didn't change much. It was better than I thought (largely because I made it out to be perfectly horrid in my head) but still nowhere near as good as I wanted it to be.
Firstly, Rosemary. Rosemary Rosemary Rosemary. She was one of the best characters in the novel, and yet the only scene that really involves her is a pointless piano scene where she really doesn't matter at all. It's the Giver that tells her story, and even then he misses all the great elements of the original. Something that I really liked in the book was that Rosemary chose to inject herself for Release, but they sort of skimmed over that one. It's important too, because as the Receiver of Memory, she understands the ramifications of her actions and her choice of, essentially, suicide is highly symbolic. She had nowhere near the attention she deserved, and her character wasn't even given much room to make us feel anything about what eventually happened to her.
Secondly, relationships. We'll start with the romance. It comes out of nowhere, it's pointless. Fiona never really loves Jonas back. They don't start a relationship, but obviously in every. single. teen. movie. they just have to have a romance, don't they? For me it was highly illustrative of how even the people closest to you can drift away. But...no. And Asher? He was never supposed to turn evil, and frankly he was never supposed to be a drone pilot, he went into recreation. The differences between the two fields are quite jarring. Asher was never the type of person to turn away from fun situations like the cold and dutiful guy he was portrayed as. It seems as though the film lacks the ability to create likable characters even as the source material practically throws it at you.
And finally, the last line. In the novel it was poetic, ambiguous, bittersweet, everything I adore about ending lines. Except an executive decision was made to tack an extra line onto the end. The atmosphere created by the ending line was masterful. Film adaptations lack a certain ability to tell stories true to their origins, and convey messages without trying to throw in plot devices that do nothing but detract from the original.
I have a suggestion to all filmmakers seeking to adapt novels- get the original author's help in writing the screenplay. It worked wonders for "The Perks of Being a Wallflower" (a surprisingly good film adaptation), as well as the recent box office success "Gone Girl". Often the writers are those who picture their stories the best.
I really wish that "The Giver" had just been thought through enough to be more true to the masterpiece it originated from. The themes weren't as strong, and nothing seemed to speak to me in the way the novel did. For all those out there who haven't already, read the book. It's so much more worthwhile.
It's wishful thinking to hope that there will be a masterful book out there adapted by someone who can connect with the source enough to comprehend the author's ideas and interpret them on the screen. I've heard of adaptations that exceed their source in quality...but perhaps it was only an echo.