![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() But even if you haven’t read the book or choose to ignore its existence, the film fails in its own right. Hollywood demands clarity, and love triangles, and carbon-copies of other successes, even when it takes away from the necessary bleakness and intelligence of the origin story. The novel’s ambiguous ending is cleared up because Hollywood demands happy endings. As expected, there are plenty of adaptation problems to gripe about, ranging from the trivial (making the characters older, including drones) to the egregious (shoving a ham-fisted love plot into a story about a society where love is an antiquated word and a nonexistent emotion). But its basic themes and the visuals it conjures have basically demanded the film treatment forever (it was stuck in development hell for years I do believe if it had come out earlier, it would have been much better). To be fair, The Giver is a tough book to adapt because it’s a largely introspective novel. Even just as a movie, well, it’s still pretty bad. As a book-to-movie adaptation, The Giver is terrible. It tries to force emotions out of its viewers, tries so hard that it becomes laughable. The movie adaptation accidentally embraces it, resulting in a film that tries too hard to be similar to YA adaptations with vaguely similar premises. The story shoots down the idea of sameness as an ideal. ![]() Everything is identical, and no one has any emotions. The main theme of Lois Lowry’s classic book The Giver is “sameness.” The Giver takes place in a dystopian society - disguised as a utopian one - without change, without choice, and without differences. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |