When we first make the acquaintance of Jonas and his Community, the society is presented as a utopia- a place of peace, fairness, and equality. Of course, anyone who is familiar with dystopian literature knows that this is just going to be a big facade. I knew what was going on the moment I saw the elderly being "retired" to Elsewhere... not unlike pets going to "the farm". Shades of Logan's Run. Basically, this is a means of population control: each year, a certain amount of babies are produced, and an equal number of elderly people must be euthanized- er, retired. This is also why Jonas' father kills one of the twin babies... they have one baby too many, so one just has to go. It's simply a matter of overstock. So how did this type of society come about? At the start of the film, Jonas refers to an event called The Ruin far in the past- "back and back and back". We aren't told what this was exactly, whether a war, or some other kind of man-made disaster, and, since they've had their memories taken away, no one in the community knows what it was either. Whatever it was, it left the earth in ruins, and as they rebuilt their society, the community organizers decided to guard against such a horrible occurrence ever taking place again. They decide that the cause of all this destruction was the flawed and corrupt nature of man, and come up with a way to get rid of these flaws- their plan for "sameness". This plan takes pretty much every facet of life into consideration- and under control- even the weather. We learn that there is never any snow in the community, though Jonas sees in his memory that there used to be. The climate of the Community is controlled because, as the Giver explains, one of the causes of strife is hunger and starvation. Winter weather shortens growing seasons, limiting the production of food... so no more winter. There are no animals in the Community- pets or livestock- and Jonas' father mistakenly refers to Lilly's "comfort object," a plush elephant, as a hippo. From this we can infer that they're vegetarians, another reason why the farms must be kept in use year round. Violence and strife can also be caused by inequality, resulting in envy and greed. To prevent this, a policy of "sameness" was instituted... everyone gets what they need, and no more. Everything which could cause inequality is removed from their society. There is no jockeying for position, or for higher paid jobs, because all employment is assigned by the Elders based on ability and the needs of the community. Everyone lives in the same type of dwelling, rides the same type of bicycle, and wears the clothing assigned to those of their profession. Anything which could cause one to prefer certain people over others is removed; colour is taken away, for without it there can be preference for skin tone. Also, there are no last names, because that might encourage clannishness, favouring family over others in the community. For this reason, "families" aren't even related to each other: they're assigned by the Elders, much like their employment. Husbands and wives are decided upon by committee, and babies, born to the artificially inseminated birth mothers are raised in the nurturing center until they are assigned to their family units. Of course, the primary cause of conflict is emotion, so that is something which is also eradicated from their lives. Feelings are acceptable- contentment, happiness, displeasure, etc- but stronger, deeper, potentially violent emotions must be suppressed. This is accomplished by the means of a daily injection taken by all community members which inhibits strong emotion. The strength of the injection is adjusted to each person's requirement- for example, it is strengthened at the onset of puberty. Because, of course, nothing has more potential for causing troubling emotion than sex so that has also been eliminated, all urges, or "stirrings" quickly suppressed with medication. After all, no longer needed for procreation, it's merely a needless complication which could cause competition, strife, or favoritism. It is not enough to suppress these things: even their memory must be done away with, because if they can be remembered, they can be experienced. To that end, the memories of all these things- colour, emotion, weather, etc.- have been erased from the minds of community members, as well as the result of them. The people of the community have no knowledge of history... all they know is the here and now. Instead, all the collective memories of the world are contained in the Receiver, the person chosen to retain all this knowledge. Each generation a Receiver is chosen to be given all these memories from the previous Receiver, so that they can use their knowledge to advise the Elders on any issues which they have not encountered before. As we see, however, in the smoothly run community, such things rarely pop up, so the Receiver is not often consulted. His main purpose now is to contain all the memories, because as we eventually learn, if they were released, everyone would once again experience them- and the Elders certainly don't want that. In addition to all of this, to maintain a smoothly running, well ordered community it is also necessary to control the behaviour of the people. To that end, there are stringent rules about everything in their lives- nothing is left to chance, or choice. There are rules governing what they can wear, where they can go, what they can say. Not only must everyone ride bicycles, but the age at which they may do so is strictly controlled. There is a curfew- for everyone- and a designated time for sleeping. Physical contact with persons outside your family unit is also not permitted. These rules are maintained through constant vigilance... there are cameras everywhere, inside and out, which monitor and record everything happening in the community. For example, after Jonas and Fiona slide down the solar panels and tumble into the grass, he grabs her hands and helps her to her feet. Immediately there is a public announcement reminding citizens that it's "impolite" to touch those outside of your family. There is no expectation of privacy, either out of doors, or in your dwelling. Repeated flouting of the rules will lead to a person being released to Elsewhere. Basically, people are not to think of themselves as individuals, or even as individual families, but as members of the community. They should not think of their own good, but what is in the best interests of the community as a whole. It is for this reason that, as each graduate is assigned to their employment, the Chief Elder says, "Thank you for your childhood," as though it was a service which they provided to the community. Because that it how it is regarded: they have been in training to spend their lives serving and maintaining their community. This has resulted in a society which is peaceful and productive, where each person knows their place, and there is no poverty, hunger, or crime. People are not driven by emotion or envy or greed, and are unfailingly and painstakingly polite, swiftly apologizing to each other for anything which could be considered rude or inconsiderate. Surely it is worth the loss of personal liberty, if the result is such an exemplary society... or is it? Part III will outline exactly what I think is wrong with this "perfect" way of life.
Comments
I watched The Giver early in the new year having not read Lois Lowry's award-winning novel, so my thoughts expressed here will be solely about the film. I have since read the book, so will probably do a post later on comparing the two works. This movie was really a labour of love for Jeff Bridges, one which spanned almost two decades. He had originally intended to have his father, Lloyd Bridges, act in the role of the Giver but they ran into a lot of complications and delays, and his father died in 1998. The DVD contains a bonus feature which is a video of an early script reading by Lloyd Bridges as the Giver, with various other members of the Lloyd family reading other parts. Actual filming started in late 2013, with Jeff Bridges in the role he had intended for his father. Given how invested Bridges was in the project, it's really a shame that the film didn't have a better reception, either from critics or audience. I think that there are a variety of reasons for this, one of them being a glut of young adult dystopian movies over the last few years. There have been a lot of them, and The Giver is a quieter, less flashy entry to the category than, say, The Hunger Games films. I read a few critics' reviews which said that the book lost something in its translation into film, which lessened its appeal. Of course, I hadn't read the book before watching the movie, so my impressions of it weren't influenced by any knowledge of how the story was supposed to progress. I do feel that the characters could have been more fully developed... Asher, for example, only makes an appearance when he's needed and displays whatever characteristics are needed at that time. Some people have complained that the characters are bland, but that was kind of the point: their society was devoted to creating "sameness", ruthlessly rooting out any suggestion of originality or difference. The blandness was deliberate. One criticism that I have about The Giver is that it's really hard to tell how much time is going by in the film. There's a montage of some of Jonas' training, but that gives no hint as to how much time is passing. Further hampering this is the fact that baby Gabe doesn't appear to age very much at all over the course of the movie. Yet we find out through an offhand remark to Fiona that months have gone by- almost a year since the graduation ceremony. It's a good thing we're told this, because there's no way to figure it out yourself. Also, I'm not a big fan of the open, unexplained ending. What is this house in the middle of nowhere, with Christmas lights and carols being sung? Jonas says that the Giver has led him here, but where is here? There's no explanation. Of course, there's the matter of the whole memory containment issue... it's never explained how this is accomplished, or how colour was removed from the world. Though the injections do explain the suppression of emotions and urges- or "stirrings" as they call them. There's also no explanation how passing the boundary of memory will return memory, emotion, and colour to everyone. Actually, I'm not really bothered by the lack of explanation for the whole memory thing; sometimes you just have to accept a premise in a movie and run with it. As I remarked in another review- Frequency, I think, or maybe Forever Plaid- I'm willing to overlook certain lapses in logic if the ideas and issues presented in a work of fiction interest me. Or if I'm just having a whole lot of fun watching/ reading it. In the case of The Giver, I find the concepts which the film addresses quite interesting, and so am willing to cut it some slack. In Part II, I'll discuss these concepts and my opinions about them... I have some very decided ones. Related Posts: O.K., so this isn't a review of Brooklyn, because I'm in the middle of a review of The Giver, but I just wanted to say what I thought of this film: it was really, really good. I enjoyed it immensely- once the trailers were over- but that's another story. I'll do a full review at a later date, but if you have an opportunity to see Brooklyn, take it. I went to see Brooklyn one afternoon two weeks ago because I had a day off. It was a little different, because if I go to see a movie it's generally at night, and always with someone else. When I got to the cineplex, the ticket counter was closed so I purchased my ticket from one of the kiosks. To my confusion, the ticket which was printed out wasn't for Brooklyn, but for The Revenant. I was not amused. I'm not a Leo Dicaprio fan, and don't like uber-violent films, so this was not something which I'd actually pay to see. Upon closer examination, I realized something else even weirder: the ticket was dated for the evening showing of the previous day! How does that even happen? I showed the ticket to one of the attendants, and she took it and told me to go on in to Brooklyn, saying "No problem- it happens all the time at the kiosks." Does it? I've bought tickets at them before without incident... and if it is a recurring problem, shouldn't they fix it? Oh well, as long as I get in to see what I actually want to see, I suppose it doesn't matter. And I know that I had a much better time watching Brooklyn than I would have had watching a hairy Leonardo Dicaprio getting mauled by an even hairier bear. I also got around to seeing the new Star Wars movie last week, going with a couple of my sisters. Rather to my surprise, I enjoyed the film. I've never been that keen on the Star Wars franchise, and never even made it all the way through the three later movies. But this one was quite enjoyable, if not very original. Again, I'll have more to say about this film later. |
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |