Is this yet another teenage angst reductionist anti-establishment movie that presents a hilariously implausible dystopia where teenage/young-adult characters are motivated by irrational emotions and a passion for ideas with the depth of a slogan? Eg. Divergent, 5th Wave, Ender's Game, Twilight, et al.
shareThe simple answer, yes and no.
Yes it is a dystopian future movie about a angsty teenager rebelling against the system. However, it's more akin to other 40s, 50s dystopian stories such as 1984, Fahrenheit 451, and many of the Ayn Rand novels rather than the subsequent lot you selected.
First off, "The Giver" was originally written back in 1993 making it much older than many of the young adult novels you referred to. Secondly, unlike the other stories you mentioned, "The Giver" was not written as part of a franchise of books/movies. All of the other young adult sci-fi novels and films out there are just attempts at trying to capture the next big franchise. "The Giver" was written with no franchise in mind and was intended as a one-off story. Completely in and of itself. Any unanswered questions you might have don't get resolved and will not get resolved. It's your interpretation.
Secondly, you seem to lump a wide arrange of films into your set. Where as Divergent, Hunger Games, and Ender's Game are all young adult sci-fi about a dystopian future emphasis on class warfare. I don't know anything about the 5th Wave, but after a quick google search of it...it sounds as if it's about an alien invasion...not much dystopia in that series as it's more akin to a young adult version of "War of the Worlds".
As for Twilight...I don't even know how that gets lumped with the others other than it's young adult fiction. Twilight is not an anti-establishment, dystopian future film...it's a romance about vampires...and a really bad one at that.
I think what you're comparing "The Giver" to is a wave of young adult sci-fi/fantasy film franchises. All of which are trying to become the NEXT Harry Potter. And for the studios...why not try it, there's good money in this genre. Younger viewers are more likely to go to the theater and spend their money. And I think "The Giver" was another attempt by a studio head trying to cash in on the money that is young adult sci-fi.
However, where as all the other films/novels mentioned were intended to be franchises and money-makers. "The Giver" is like I said, more intended to be a story. It has far less action than all the other franchises mentioned, but more focuses on thought to it...like the 1940s and 50s dystopian novels mentioned earlier. Meant to raise questions about our future.
You could look at this as a right-wing dystopian prediction as films such as The Hunger Games and Divergent are left-wing dystopian predictions. I don't know if the authors intended that...but whereas HG and Div series focus on differences in economic classes (a very liberal issue), "The Giver" focuses on the dangers of censorship and allowing an intrusive, over-bearing government to exchange freedom for security/harmony (a conservative viewpoint).
I don't know. So yes, it is akin to many of the young adult sci-fi films that have been popping up in cinema, but it no it is not that simple either as it is NOT the same themes as the others nor the same tone or intent. But hell, even I will admit they tried to make it like all the other ones. In the book, the main characters are 12...not 18. In the book, there's no real romance between Jonas and Fiona. I mean there is, but it's not as direct. Jonas simply just realizes through his memories he's attracted to her. In the book, there is no central villain like in the movie. So all of these changes say to me, the studio said to the director..."it needs to have a love interest and a main villain because all the other ones have those things."
So yeah, it does follow the trend. But it was written far before the trend.
I appreciate you taking the time to write this.
As for your questioning of why do I lump these movies together, I honestly do see their premises, plot and character development falling under my (very brief) description.
The perspective on when the book was written is interesting, Harry Potter was written in 1997 and its premise and character development are leagues away from any of the movies I listed. Instead of using Harry Potter as an example, I'd say studios want the next Hunger Games.
In any case, just like you say by the end, I'd worry studio producers would meddle with a story like this to make it palatable to teenagers, just like it happened with Ender's Game.
5th Wave focuses on the aftermath of the alien invasion, it's definitely a dystopia.
Twilight's universe is not a typical dystopia, but their internal environment checks all the requirements of a dystopia. I'd also say that the typically reductionist rebellious sentiment against a typically simplistic dystopian establishment is there, except that the establishment in this case are symbolized by Edward and Jacob, and the rebellious path is Bella's growth from a weak submissive (human) girl to a strong independent (vampire) woman.
It's always the same. And it's a premise that obviously resonates with a teenager or a young adult. I just don't understand why they have to be so simplistic and superficial except for either highly inept writers or a studio's fear of alienating audiences with subtlety and depth.
I do not agree with your left-wing/right-wing distinction as the Conservative/Neo-Conservative wing has *also* been shown to take away freedoms in exchange for security and harmony. Politic ideology is a spectrum of competing conceptions of morality and practicality which not only is extremely hard to tag, but when we do, these tags become different ideas in time, a lot of times opposite ones.
In any case, I'll check the movie. I love sci-fi. And again I appreciate your extensive answer.
You are correct about young adult sci-fi/fantasy. They are very much watered down to the point that they are digestible to the LCD of readers/viewers. That's why they succeed. They don't challenge the status quo and people feel comfortable with the status quo. Teenage years are defined by discovery and rebellion. And these franchises are all very much anti-establishment (rebellion) in a dystopian society that the heroes learn of their corruption or malice (discovery). It's relatable and therefore marketable. I don't fault the studios for wanting to produce these films as their primary job is to make money. Making art or masterful cinema is a secondary function.
I'll be honest, I spent the last five or six minutes trying to write a response about why these franchises are trying to be the successor to Harry Potter and not the Hunger Games, but...to be honest I concur. I just can't present a good case. The only thing I can think of is that all of these series are trying to capture the market of young adult sci-fi fantasy readers that was made vacant when the last Harry Potter novel was written. I think Hunger Games, Divergent, Maze Runner, 5th Wave, etc. were all written too close together to claim that they're trying to capture the market of the other one...they're trying to fill the vacancy of Harry Potter readers who are left without a series to read.
In some cases, I can prove that these carbon copies of each other are NOT like "The Giver" because rights to the 5th Wave movie were sold and in production before the first book was even PUBLISHED! That's classic cash-grab mentality. Whereas the Giver was written nearly 30 years ago and was never attempted to be produced as a film, I truly think if not for these other prominent franchises making money, The Giver still would've never been made. So in that sense, I really do agree...The Giver film is a cash grab based upon a novel that was anything but a cash grab. Where as some of these other franchises were written simply as a cash grab. Not that they can't be good, but there was little passion that went into the project. Unlike J.K. Rowling and Harry Potter...she wrote that story predominantly as a unknown penniless writer with a passion for the story. That's why Harry Potter will seem better than the rest...because true passion went into it's conception rather than "what's popular nowadays? How can we make money off of it."
As for the liberal/conservative debate. Not to get too political, but I largely believe Republicans nowadays and even dating back to 2000 with George W. Bush's first term are not TRUE conservatives by the definition of the word. Yes, I agree with you. Conservatives nowadays are just as likely to infringe and intrude upon people's rights as any liberal would. But you rebutted your own statement, "neo-conservatives". The true definitions of Liberal and Conservatives are simple. Conservatives refer to limited government, liberal refers to more governance. Neither is right nor wrong, and both have the best intentions in mind. But Republicans nowadays don't stand true to that creed, that the Republican party be of limited government. I think instead of being the party for small government and states rights, they've become the party of big business and the fundamentalist Christians. Not to use generalities, but the majority of Chrisitians in this country vote Republicans, but instead of holding true to their party's values, they vote alongside their religious beliefs...which at times doesn't mesh well with the notion of small governance. Gays do not have the right to marry, women do not have the right to an abortion, all recreational drugs should be made illegal, evolution should not be taught in our schools. These are key issues to the fundamentalist Christian voters, but do not reflect a limited government stance. It's very much policing actions and freedoms. And whether the Republican politicians genuinely believe these things or not, they have to pander to this faction of their party in order to get elected. As for big business, well...that is in line with small governance, but it's disgusting to think the White House and Congress could be bought. That's a key demonstration as to how unlimited freedom is not necessarily a good thing. Like it or not, human beings are evil.
That digression aside. I believe the ideal of conservatives is limited government interference, as to how it's carried out by today's "conservatives" is very much a debate that I will side that the Republicans are most definitely doing it wrong. But the notion of a all-powerful, totalitarian government that runs your life for you is a hardcore left-wing idea. Just as a complete anarchy is technically speaking a hardcore right-wing idea. No governance means the root of people's evil will manifest itself and create injustices through greed, pride, and envy. Total governance means you are no longer to choose, to speak, to live your life your way. Zero freedom. These two scenarios are the two foundations to nearly all dystopian stories. It's a pick your poison sort of deal. No freedom or no security.
If you've read any of Ayn Rand's writings, you'd know she's a very individualistic, capitalistic, and very much opposed to more left-wing philosophies of collectivism and altruism. Having read "Anthem" and "The Giver" around the same time, I can assure you they are nearly the same book. They are about giving up your individuality, emotions, and freedom for the greater good of the society. So that's how I can justifiably declare "The Giver" is a right-wing dystopian novel as opposed to some of the other more prominent left-wing dystopian novels of our time with emphasis on class warfare. A novel like The Hunger Games that warns of a society where the government does not step in to protect the lower classes allowing the elite classes to rule over them and subjugate them to a abysmal lifestyle.
Just a theory, I suppose.
It's funny how they've managed to mash the supposed dichotomy of status-quo conservation and anti-establishment rebellion. But they've done it. It reminds me of how The Matrix presented the idea that in order to achieve consent, they had to feed society with an illusion of control and let people decide in favor of the establishment without the need for direct coercion. This is definitely the powers-that-be's greatest achievement of our time.
The thing about Harry Potter is that, as with everything, the novelty is gone. They're trying to imitate something that's inimitable just because we've already went through the epic fantasy journey of a charismatic bunch of kids growing up. And I'm not saying this from the perspective of an admirer, I never cared too much about that franchise as some of my friends, it's just this generation is done and yeah, the opinion of the majority will be that everything else is somehow cheaper than HP just as everything else felt cheaper after Star Wars and Star Trek until a few decades passed.
I wouldn't call human beings evil per se. We're just natural individualists, whether we do something in the name of others or not, we're always satisfying our own ego: Our actions always go against someone else's best interest. Even if we are actively benefiting a group of people, we're not benefiting another. We rationalize this with morality and physical limitations so we can justify our own individual choices and beliefs without calling ourselves egotistical.
I have a hard time dealing with left/right. In practical terms, both extremes have always done things in common (Horseshoe theory). Enforcing your ideas always implies coercion. The Left used to simply signify change and revolution and the Right conservation and tradition. Historically, Anarchism is a Left-wing idea, so is Libertarianism, Communism and Liberalism (called Classical Liberalism in the US) or Capitalism when it revolutionized Mercantilist ideas. Fascism is considered a Right-wing idea because, even though it implements plenty of Socialist and Syndicalist principles (Fasci used to mean Syndicate), the extreme Nationalist/Traditionalist ideas makes it Conservative in nature. (Classical) Liberalism and Capitalism are now regarded as Right-wing positions. And the US Democratic party is regarded in the US as a Left-wing party when by World standards it's a Center-right party, Bernie Sanders being the most Moderate/center pre-candidate to become so notorious in recent history. Today Left means Democratic Socialism (EU) and Totalitarian Communism (ex-USSR), Right means Capitalism (US) and Totalitarian Socialism (N. Korea). Left/Right is an extremely reductionist view to an extremely wide and complex spectrum.
I haven't read much Ayn Rand since I find herself contradictory to the ideas I think she wants to spread. As in, an objectivist individualist would never regard another individual as a model, much less a leader to follow. And she felt quite comfortable in a position of becoming an object of admiration. Arrogance and confidence are the hallmarks of being unable to achieve internal insight. How can someone unable to look critically at oneself, and thus become both humble and hesitant, produce a philosophy worth considering?
I appreciate the polite replies, I'm enjoying this exchange of ideas. Won't call it a debate since I don't believe we hold opposite views.