the giver movie essay

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, great movies, chaz's journal, contributors.

Now streaming on:

20 years ago, Lois Lowry's dystopian YA novel "The Giver" won the Newberry Medal. Creepy and prophetic, told in a kind of flat-affect voice, it has been a staple in middle-school literature curriculum ever since, introducing young students to sophisticated ethical and moral concepts that will help them recognize its precedents when they come to read the works of George Orwell or Aldous Huxley. Jeff Bridges has been attached as a producer to the film project for almost 20 years, and finally, "The Giver" is here, with Bridges in the title role. Directed by Phillip Noyce, with an adaptation of the book by Michael Mitnick , "The Giver" gives us the overall structure of Lowry's original work, adds a couple of understandable details like a sweet little romance and then derails into an action movie in its final sequence, complete with attacks from the air and a hi-tech command center. Children have been thrilled by the book for 20 years, and a chase scene still proved irresistible. Despite a truly pained performance from Jeff Bridges and a beautifully imagined, three-dimensional futuristic world, "The Giver," in wanting to connect itself to more recent YA franchises, sacrifices subtlety, inference and power.

"The Giver" takes place in a community at some point in the indeterminate future where "Sameness" is prized above all else. Multiple factors have gone into creating a monochromatic world (literally, colors have been erased) where individuality is crushed, a citizen's every move is monitored from the moment of birth, natural families have been replaced by artificial "family units" and choice has vanished. A soothing voice makes passive-aggressive scolding announcements over loudspeakers. The Giver's cavernous dwelling, perched on the edge of a cliff, is a gloomy and masterful set, overlooking the clouds gathered below, making The Giver appear like Citizen Kane, holed up in his mansion surrounded by accumulated possessions and raw pain.

"Precision of language" is enforced, and so people are constantly apologizing and saying "I accept your apology" to each other, but in a rote way that drains the language of meaning. "The Giver" is a cautionary tale about what happens when language is controlled and limited—ground well covered for all time in "1984"—where citizens have no language available to them outside of "newsspeak." Memories are gone, too, in "The Giver". One person in the Community is chosen to be "The Receiver" of a collective memory, memories of now-extinct experiences like love and war and sex and pain. Through the course of the film, the young Jonas ( Brenton Thwaites ), chosen to be the next Receiver, is introduced to complexity and emotion and his entire concept of the world as he knows it shatters. He must now make a choice: to stay or to flee. It's a powerful set-up, made even more stark by Noyce's choice to film the majority of the film in black-and-white. When Jonas starts to see colors again, there are unavoidable " Pleasantville " connections.

Jonas is raised in a family unit, with Katie Holmes and Alexander Skarsgård acting as parental units. He has two best friends, Fiona ( Odeya Rush ) and Asher ( Cameron Monaghan ), and they are about to "graduate from childhood," and take on their assigned jobs in the community. There is a gigantic ceremony, led by the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep, who shows up as a holograph the size of a building), and each child is called to the stage to receive their assignments. The entire community gathers in a massive stadium, everyone dressed in identical white, so it looks like a gigantic celestial choir or a formal-dress LGAT workshop. Everyone speaks in unison. Everyone claps the same way. Everyone looks forward. No one moves. The effect is eerie.

Jonas is surprised when he is not assigned a job at all. He is, instead, "selected" to be the next Receiver, because he apparently has the ability to "see beyond." He has no idea what that means. Jeff Bridges, who becomes The Giver once a new Receiver is chosen, sits in the front row of the stadium, grim and remote. The thousands of people present start to chant in a repetitive whisper, "Jonas … Jonas … Jonas …"

The training sessions, when they come, are part Mr. Miyagi, part vision quest, and part "Quantum Leap." The Giver bombards Jonas with memories from all of humanity, memories that thrust Jonas into the thick of the action: he feels snow falling for the first time, he is shown the full spectrum of colors, he is given shaky-cam experiences of war, he also dances around a Maypole with a saucy wench while wearing a pirate shirt. There are multiple quick-shot montage sequences of smiling babies, praying Muslims, crashing waves, paper lanterns, crying elderly people. The music swells, pushing the emotions on us, but the montages have the opposite effect intended. Instead of revelatory glimpses of the rich tapestry of human experience, they seem like Hallmark-collages uploaded on YouTube. Noyce has also made the questionable choice to co-opt real-world events, and so suddenly we see Tieneman Square in the montage, or the Arab Spring, or Nelson Mandela. It's cheap, hoping to ride the coattails of others, as opposed to finding a visual form and style that will actually express the strength of the human spirit.

Jonas begins to look around him with new eyes. He wants to kiss Fiona. He wants to have the choice to feel things that may be unpleasant. He is not allowed to share his training with others.

The young actors in the film are pretty nondescript, the lead included, although Thwaites seems to come alive in mischievous ways when he starts to take care of a fussy newborn who can't stop crying at night. Holmes and Skarsgård are both strange and unplaceable, playing human beings whose emotions are entirely truncated. "Precision of language, please," says Mother at the dinner table when one of her children starts to speak. Bridges galumphs across the screen, a madman out of Melville, tormented, lonely, in and out of reality. His memories sometimes flatten him. There is one moment where he tells Jonas what the word is for the "feeling between people," and his eyes burn with pain and loss as he says, "Love. It's called love." It's the only powerful moment in the film. His emotion is so palpable it reaches off the screen and grips your throat.

The use of heavy explanatory voiceover to open and close the film is disappointing, especially since a couple of lines have been added to the famous last paragraph of the book. Not surprisingly, the lines added remove it from the moody ambiguous statement of hope that it is in the book, and turn it into a complete platitude. We've heard it a hundred times before. It emanates Sameness with every word.

Sheila O'Malley

Sheila O'Malley received a BFA in Theatre from the University of Rhode Island and a Master's in Acting from the Actors Studio MFA Program. Read her answers to our Movie Love Questionnaire here .

Now playing

Simon Abrams

State of Consciousness

Lousy Carter

Clint worthington.

The People's Joker

Film credits.

The Giver (2014)

Rated PG-13 for a mature thematic image and some sci-fi action/violence

Jeff Bridges as The Giver

Meryl Streep as Chief Elder

Brenton Thwaites as Jonas

Alexander Skarsgård as Jonas's father

Katie Holmes as Jonas' mother

Odeya Rush as Fiona

Cameron Monaghan as Asher

Taylor Swift as Rosemary

• Phillip Noyce
• Michael Mitnick
• Robert B. Weide

Cinematography

Latest blog posts.

The 2024 Chicago Palestine Film Festival Highlights

Man on the Moon Is Still the Cure for the Biopic Blues

Part of the Solution: Matthew Modine on Acting, Empathy, and Hard Miles

The Imperiled Women of Alex Garland’s Films

“The Giver” Film: a Fascinating Journey through Dystopia

This essay about “The Giver” film provides an insightful exploration of its dystopian world and thought-provoking themes. It highlights the film’s unique visual storytelling and its portrayal of a society stripped of emotion and individuality. Through the protagonist Jonas’s discovery of memory, the essay delves into the implications of collective forgetting and the importance of autonomy in the face of conformity. Overall, it offers a compelling analysis of the film’s message and its resonance with audiences.

How it works

“The Giver,” directed by Phillip Noyce, presents an intriguing cinematic venture into a dystopian realm crafted from Lois Lowry’s seminal novel. Within this meticulously constructed world, viewers are transported into a seemingly idyllic society, where conformity and uniformity reign supreme. Through the lens of Jonas, a young protagonist chosen to bear the weighty role of the Receiver of Memories, the film peels back layers of tranquility to reveal a darker underbelly.

What sets “The Giver” apart is its adept use of visual storytelling to convey the stifling uniformity of the society it depicts.

With a palette muted of vibrant hues, the film masterfully captures the monotonous existence of its characters, highlighting the absence of emotion and individuality. Yet, amidst this sea of sameness, flashes of vibrant memory illuminate the screen, serving as a stark reminder of the richness and complexity of human experience.

Memory, a central motif in the film, serves as a catalyst for Jonas’s awakening to the truth. As he delves deeper into his role as the Receiver of Memories, guided by the enigmatic Giver portrayed by Jeff Bridges, Jonas grapples with the weight of the past and the implications of collective forgetting. Through this journey, “The Giver” underscores the power of memory in shaping identity and the perils of erasing the darker chapters of history.

At its core, “The Giver” challenges viewers to contemplate the nature of freedom and the price of conformity. In a society where choice is sacrificed for the illusion of stability, Jonas’s rebellion against the status quo becomes a powerful act of defiance. As he embarks on a quest for truth and self-discovery, Jonas confronts the inherent tension between individual agency and societal control, ultimately affirming the importance of autonomy in the pursuit of a more meaningful existence.

In conclusion, “The Giver” stands as a compelling exploration of dystopia and the human spirit’s indomitable quest for freedom. Through its unique blend of visual artistry and thought-provoking themes, the film captivates audiences, inviting them on a journey of introspection and enlightenment. As we immerse ourselves in the world of “The Giver,” we are reminded of the enduring power of memory, the value of individuality, and the resilience of the human spirit in the face of adversity.

Cite this page

"The Giver" Film: A Fascinating Journey through Dystopia. (2024, Apr 01). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/the-giver-film-a-fascinating-journey-through-dystopia/

""The Giver" Film: A Fascinating Journey through Dystopia." PapersOwl.com , 1 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/the-giver-film-a-fascinating-journey-through-dystopia/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). "The Giver" Film: A Fascinating Journey through Dystopia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-giver-film-a-fascinating-journey-through-dystopia/ [Accessed: 20 Apr. 2024]

""The Giver" Film: A Fascinating Journey through Dystopia." PapersOwl.com, Apr 01, 2024. Accessed April 20, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/the-giver-film-a-fascinating-journey-through-dystopia/

""The Giver" Film: A Fascinating Journey through Dystopia," PapersOwl.com , 01-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-giver-film-a-fascinating-journey-through-dystopia/. [Accessed: 20-Apr-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2024). "The Giver" Film: A Fascinating Journey through Dystopia . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/the-giver-film-a-fascinating-journey-through-dystopia/ [Accessed: 20-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Movie Reviews

'the giver' strikes old and ominous notes about the dark side of serenity.

Mark Jenkins

Jeff Bridges (left) produces and stars as the title character in The Giver , alongside Australian actor Brenton Thwaites, who plays Jonas, his young apprentice. The Giver is the first film rendition of the popular 1993 young adult novel by Lois Lowry. Courtesy of The Weinstein Co. hide caption

Jeff Bridges (left) produces and stars as the title character in The Giver , alongside Australian actor Brenton Thwaites, who plays Jonas, his young apprentice. The Giver is the first film rendition of the popular 1993 young adult novel by Lois Lowry.

Multiplexes Heat Up For Summer Blockbuster Season

Arts & life, australian filmmaker phillip noyce gets serious.

It might seem hard to describe The Giver without revealing some of those plot points that touchy suspense fans call "spoilers." But this brisk, deftly art-directed parable is basically unspoilable. Even viewers who know nothing of its source, Lois Lowry's 1993 novel, will be able to anticipate every development.

That's because Lowry's vision of a serene but secretly corrupt future society offers little that wasn't imagined decades earlier in 1984 , Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 . Lowry just cooked such books down for a preteen audience that hasn't read them.

After years of trying, producer and star Jeff Bridges finally got The Giver made because of the success of The Hunger Games and similar tales of noble teens in a world run by manipulative adults. So the first task was aging the novel's protagonist (Jonas, played by Brenton Thwaites) from 12 to 16.

Jonas lives in a community, called "the community," that's any high schooler's vision of hell: It's run by guidance counselors. Where in Divergent the kids were separated into different castes upon graduation, in The Giver they're given specific assignments. None is more specific than Jonas'. He's the new receiver, assigned to learn the real history of humanity from the bearded, avuncular title character (Bridges, clearly enjoying the sound of his own voice).

Katie Holmes (left) and Alexander Skarsgard play Jonas' parents, who support the efforts of The Giver 's dystopian government. David Bloomer/Courtesy of The Weinstein Co. hide caption

Katie Holmes (left) and Alexander Skarsgard play Jonas' parents, who support the efforts of The Giver 's dystopian government.

Among the many questions the movie barely attempts to answer is, why do the positions of giver and receiver exist? The elders, led by an often holographic Meryl Streep, don't want anyone else to know about the bad old days of war, famine and hatred. So why not assign Jonas to flip burgers for the rest of his life, and send the Giver on a long walk off a short pier?

Because, of course, there is violence just beneath the community's veneer of calm. That's one of the alarming if unsurprising things Jonas learns once he starts receiving — and stops taking his daily dose of mood controller. As in the substantially more macho Equilibrium , ingestion of a Valium-like drug is required. This relaxant suppresses emotion and individuality, and even its users' ability to distinguish color. So the first part of The Giver is in black and white, like Pleasantville .

If the movie hits ominous notes, they've all been heard many times before: There are no books or music in the futuristic planned community, human reproduction is controlled by the state, kissing is unknown, and families are not genetically related. Jonas has merely been assigned to his father (Alexander Skarsgard) and mother (a drawn-faced Katie Holmes).

To make it less of a kiddie story, director Phillip Noyce and scripters Michael Mitnick and Robert B. Weide have added romance (Jonas has the unauthorized hots for a classmate played by Odeya Rush) and boosted the action. There are chase scenes — including one on a bike path that's lighted even though people aren't allowed to go out at night — and confrontations. Also modestly exciting are the fragmentary flashbacks to a former receiver, played by Taylor Swift. (She and the community broke up, and they are never ever getting back together.)

Ultimately, Jonas must make a choice, and leave his sterile home for the forbidden outback. It's not a spoiler to reveal that he finds a refuge there. Or that this new abode offers the sort of picture-postcard coziness that could have been simulated by his former community's devious elders.

Table of Contents

•  FILM TECHNIQUES

SCENE-BY-SCENE ANALYSIS

Film techniques.

Composition

Symmetrical : posed, calm, formal

Asymmetrical : natural, everyday, unposed

Static : lack of conflict

Dynamic : disturbance, disorientation

Selective focus : draws attention, foregrounds

Soft focus : romance, nostalgia

Deep focus : all elements are important, commanding the gaze

High key : happiness, positive

Low key : sombre, downbeat

High contrast : theatrical, dramatic

Low contrast : realistic, documentary

Grainy : realism, authenticity

Smooth grain : normal, everyday

Video : modern, immediate, journalistic

Warm : optimism, intense emotion

Cool : pessimism, clinical calm, reason

Black and white : realism, actuality, film noir

Cinematic codes

Zoom in : observation

Fast zoom in : passing of time, humour, suspense

Zoom out : context, location

Pan : survey, follow, eye witness

Track : intimacy, immediacy, urgency

Tilt : survey, follow, eye witness

Types of edit

Fade in : beginning of new section

Fade out : ending, contemplative

Dissolve : passage of time, link between scenes

Wipe : Conclusion or transition imposed externally

Cut : normal change of shot

Cut to black : abrupt ending

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Review by Brian Eggert August 16, 2014

For some of us, Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 (1953) was mandatory middle school reading. Nowadays, Lois Lowry’s similarly themed young adult novel The Giver (1993) has become the dystopian text of choice for school curriculums. And while Bradbury’s text was made into a serviceable film by François Truffaut in 1966, the film of Lowry’s text is nowhere near as accomplished. Lowry’s heady exploration into the importance of shared learning and emotion in society through a muted, deeply philosophical narrative, has been exchanged for a paranoid teenage dystopia escape movie, the likes of which we’ve seen before (recently in The Hunger Games and Divergent ). Producer-star Jeff Bridges and director Phillip Noyce ( Salt ) deliver a conceptually interesting production of modest budget and notable castmembers, but the abbreviated runtime of 94 minutes is too long concerned with perpetuating a white-knuckle thriller than embracing the thoughtful discussions of Lowry’s book. But this film review is not just the ranting of a reader devoted to the source material; those unfamiliar with the book will undoubtedly feel plagued by the story’s sense of implausibility as well.

The film opens with voiceover narration from Lowry’s protagonist, Jonas, an 18-year-old boy (played by 25-year-old Australian actor Brenton Thwaites) who introduces us to his colorless world, which, for the first third is presented in black-and-white. The film’s narrator goes on to explain all the ways in which his world is different than ours. There’s no color, art, emotion, lying, platonic relationships, bad weather, war, or expression whatsoever, as the leaders of this isolated flatland community—which, similar to many others like it apparently, rests on a plateau surrounded by clouds—have suppressed such desires through a daily injection. Chemicals inhibit people’s desires and therefore, society can function peacefully, driven by the prevailing desire for peace, safety, and above all, a “sameness” of conduct and even race. And there’s a pointed concern for “precision of language”—as a result, metaphors have disappeared (at least no one will annoyingly misuse “literally” in a figurative sense here, such as “I could literally eat a horse”). But Jonas is different; he can see subdued impressions of color.

From the outset, the film’s biggest mistake is telling us how the setting is disturbingly different from our own, without letting us discover it, piece by piece, by ourselves. Screenwriters Michael Mitnick and Robert B. Weide may have included many scenes from the book, but their treatment, and the film’s approach with a narrator who has the benefit of hindsight to guide his voiceover’s observations, remove much of the surprise and shock that would normally come with many of the story’s most potent revelations. Moreover, the writers clearly have it in mind to make this the next teen phenomenon after Twilight or The Hunger Games , and in turn, fabricate a forbidden love subplot involving Jonas and his friend Fiona (Odeya Rush). All the while, Noyce seems to forget that he’s directing a world in which emotions have been suppressed. The characters, particularly the youngsters, laugh and play and worry without inhibition. The only emotions that appear to have been curtailed are those born in their loins. Once Jonas stops taking his shots and convinces Fiona to do the same, the “stirrings” below the belt return. (Then again, Lowry’s book has Jonas experience some “stirrings” while bathing an elderly woman, which may not have translated well to the screen.)

On this world’s version of graduation day, young adults like Jonas and his peers are assigned their job in the community. But at the ceremony, Jonas is skipped over and singled out. Because of his capacity to “see beyond,” Jonas has been chosen to be “The Receiver of Memory”, a mysterious position now held by a bearded Obi-Wan Kenobi-like figure (Bridges, using his Rooster Cogburn voice, but without the Southern drawl), who, now called “The Giver”, will transfer the vast majority of human memories into Jonas. Why The Receiver is a necessary community function isn’t really made clear in the film, although Lowry’s book suggests he guides the community’s elders, headed here by a resident Big Brother figure called The Chief Elder (Meryl Streep), by offering his insight based on his knowledge of history and human memory. The community has jettisoned all history, memory, and emotion so humankind can keep functioning safely, productively, mindlessly. And so, Jonas begins his training, and his marked ability to see colors is enhanced. Soon he’s feeling all sorts of emotions and can barely contain himself.

This becomes troublesome for The Chief Elder, who carefully monitors Jonas’ progress in fear of another failure, like the one ten years ago that is alluded to throughout. Jonas’ creepy parents, his regulator mother (Katie Holmes, whose casting may have an intentional off-screen parallel), and his baby-nurturing father (Alexander Skarsgård), also show concern that their son is dancing and smiling too much, while his younger sister, Lily (Emma Tremblay), persists as a happy little girl. Meanwhile, The Giver shows Jonas the joys and horrors of humankind before The Ruin—the cataclysm that impelled this world into existence. Passing on the knowledge and wisdom that weigh on him, The Giver encourages Jonas to escape when the young student can no longer bear the strain, or accept how wrong it is for the elders to deny people the basic freedoms of emotion. Before long, the film devolves into a chase sequence, complete with Jonas outrunning The Chief Elder’s motorbike goons and flying drones. It all leads to The Giver pleading to The Chief Elder in a puts-too-fine-a-point-on-it speech about the importance of love, and Jonas’ escape leading to the return of all emotions and history to the community.

As both an adaptation and a stand-alone film, The Giver is something of a mess. The emotional performances are out of touch with what’s supposed to be an unaffected environment, but nothing about this onscreen world is detached. It’s a world whose secrets are shared within the first few scenes, whose unknowns are strewn out for us, and whose sense of discovery is nonexistent. What’s more, Noyce’s conceptual choice to gradually move from black-and-white to color is inconsistent; since the effect is meant to represent Jonas’ perspective, we’re left wondering why there are still visible colors in scenes where Jonas isn’t present. Worst of all, the filmmakers of this modestly budgeted production remove Lowry’s thought-provoking intent from a book that, for some school districts, is potent enough to be banned. But no one will be thinking about the importance of memory and pain, love and history, and their impact on society after the film is over. But no one will be banning The Giver , because it’s not controversial; it’s a fascinating story that’s been reengineered to fit an overexposed, commercially viable Hollywood formula tuned for mass consumption and mindless viewership.

Related Titles

• In Theaters

Recent Reviews

• Patreon Exclusive: Sasquatch Sunset 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Abigail 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Challengers 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Civil War 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• LaRoy, Texas 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Blackout 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Monkey Man 3 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Short Take: Baghead 2 Stars ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: The Public Eye 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆
• Wicked Little Letters 3.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• The Animal Kingdom 4 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆
• Patreon Exclusive: Immaculate 1.5 Stars ☆ ☆
• Late Night with the Devil 2.5 Stars ☆ ☆ ☆

Recent Articles

• MSPIFF 2024 - Dispatch 2
• MSPIFF 2024 – Dispatch 1
• MSPIFF 2024
• The Definitives: Ocean's Eleven
• Reader's Choice: Ocean's Twelve
• Reader's Choice: Ocean's Thirteen
• The Definitives: The Abyss
• The Definitives: The Gleaners and I
• Guest Appearance: KARE 11 - Oscar Picks and Predictions
• The Definitives: Cléo from 5 to 7

• Cast & crew
• User reviews

• In a seemingly perfect community without war, pain, suffering, differences or choices, a young boy is chosen to learn from an elderly man, the true pain and pleasure of the "real" world.
• A youth named Jonas lives in an equalized, colorless, but pleasant society with no knowledge of love or pain. When he and his best friends Asher and Fiona come of age, they receive their societal roles, with Jonas given the rare position of Receiver (of Memories). Because of this, he meets a mentoring elder Receiver (later called The Giver). They look at memories of the past world, of joy, pain, and love. As Jonas receives these memories, he breaks the cardinal rule against sharing them with others, thereby getting in trouble with the watchful Chief Elder. When Jonas discovers that an infant boy named Gabriel will be terminated, his efforts to save the child put him squarely against his society. Deciding that all must re-learn to see color, feel pain, and show and receive love, Jonas becomes public enemy number one.
• A young man living in a future where complacency is valued above all else discovers the sinister secrets that hold his fragile society together after being selected to become the Receiver of Memory in this adaptation of author Lois Lowry's Newbery Medal-winning young-adult novel. Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) was raised to believe that conformity is the key to contentment. The society Jonas lives in is a peaceful one, in large part because their collective memories have been entrusted to the Giver (Jeff Bridges). A mysterious yet seemingly benevolent figure, the Giver is the sole guardian of the community's dark and hidden history. When that history is revealed to Jonas over the course of his illuminating sessions with the Giver, the young man learns that the wisdom he now holds could dictate the fate of the entire society. Later, as the weight of that responsibility becomes too great a burden for Jonas to bear, he realizes that his only hope of saving the ones he loves most is to flee. Unfortunately for Jonas and perhaps his entire world, every previous attempt to escape has ended in failure.
• Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) was raised to believe that conformity is the key to contentment. The society Jonas lives in is a peaceful one, in large part because their collective memories have been entrusted to the Giver (Jeff Bridges). A mysterious yet seemingly benevolent figure, the Giver is the sole guardian of the community's dark and hidden history. When that history is revealed to Jonas over the course of his illuminating sessions with the Giver, the young man learns that the wisdom he now holds could dictate the fate of the entire society. Later, as the weight of that responsibility becomes too great a burden for Jonas to bear, he realizes that his only hope of saving the ones he loves most is to flee. Unfortunately for Jonas and perhaps his entire world, every previous attempt to escape has ended in failure..
• Born in a peaceful, perfect world where everyone is happy, the eighteen-year-old man, Jonas, receives an unexpected honor. Chosen to be the community's Receiver of Memories, Jonas enters into training with a mysterious, silver-haired man who imparts memories of the "real" outside world hidden from the rest of the society. As Jonas learns from the "Giver" not only of love, family and home but also of pain, war, death, and all the unhappy truths the world holds, before long, he comes to realize that everything he knows is a lie and that those who govern this seemingly Eden-like realm are fake and immoral. Now Jonas has his back to the wall, confronted with a bleak new reality, pressing dilemmas, and above all, difficult choices. Can he ensure the freedom and the future of his people? — Nick Riganas
• In the year 2048, after a war, the community has decided to get rid of different races and feelings. All the citizens have had their memories erased; except for the Receiver of Memory. Since the Receiver of Memory is the only individual in the community who has the memories from before, he must advise the Chief Elder (Meryl Streep), and the other Elders, on the decisions for the community. The world has many communities, all headed by the chief elder. The Chief Elder holds an annual ceremony to "assign" careers to all boys and girls turning 16. The careers are assigned based on observed traits throughout their childhood. The community has no concept of differentiation or emotions or sex or violence. The climate is controlled, so it never rains or snows, the folks are genetically modified not to see any color (as that is a form of differentiation). Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) is a 16 year old teenager who is anxious about the career he will be assigned (along with everyone else). He has two best friends: Asher (Cameron Monaghan) and Fiona (Odeya Rush). On the day of graduation, everyone is assigned a career. Jonas is briefly skipped, as he has not been assigned a career. Instead, Jonas is to become the next Receiver of Memory, and progressively receive memories from the past receiver, The Giver (Jeff Bridges). Upon assuming his role as The Receiver, Jonas learns of the Giver's past and of his child, Rosemary (Taylor Swift). She preceded Jonas as Receiver of Memory, and was so distraught from the memories that she committed suicide, by what the Community calls releasing. Thru The Giver, Jonas learns about emotions like love, hatred, war, colors. He finds a map which shows a "boundary of memories" around the community & within the surrounding area called "The Elsewhere", which Jonas speculates to be the area outside of which Jonas's & The Givers memories will be released to the entire world & will no longer be "contained" within them. They regard the nature of releasing as mysterious; the audience learns that it is death by lethal injection. Jonas begins to teach his findings to his friend Fiona, with whom he decides to share the idea of emotions. Fiona, who is unable to fully comprehend the idea of emotion, is unsure how she feels. Jonas then kisses Fiona, an action which is antiquated and unknown to the community, which Jonas gained through memory. Jonas also shares his memories with the baby his father brought home to their house, Gabe, and develops a close relationship with him after discovering he shares the same mark on his wrist Jonas does, the mark of a potential Receiver of Memory. Jonas decides that everyone should have the memories of the past and eventually, the Giver and Jonas decide that the only way they can help the community is to go past the border of what they call Elsewhere, beyond the community, therefore releasing the memories back into the community. Jonas sneaks out at curfew, and decides to get Gabe at the Nurturing Center, who is to be released due to his general weakness. Asher, his other longtime friend besides Fiona, tries to stop him before he leaves the neighborhood, but Jonas quickly punches him. Asher lies on the ground, stunned, and Jonas rides his bike to the Nurturing Center. He tells Fiona his plan and wants to take her with him, but she refuses and instead helps him retrieve Gabe. Before he leaves, she kisses him and helps him escape. Meanwhile Jonas's mother (Katie Holmes) and Asher, go to the Chief Elder to tell them Jonas is missing. Guards are sent to contain Jonas, who they say has become "dangerous", but Jonas gets one of their motorcycles and drives off the cliff near the Giver's dwelling into "The Elsewhere". Asher is assigned, by the Chief Elder, to use a drone to find Jonas and "lose" him but when Asher finds Jonas stumbling through the woods, he captures him with the drone. After Jonas implores Asher to think that if he ever cared for Jonas to let him go, Asher drops him into a river, setting him free. Jonas stumbles through the land of Elsewhere, while Fiona has been condemned to be "released" for helping him. Just as she is about to be released by Jonas's father, the Giver steps in and stalls the Chief Elder with memories of his daughter, Rosemary, trying to call out the Chief Elder, in which she succeeded. Jonas's mother begins to cry starting to understand the feeling of love. Eventually, Jonas finds a sled like one he rode in a memory from the Giver and makes his way beyond the border of Elsewhere, releasing memories and color back into the community and saving Fiona because Jonas's father realizes what he was really doing. Jonas and Gabe return to the house of his memories, where people are singing Christmas carols, and his voiceover says that back in the community, he swears he hears music too, or possibly just an echo.

Contribute to this page

• See more gaps
• Learn more about contributing

More from this title

More to explore.

Recently viewed

Themes and Analysis

By lois lowry.

'The Giver' is, at times, a dark and disturbing novel, touching on themes of loss and control.

About the Book

Article written by Emma Baldwin

B.A. in English, B.F.A. in Fine Art, and B.A. in Art Histories from East Carolina University.

At the same time, it’s also a novel of hope , depicted through the beauty of colors seen for the first time and joys never before experienced. It’s a novel that ends with an image that alludes to the enduring nature of the human spirit and future possibilities.

The Giver Themes 

Memory .

It’s through memory in The Giver that the community leaders exert control over everyone else. Collective memory is a thing of the past. Wars, loves, hate, joy, and any remnant of the time before the community is lost. Lowry was interested in using this novel to explore what happens when all memories disappear. Does a happier community emerge when the dark parts of human history are lost?

Despite the community’s desire to leave their past behind, the elders also understood the age-old proverb that those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. This meant that someone had to remember. The Giver plays the role, and Jonas was meant to take it up after him. He’s there to make sure that no one starts down a dangerous path that might lead to consequences known only to him. 

Free Will/Control 

Jonas’s community is nothing without control. The community leaders exert control by making everyone believe that total obedience is the only way to live. The rules are their lives, and there is no choice but to follow them. There are rules for every part of life, ensuring that free will is surprised and the individual. 

The Individual 

This final theme is tied directly to the other most prominent themes in the novel. There are moments in Lois Lowry’s novel where Jonas notes the individuality of his friends, family members, and most importantly himself. Jonas feels different than his friends do, and he knows he sees the world differently as well. This is something that proves to be correct when at the Ceremony of the Twelve, he’s singled out to be the new Receiver of Memory. It’s the first time in his life, and in the lives of the other children, that they’ve had their differences highlighted. Some are more suited for one job or another.

Jonas only becomes more of an individual, something the community doesn’t encourage, as the novel progresses. He’s given memories, something unique in his world.  One of the more powerful moments of the novel comes at the end when Jonas realizes that he’s making memories of his own, ones that belong only to him. 

Analysis of Key Moments in The Giver 

• Jonas sees an airplane, learning that there’s life outside the community. 
• His father brings Gabriel home. 
• Jonas feels the “stirrings.”  
• Jonas goes to the Ceremony of the Twelve and becomes the next Receiver of Memory. 
• Jonas meets the Giver and learns about good and bad experiences.  
• He gives Gabriel memories to calm him down. 
• Jonas starts to see colors. 
• He learns about the Giver’s daughter, the previous receiver of memory, and her release. 
• Jonas learns what “releasing” means . 
• The Giver and Jonas make a plan for him to escape the community. 
• Jonas runs away with Gabriel. 
• Jonas and Gabriel sled down the hill towards Elsewhere. 

Style, Literary Devices, and Tone in The Giver 

Lowry’s narrative style in The Giver is straightforward and clear. It comes across as a simple recitation of events, almost journalistic. The plot progresses from the beginning to the end of the story with very few exceptions. Lowry uses clear language that’s easy to understand throughout the book, solidifying her choice to direct this novel towards young adults. Additionally, the simple language helps describe the simple lives of Jonas, his family, and his friends. Everyone lives preplanned, organized lives, similar to how Lowry’s writing depicts them. This is also how one might describe the tone. It is direct in most parts of the novel and, as it progresses, becomes more emotional and distressed as Jonas learns more about his community. 

It’s not until the Giver comes into the narrative and starts relaying memories to Jonas that the style changes at all. The memories are moving, mysterious, and strange. This changes the way that Lowry writes and the images she creates. In these passages, and in all those in which Jonas is thinking about his world, Lowry uses rhetorical questions. These are questions to which the speaker does not expect an answer. Jonas is filled with them regarding every element of his life. 

Lowry makes use of several other literary devices in The Giver as well. These include euphemisms or phrases that stand-in for something uncomfortable or difficult. For example, “release” is used instead of kill. This is a great example of how the language Lowry selected for the community reveals something about them as much as it tries to hide the truth. When the families gather together to share their feelings, they’re doing the exact opposite. Lowry employs a cliff hanger at the end of the book when she chooses not to reveal what happens to Jonas and Gabe. 

Symbols in The Giver

The apple .

The apple is a symbol for all that’s missing in the community. Its red color, something that’s lost to everyone in the community except Jonas, represents freedom, human nature, and emotions. The red of the apple also appears in other parts of his life. It comes to represent desire when he sees it in Fiona’s hair, and then later. It features in the rainbow that the Giver shares with him. It reemphasizes the entire range of human experiences and emotions that Jonas, his friends, and family members are missing out on.

Gabriel 

Gabriel is different as Jonas is different . This is something that Jonas recognizes right away. He has pale eyes (later revealed to be blue, like Jonas’s), and Jonas can tell he’s far more thoughtful. The child represents innocence and acts as a powerful contrast to the emotionless community that chooses to kill him. For Jonas, Gabriel also represents hope. Hope for a better life, one filled with love, and one where a child can grow up without the threat of being “released.” 

Sled Ride 

The sled rid is the first memory that Jonas receives from the Giver. It’s one of pure joy, untouched by anything unpleasant. It’s a wonderful experience that does not prepare him for the terrible memories to follow. After receiving the memory, Jonas dreams about the sled ride and the unknown destination at the hill’s bottom. There’s something in the distance that he’s riding towards, but he doesn’t know what it is. It symbolizes his future and the new life that waits for him when he escapes the community at the end of the novel. 

About Emma Baldwin

Emma Baldwin, a graduate of East Carolina University, has a deep-rooted passion for literature. She serves as a key contributor to the Book Analysis team with years of experience.

Discover literature and connect with others just like yourself!

Start the Conversation. Join the Chat.

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts
• Invite this member to groups

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

The Giver Book And Movie Analysis Essay

Finally, the long-awaited movie adaptation of the Giver is here. However, no movie adaptation stays completely true to its source material, and the Giver is no different. The Giver movie sustained some massive changes to its characters and plot, not all of which were good. The movie changed the characters’ ages. In the movie, the characters were aged to the average dystopian-fiction age. While Lily only aged a year, Jonas and his friends aged a lot more, jumping from twelve to eighteen.

This age change may have worked with the movie’s modernized dystopian fiction plot and the target audience, but it took away, too. Jonas was only twelve in the book; he was still a child. When a child learns of war and pain and loneliness the way Jonas did, it’s borderline heartbreaking. After all, he’s only a child. When an eighteenyear-old reacts that same way to learning those things, it’s not very effective. You almost want to tell him to “grow up and man up”. When a child escapes his home and family to help them realize true feelings, it’s remarkably brave and courageous.

When an eighteen-year-old does it, it’s nothing special. An age change may have helped the movie get a wider audience, but I wasn’t a big fan of it. The characters’ roles and personalities changed, too. In the book. Fiona was merely Jonas’s acquaintance, while in the movie, she is one of his best friends, and later the object of his affection. Asher also changed when moved to the big screen. In the book, he was the crazy, mischievous “class clown” type, but he was much more serious in the movie.

Maybe his change of personality was merely a side effect of aging six years. After all, it would be a bit strange watching an eighteen-year old behave like a child. The Chief Elder, who you probably forgot existed in the book, is very present in the movie, and drives a lot of the action in the last half of the movie. Most of the basic plot of the book and movie is the same. Both are set in the distant future, in a community devoid of color, feelings, and choice. The plot is recognizable, but it has been changed quite a bit.

Of course, some action needed to be added to the movie, since the book had almost none, but all of that action took away from the book’s original ambiguous, philosophical feeling. It is understandable, though, since this movie appealed to a mostly teen or young adult audience, that staying one hundred percent true to the book would not work. Also, most of the changes in the movie had a reason. For example, during their ceremony, Asher and Fiona were assigned Pilot and Nurturer, as opposed to Assistant Manager of Recreation and Caretaker of the Old.

Asher and Fiona’s new jobs would be useful later in the movie. When Jonas needed to take Gabe from the Nurturing Center, he would need a Nurturer who worked there to help him. Also, when Jonas was escaping, a pilot would be asked to find and get rid of Jonas. Jonas’s escape in general had a lot more tension than it did in the book. Jonas and the Giver planned Jonas’s escape for a while in the book, and only mildly altered the plan by taking Gabe. In the movie, Jonas’s escape was spur-of-the-moment.

Jonas’s escape in the book was thrilling because of our built-up compassion towards him and our uncertainty of whether or not he and Gave would live. In the movie, that thrill was generated by the close call between Jonas’s escape and Fiona’s almost-release. Both methods were effective. But the reason that the latter method worked was because of the relationship between Jonas and Fiona. In the book, Jonas’s feelings for Fiona were minor and not mentioned very much; rather, they were used to help the reader realize what the Community took away. In the movie, hose feelings were blown up into a full-on love story.

These feelings were useful to the movie’s plot: The fact that Jonas and Fiona had feelings for each other drove up the tension when Fiona was about to be released while Jonas was escaping. But, despite it’s role in the plot, this love story was one of many generic, overdone stories of its kind. Overall, the Giver’s plot was changed to fit into the successful dystopian-fiction mold. It ended up working, but still lacked the depth that the book had had. The movie also changed the way in which the viewer got information.

The book relied more on the reader’s intelligence The movie, however, spoon-fed a lot of the information to the viewer. For example, in the book, the reader was expected to figure out that the boundary of memory existed and how it worked, while in the movie, everything was explicitly told to the ver via a map and a conversation between lonas and the Giver. The book was also a lot more ambiguous than the movie. It left more for the reader to decide: Did Rosemary know that she was going to be killed when she was released?

Did Jonas and Gabe actually survive in the end? The movie, however, gives more concrete answers to those questions. Maybe this is due to the fact that the movie was directed toward a younger audience. I, personally, like ambiguous endings more than concrete ones. The Giver’s movie adaptation was okay. When standing by itself, it’s actually a pretty nice movie. But when compared to the book, it’s not as good. Overall, the changes in the movie were understandable, but they are still subject to personal preference, and in my opinion, they weren’t that good.

More Essays

• Essay on The Giver By Lois Lowry: Character Analysis
• Dystopian Society In The Giver Essay
• Summary Of The Giver By Lois Lowry Essay
• The Hungry Games Movie Analysis Essay
• Native Son Movie Vs Book Essay
• The Great Train Robbery: Movie Analysis Essay
• Paper Towns Movie Analysis
• Essay about Personal Sacrifice In The Giver
• Project Almanac Movie Analysis Essay
• Essay about Macbeth Movie Vs Play Analysis

Home — Essay Samples — Literature — The Giver — Summary of The Movie “The Giver”

Summary of The Movie "The Giver"

• Categories: Movie Summary The Giver

About this sample

Words: 1092 |

Published: Dec 12, 2018

Words: 1092 | Pages: 2 | 6 min read

Works Cited

• Lowry, L. (1993). The Giver. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Vandermeersch, L. (2016). Memory and Forgetting in Lois Lowry’s The Giver. Children's Literature in Education, 47(2), 147-162.
• Collins, T. (2003). Plotting memory and subverting nostalgia in Lois Lowry's The Giver. Children's literature in education, 34(3), 191-206.
• O'Neal, C. R. (2010). The Importance of Memory and Pain in Lois Lowry's The Giver. The Explicator, 68(4), 232-235.
• Kingsbury, P. (2008). The Giver and the Community: Creating Connections. The ALAN Review, 35(3), 36-40.
• Kromhout, R. (2011). The Giver: The Ideal Society?. Teaching Young Adult Literature Today: Insights, Considerations, and Perspectives for the Classroom Teacher, 143.
• Skiba, K. (2018). The Memory of the Future: Dystopia and Utopia in Lois Lowry's The Giver. Journal of Language and Literature Education, 5(2), 46-57.
• Davis, J. R. (1997). Interpreting The Giver: Five Critical Perspectives. Literature & Psychology, 43(3), 53-68.
• Boylan, J. F. (2005). Collectivism vs. Individualism in The Giver. International Journal of Humanities and Peace, 21(1/2), 88-97.
• Haddad, A. (2017). The Existence of Free Will in Lois Lowry's The Giver. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(2), 80-86.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

• Expert in: Entertainment Literature

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1193 words

3 pages / 1153 words

6.5 pages / 3030 words

2 pages / 887 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on The Giver

The Giver is a thought-provoking novel that has captivated readers since its publication in 1993. Written by Lois Lowry, the story is set in a dystopian society where the government controls every aspect of its citizens' lives. [...]

The Giver, a dystopian novel by Lois Lowry, presents a society that seems perfect at first glance but is revealed to be deeply flawed as the story unfolds. This essay will analyze the dystopian elements present in The Giver, [...]

Haiti, a small Caribbean nation with a rich cultural heritage and a history of resilience, is a place that holds a special significance in my life. Growing up in Haiti has shaped my perspective on the world and has influenced my [...]

Imagery And Symbolism In The GiverImagine a world where everything is meticulously planned and controlled, where emotions and individuality are suppressed, and where memories of the past are erased. This is the dystopian society [...]

Imagine living in a community where everything you do is watched through the cameras of your house, school, cafeteria and everything you say is being recorded. Imagine living a life where you can’t feel any emotions, feelings, [...]

In Lois Lowry's novel "The Giver," The character Asher plays a significant role in the story, adding depth and complexity to the narrative. Asher is portrayed as a carefree and lighthearted individual, known for his playful [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

The Giver By Lois Lowry: Comparison Between Book And Movie

You’re eleven years old. All of the pain, fear, war, and hatred of the world has been eliminated from society. Everyone looks and acts the same, and your profession is chosen for you based on your abilities; at age twelve. The Giver, written by Lois Lowry, is a fascinating story about a different type of society and learning the secrets behind it. The movie of the same name directed by Phillip Noyce, is creative, but showed some very disappointing changes from the book.

All in all, the book is far more preferable because the plot is far more exciting, the characters are developed well, and the creativeness is more descriptive than that of the movie. The Giver is a novel about a young boy named Jonas. He is given the profession of the Receiver at twelve years old in which receives all of the communities memories from the past. He gets these memories from the Giver. The Giver “gives” him memories of war, love, and other things that are not present in the society anymore. Jonas is not permitted to tell anyone of the memories so he has a big responsibility.

His father is a nurturer of newborns and when Jonas’s little brother Gabriel is born he is a troubled child. Jonas finds out through the Giver that Gabriel will be taken away, so Jonas saves him. Jonas starts to grow apart from his family after he finds out the secrets of how things within the society work. His best friends are Asher and Fiona are introduced within the first couple chapters and Jonas tries not to share any memories with them because he is not supposed to, but because the Giver explained love to him, so he starts to fall in love with Fiona and wants to show her that feeling.

Jonas learns not to like the society anymore and gets himself into a lot of trouble. He is in danger and has to escape to a far away place. The movie compared to the book is rather vague and boring. It is set in black and white for a portion of the film. The characters are all older, eighteen instead of twelve, and the Giver is poorly portrayed. Jonas is Australian in the movie, but no indication of that is in the book. I guess you could say it’s because Jonas is different from everyone else. The movie has technological advances that were not read about in the book such as drones and high-tech computers.

The Giver does more explaining to Jonas than giving. Jonas spends less time with the Giver, and that is much different than the book because he always went to the Giver to find out more. As I previously stated, The Giver, is a much better read than a movie. First of all, Jonas is noted to be different from everyone else in society. Jonas matures from age eleven to a twelve year old that takes on a great deal of responsibility, which the movie lacks. The development of his character brings the reader to think of the morale behind the story .

Being granted the Receiver of memories at age twelve sounds like a big duty to handle, but the book’s detail and creativity with this profession really grasps the reader’s attention. Throughout the entire book the reader stays on edge. It may be an easy read, but it has enough suspension to keep the reader engaged. The story’s viewpoint is of Jonas, so reading first hand what he is feeling, thinking, and doing is on a far more personal level. Whereas in the movie all of these characteristics are not present. They way the memories are brought into the movie really puzzled me. The Giver did more explaining than giving and that was confusing.

The movie has many technological advances not heard of in the book, so the significance of the book being from an earlier time period is not important or relevant. Quite frankly, I thought the movie would be better because I tend to enjoy watching more than reading, but to my surprise the movie was much different. It is important to realize the character development throughout the book as compared to the movie. I believe the book did a much better job at describing the characters and the movie lacked important details. At age twelve you would not expect a child to have a job.

Jonas is given a job in which designates him to be responsible and mature more rapidly, whereas in the movie he is eighteen and you would expect him to already have these important aspects . I don’t like the age difference because I feel as if it lost the significance of such a young boy taking on so many responsibilities. Overall, I was frustrated with the several differences. According to The Guardian, the book is intended for younger people, yet convoluted enough for adults (par. 3). They also state that the book allows the reader to think in depth about the morale of the storyline.

The morale of the story is to become independent and not worry about what others say or think about you (par. 6). Also mentioned is the unique factor that the book relates to the reader through their perception of society (par. 7). Differently, well-known movie reviewer Roger Ebert had a slightly altered opinion about the movie. Ebert states that the movie was set up in a powerful way (par. 1), but Ebert was utterly disappointed with the voiceovers that had taken part in the film (par. 1). Ebert was also disgruntled with the movies lack of picture quality that should have revealed human experience (par. 6).

Ebert also claims that the only suspenseful part in the film was when Jonas learned about love (par. 10). A reviewer from The Guardian was very pleased with the book’s development of the characters. They comment about the importance of the characters relating to the reader when it comes to thinking about how life works (par. 3). They mentioned the main focus of the book is how Jonas develops into a young boy with great morals allowing the reader to follow along and think about morals themselves (par. 4). Also stated is the character’s uniqueness and interesting qualities (par. 6). In conclusion, the book is much better than the movie.

Although the movie is in color and has visuals, the book is descriptive and interesting enough to keep the reader engaged. It has a better plot, it’s more creative and the character development is much more detailed. I believe the better story lies within the text. Critical thinking and making your own visualizations while reading the book is far more fun. I highly recommend this book to any reader that enjoys an easy read with great morale hidden within the text. I have always enjoyed reading about life’s hard times and overcoming situations and you won’t want to miss Jonas’s perseverance.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Related essays:

• The Giver Moral Development
• Heroes In The Giver Essay
• Why Is Fahrenheit 451 Be Banned Essay
• Book Report – The Giver
• The Giver Memory Essay
• Sameness In The Giver Essay
• Essay on Who Is Stanley Kubricks A Clockwork Orange?
• History of La Cosa Nostra
• Jonas Edward Salk
• Bad Memories Research Paper
• One Of The Worst Illnesses In The History Of Man, Polio

Compare and Contrast The Giver book and movie

Essay by: Yuvleen

Reads: 58932  | Likes: 36  | Shelves: 7  | Comments: 4

More Details

Add to Read List

Yuvleen Kaur

Mrs. Saldana 8th Grade Language Arts

November 5, 2014 Comparing The Giver Book with the Movie There are many differences between The Giver book and movie. Some of them are major changes that made a difference in parts of the story. Others are minor changes that did not really change anything. Although the two have slight differences they have the same meaning and convey the same message. In this essay I will be discussing the similarities and differences between The Giver book and movie.

One major change is that Fiona was interested in working at the Nurturing Center instead of the House of Old. If in the movie Fiona had been a carer for the old instead of a Nurturer the whole ending would have had to be different. Then she wouldn’t have been able to help Jonas when he tried to take Gabriel with him. At the end of the movie, when Jonas needed to know where Gabriel was, Fiona had helped him. Without her knowledge of the Nurturing Center that would not have been possible. I believe that is why the producers of the movie made that change. Since she was interested in being a Nurturer, in the beginning of the movie Jonas, Asher, and Fiona had gone to the Nurturing Center, where they had met Gabriel. If they hadn’t met Gabriel there themselves, that scene would have been exactly like it was in the book. Jonas  would have gone home and found Gabriel. Then his father would have told him the baby’s name.

Another change is that in the movie the Annex isn’t located behind the House of Old. The reason I think they made that change is because the House of Old isn’t important in the movie, since Fiona didn’t work there. Also I think the producers of the movie wanted the Annex to be alone and separated from everything. This affected the audience because it made the Annex look a little more different and separate from everything else than the readers of the book originally thought it was. One of the many minor changes was that Jonas was number 53, instead of 19. This impacted the audience because it made it seem like there are a lot of graduates. When I read the book it seemed like there are only about 50 people in every age group. That made the community seem small and not have a big population. In the movie the number of graduates in Jonas’s group went up to the 100s. This made the community seem bigger and that it has a larger population. The fact that Lily, Jonas’s sister, was turning into a nine instead of an eighth at the beginning of the movie was a change that didn’t really matter. I believe the author of the book, Lois Lowry, used the fact she didn’t have her bicycle yet, as an addition. Sometimes Lowry would talk about Jonas thinking about teaching Lily how to ride a bicycle before she was assigned her own. Other times Lily would just talk about her being excited about getting a bike.

So, I believe that Lowry just made her an eighth so that it could be an extra idea in the story to  make it a little more interesting at times when it got boring. On the other hand, maybe he did that just to make it a little longer.

In the movie the Giver had no beard; this wasn’t an important or major change. I think they did that because they couldn’t find an old and talented male actor with a beard. Without the beard the Giver looked mean. The first time I saw him at Jonas’s ¨graduation¨ he looked very serious and not very kind. The picture of the Giver on the cover of the book made him look so innocent and kind. This impacted the audience’s view on the story a little because the Giver, as they have know by reading the book, is a very kind old man. Although as the story advanced the Giver was faced with pain and problems made me feel bad for him; it also made him look nicer.

Another difference was that instead of a river surrounding the community there was an edge. After going of the edge Jonas kept going straight. He tried to reach the Boundary of Memories which held the memories in. The movie made reaching the Boundary of Memories more difficult. In book all he did was cross the river and the memories started coming back to the people of the community. In the movie there was more suspense, people were wondering whether Fiona was going to get injected or was Jonas going to reach the Boundary of Memories and save her.

I have told you about the many differences between The Giver book and movie. Now I’m going to state some similarities. One of the things that didn’t change was that everything in the community was identical. All the dwellings were white and had a weird shape. All the bicycle, according to what age group they belonged to, were identical. Clothes were identical in color but some were different designs.

In this essay, I compared and contrasted The Giver book with its movie. Personally I think the movie was better. It could be just because the movie was visual and had a greater effect on everything. Although like I stated earlier in this essay there are a lot of major and minor changes that make the movie really interesting and in ways, better. One thing I want to point out is that the ending of the movie was a lot for adventurous. Though the point of the ending was the same in both the book and the movie. A quote that is at the end of both the book and the movie is ¨Behind his vast distances of space and time, from the place he had left, he thought he heard music too. But perhaps it was only an echo.¨

I would love to live in a community where everything is the same. Although I would like to make my own choices and see color. It would be cool if all the houses looked the same from at least the outside. Also this would be a good thing because then no one can say ¨I’m richer than you¨ or ¨I wish I were you¨ because everyone would be the same. A world where there is no starvation and no homelessness is a world everyone wants to live in. But, like I said before I would still like to see color and make my own choices.

  I think this movie, in some ways, is like the movie The Cat in the Hat . The reason I feel that way is because in both movies the houses are the same. Also in The Cat in the Hat most of the people wear the same color clothes. The two movies have a lot of differences along with its many similarities. But that’s not what I’m supposed to talk about. In conclusion, I’d like to say that The Giver book and movie have a lot of similarities and differences that make one better than the other.

Submitted: November 08, 2014

© Copyright 2024 Yuvleen . All rights reserved.

Other book contrast movie giver compare brenton thwaites

Add Your Comments:

glindagail77

I LOVED your review! My favorite book of all time was The Giver and it has had a lasting influence over my adolesent development and brought me so much joy and wonder throughout the years. Personally, I revere the book infinitely higher than the movie and I believe that the meaning and depth of the book could not be matched by the movie. I had wanted the movie to be made for so many years yet my impossibly high expectation could not be met by Hollywood. Great review!

JSjsaishADhasdkjdsaaakjh

Thanks!!!!! I COPIED THIS FOR MY ESSAY AND GOT A 100% THANKS I AM 12 AND I HATE YA ALLLLLLLlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HASIDhsaunksssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss, TEH GIVER SUCKS AND YOU SUCK TOOO IF YOUR READING THIS COMMENtTTT

Premium Feature

Ugrade to Premium Membership to feature this review at the top of your content and also on listings across the site.

Facebook Comments

More other essays.

Discover New Books

This book is more fiction with science than scienc...Read More

by quentin eckman

Only 50 available ** For collectors. Own the short...Read More

by Jake J. Harrison

Published a book? Promote it. →

Boosted Content from Other Authors

Short Story / Romance

Book / Religion and Spirituality

Book / Science Fiction

Boosted Content from Premium Members

Poem / Poetry

Short Story / Other

Book / Fantasy

Short Story / Humor

Other Content by Yuvleen

The Careless Branch

Short Story / Literary Fiction

Short Story / Children Stories

Scary Halloween Night

Poem / Horror

Send Reading Invitation Mail

You’re Just a Few Clicks Away

BOB AI Reviews is a Premium feature. Sign up for Premium starting at less than $7/month and starting getting immediate AI-powered feedback from BOB.

See all Premium features.

Experiencing other login problems? We can help.

Paste the link to picture in the entry below:

Drag a picture from your file manager into this box, or click to select.

Insert Cancel

Paste the link to Youtube video in the following entry:

Cannot annotate a non-flat selection. Make sure your selection starts and ends within the same node.

An annotation cannot contain another annotation.

There was an error uploading your file.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

The Ethicist

I’m pregnant, and my husband says we can’t tell anyone about the donor egg.

The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on whether to honor a spouse’s seemingly irrational request about privacy and assisted reproduction.

By Kwame Anthony Appiah

My husband and I are thrilled to be welcoming our first child this spring, after an arduous I.V.F. journey lasting nearly two years. We ended up needing an anonymous egg donor, whom we found through an egg bank, to conceive our child.

Select family members and close friends who knew that we were trying are aware that we took this route. However, my husband told me that he doesn’t want anyone else knowing that we used donor eggs, and that he is upset that some people already know. He is afraid that in a few years, someone will let slip to the child that they were conceived with donor eggs before we as parents have a chance to tell them ourselves. He believes we’re violating our unborn child’s right to privacy by sharing this fact with others. His fear stems from an experience in his family in which an aunt accidentally revealed to a cousin that his biological father was not the man who raised him.

I have pointed out to him that what he fears is not likely to happen, that this is our story to tell as much as our child’s; and I’ve reminded him that we should let our child know how they were brought into this world at as young an age as possible, using language they can understand. Further, I wouldn’t have been able to get through this incredibly difficult and painful process without the small group of family and friends we had to rally around us. It was important to me to be able to share the experience with this group, and with some other good, trustworthy and loving friends. He doesn’t understand or respect this and is depriving me of something I hold dear by insisting on secrecy — and this is what hurts the most. I have pleaded with him to see my side, but he doesn’t budge. Out of respect for his wishes, I’ve now kept it from several additional close friends, which has been painful for me.

What could possibly bring him around? Or how could I make peace with his position? And have I really deprived our unborn child of a right to privacy by telling a few people about how the child was conceived? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

When your husband talks about the child’s privacy, he’s suggesting that the child deserves the right to decide (at some unspecified age) who does and who does not know how this conception occurred. Yet we don’t usually think that the basic circumstances of our conception are something to keep secret. In the typical case, people understand children to be the product of sex between their parents. Is that a violation of privacy? It’s true that people who are the result of an anonymous egg donation can keep this fact quiet. The question is what interest it serves.

The way I think about privacy rights is to ask whether someone has a significant, special and legitimate interest in controlling access to a piece of information. If so, let’s try to grant the person control over that information. There are lots of facts about me that I can’t stop other people knowing: that I eat food, go to the bathroom, breathe — to start a long list of things everybody does and everybody knows that everybody does, not all of which are things that you would want to be seen doing by strangers. Does your child have an interest in other people’s not knowing how he or she came to be?

Children can tease others about pretty much anything even slightly unusual — having red hair was a torment for Anne of Green Gables. The fact that there’s nothing shameful about being born from a donated egg, then, doesn’t mean your child couldn’t be teased about it. This, though, seems like a manageable risk. And anyway, if your kid’s playmates find out, it’ll probably be because he has told them. All things considered, I’d say your child wouldn’t be in a worse situation if people knew about the egg donation.

Now, in this case, as in many cases, there’s no way of revealing the information about your child’s origins without revealing facts about others — notably you and your husband. But your husband hasn’t said that he’s worried about how the disclosure would affect him personally. And you’ve made it clear how much you’ll suffer from not being able to talk about your experiences with people close to you. Besides, if the facts come out later, maybe because your child brings it up, those friends may be upset that you acted as if you couldn’t trust them. Amid all the arguments about privacy, we should remember that being able to freely share facts that matter to us among friends and family is also something to value.

Your plan to be fully transparent, discussing the issue as soon as your child can make sense of it, makes your husband’s stated concern about premature disclosure a nonissue. In fact, you might start mentioning egg donation even before your child can understand. That’s a common technique with parents of adopted children: Introduce the language early, so there’s never any sense that it’s a fraught topic.

Unless, for your husband, it really is a fraught topic. Perhaps he thinks there’s something vaguely shameful about the fact that you aren’t both the biological parents. You say you’ve reminded him that you want to be as open as possible with your kid; you don’t quite say that he has committed to the plan. Because, in the end, his position on privacy isn’t compatible with it — little kids aren’t known for their discretion. And if your husband treats the egg donation like a taboo subject, not to be spoken of outside the family, a result could be that your child feels some shame about it, too.

That would be unfortunate, because your plan is a good one. A two-decade study by researchers at the University of Cambridge found that in assisted-reproduction families, both kids and parents did better when the facts were disclosed early. Many fertility clinics have therapists who can help couples work through such issues. In the meantime, encourage your husband to rethink the episode about his aunt. Because that’s a cautionary tale about keeping secrets, not about spilling them.

Readers Respond

The previous question was from a woman who’d had an existential conversation with her boyfriend. She wrote: “My boyfriend and I were talking about protecting human life, and he said that he doesn’t believe that human life is necessarily worth more than any other kind of life. For example, he said that if one of our cats were drowning next to a human who was a stranger to us (who was also drowning) and he could save just one, he would choose our cat. Is this morally wrong?”

In his response, the Ethicist noted: “For many people, pets are fictive kin; they’re considered part of the family. In one study I’ve seen, hundreds of people were asked to consider how they’d respond if their pet ran in front of a bus at the same time that a foreign tourist stepped in front of it. They can only save one; the other will be killed. Which would they rescue? What the experimental psychologist Richard Topolski and colleagues found was that about 40 percent of respondents said they’d save their pet. … These aren’t people with some grave defect of character. … But yes, it’s very wrong. … Those human strangers? They had rich emotional lives and they had plans, short-term and long-term, big and small; it’s a good guess that they were also part of other people’s plans, other people’s emotional lives. … I’m saying that your boyfriend is wrong; I’m not saying that he’s rotten. The more pressing question for you is this: If he had to choose between you and one of those cats, would he have to think it over?” (Reread the full question and answer here .)

I would argue that The Golden Rule applies here. If I would choose to rescue my pet before another human being, I could then expect that someone else would choose to retrieve their retriever while letting me or, worse, my loved one (child, parent, spouse) perish. Do unto others, right? It’s more than a little unsettling to think that almost half of us place so little value on human life. — Diane

I don’t think it’s wrong to save a pet over a stranger. When I adopted my pet, I agreed to care for her throughout her life. I live alone, and I do not think I would have survived Covid isolation without her. How could I choose to save a stranger over a dog I pledged to support and who saved me from mental distress when I was not able to physically socialize with others? She is part of my family. — Michele

Pets are not murderers, rapists, wife batterers or child abusers. People are and can be any of these. I grew up in a “family” of physical, mental and emotional violence. Many survivors like me find peace more with animal families and have purposely chosen not to procreate to prevent passing on mental illness, addiction, etc. We have chosen partners, often survivors, who have made similar decisions. The fact that 40 percent of the respondents opted to save their pet does not surprise me. — Marion

The Ethicist’s response is overly confident in the supreme value of human life over all other beings. He cites our emotional life and social interconnections as the basis of our value. Yet plants and animals also share complex interconnections. And many animals demonstrate emotions. I am am a physician and a humanist. I would save the drowning human over a mere pet. This decision is instinct, nothing more — a loyalty to my tribe. Indeed, we live on a fragile planet of limited size and filled with life-forms interdependent upon each other for survival. Let’s not justify our kinship with hubris. — Peter

We know what the boyfriend said, but there’s no predicting what he would actually do in an emergency situation. It’s an adrenaline thing. — Kenneth

Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. His books include “Cosmopolitanism,” “The Honor Code” and “The Lies That Bind: Rethinking Identity.” To submit a query: Send an email to [email protected]. More about Kwame Anthony Appiah

What to Know About I.V.F.

In vitro fertilization can be daunting, but preparation and learning about the side effects can make it a lot easier. Our guide can help .

There are still large gaps in our knowledge about how I.V.F. procedures affect women years later. Here’s why .

Some couples, aware of the difficulties of conception and pregnancy, are choosing I.V.F. as a first option .

Many insurance companies don’t cover I.V.F. treatments. But there are ways to ease the financial burden .

For L.G.B.T.Q. couples, the path to parenthood can be long . One writer shared her absurd but ultimately successful experience  using I.V.F. to become pregnant.

Have you gone through an I.V.F. treatment? Tell us about your experience .