Pop Culture

Review: The Giver--How I'd Like to Forget

the-giver-movie

Sometimes, when a bad memory pops up, I quickly shake my head to get rid of it. Sort of like clearing an Etch-a-Sketch. And they intrude on my thoughts quite a bit:

The time in second grade when my gym teacher wouldn’t let me go to the bathroom and I wet my pants during calisthenics, and a golden puddle formed around my designated white dot on the concrete.

Shake. Gone.

The regrettable period of my life when I actually thought Abercrombie & Fitch was cool.

Shake. Gone.

The Etch-a-Sketch method works in the short term, but the real problem is that those memories always find their way back onto the canvas of my thoughts. If only there was a way to wipe them clean for good, to drop those files into the trash can, empty that trash can, and erase it all from my hard drive. I wouldn’t have to be bothered with them, to relive the pain or the humiliation. If I was given the option to erase those memories permanently, I may be a little tempted.

Director Phillip Noyce explores that very idea in the film The Giver--what if we did away with the memories of the past? Not our silly mistakes and hiccups, or our blush-inducing, cringeworthy incidents from elementary school, but the world’s past. What if we erased and started over, and tried it better this time? “Better” being relative, of course.

The story features a teenager named Jonas (Brenton Thwaites) who lives in an isolated community presumably at some point in the future. Everything in this community is based on the idea of control because, as its icy Chief Elder (Meryl Streep) puts it:

“If people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong.”

At some point in the past, generations and generations ago, the powers-that-be decided to take freedom of choice away and create a sterile, safe world. They control the climate, they have removed all color, and they keep people in line with a plethora of rules to ensure that order prevails. Everyone wears the same thing. No one is permitted to touch another person outside of their “family units.”

The story starts to pick up steam when the Chief Elder explains that Jonas has been selected for the community’s highest honor--the Receiver of Memory. It’s a prestigious position of utmost importance, she explains, and will come with very taxing and painful training. Jonas will be trained by the current Receiver of Memory, whom we will come to know as the Giver (Jeff Bridges).

When Jonas begins his training, the Giver, an elderly bearded man with a slight tic, sits him down for his first session as the new Receiver. While Jonas thinks that he’s there to receive memories of the Giver’s past, the Giver explains that it’s not his personal past that will be shared--it will be the world’s.

Thus begins a journey for Jonas as he discovers, through the vivid reliving and transmission of these memories, all that his community lacks--animals, colors, real pain, war, and most tragically, love.

To be honest, it’s difficult for me to look objectively at Noyce’s film on its own as a cinematic experience--I have strong ties to the story. The movie is based on a children’s novel written by Lois Lowry that goes by the same name. Lowry wrote it in 1993 and subsequently won the Newbery Medal for it in 1994. The book has enjoyed immense popularity--it’s sold over 10 million copies and is regarded as an important enough work that it’s included as a required book in the curriculum of schools across the country. Its presence in schools is, in fact, the reason why I first read it.

I had decided in college that I wanted to be an English teacher. When it came time for me to be assigned to a school for student teaching, my supervisor had presented me with a choice: I could take a position in a high school but it would be an hour or more out of town, or I could stay in town but work in a middle school.

Middle school? My blood ran cold for a minute. Middle school is a house of horrors. Or so I had heard. I had it on very good authority (basically every person I had ever talked to) that middle school students were hormonally unbalanced and because of that imbalance were unruly, crazy, awkward, immature, and--oh yeah--were the spawn of Satan. Still, even considering what I knew, I valued staying in town for my student teaching placement above all. There really was little choice.

So like Jonas, I accepted my assignment to this middle school with some anxiety. It was there that a short, bleach-blonde veteran teacher, wearied from years of teaching and much like Jeff Bridge’s character the Giver, passed on her knowledge to me. She gave me my first assignment--a small paperback book with the black-and-white photograph of an old man’s wrinkled face on the cover. A shiny Newbery filled the black space next to the old man.

thegivercover

“The first book you’re going to teach the kids is The Giver,” she said in her soft, reassuring voice. “It’s one of my favorite books. It will be yours, too.” I don’t know if was a Jedi-mind trick, but it did become one of my favorite stories. It was a pleasure not only to read it, but to teach it to these middle school students (who turned out to be wonderful, by the way) and help them explore, many for the first time, the ideas of why we need memories (even painful ones) and the freedom to choose, even if we choose wrong. I’ve had the privilege and joy of teaching this story for six years now.

When I first saw the trailer for The Giver, I scoffed. First, because if I’m going to be honest, I always dreamed that I would write a screenplay for The Giver and become rich and famous and take selfies with celebrities all day because I assume that’s what a one-hit wonder screenwriter does. So forgive me if I’m a little upset that Jeff Bridges has stolen that from me (Jeff Bridges played a significant role in making this movie happen). Second, for as short as the trailer was, it gave away some of the key spoilers of the story. As I tell my students, spoilers are my biggest pet peeve. To prove my point, last month, as I introduced The Giver to my current crop of eighth graders, I warned the students not to spoil anything in the story for others if they happened to read ahead. One day, a student, as we were discussing the story in class, mentioned what I’ll call a low-grade spoiler. If these spoilers were a tornado, they would be an F-1.

As soon as the words left her mouth, my eyes contracted and twitched with anger. I happened to be holding a yard stick in my hand (the discussion was about how the community disciplines its children with “discipline wands”)--I tossed it to the ground in disgust, stormed out of the room, and yelled, “I’M DONE--I QUIT!”

Fortunately, the students knew I was joking (or was I?). The offending student even brought me two cookies later that day (See? Middle school is great). The point is, I hate spoilers, I hated the trailer, and I hated Jeff Bridges even more.

Still, considering the importance of the novel to what I do, I saw the movie. I went by myself late on a Sunday night and caught the last showing. I and some other lonely guy in his mid forties wearing a Dad jacket were the only ones there. What I first noticed about the movie was that the first several minutes were dominated by voice-over narration of Jonas. This would be a recurring trend through the rest of the movie. While famed writing instructor Robert McKee advises against voice-over narration, and for good reason because The Giver’s narration proved to be far too textual and over-explained far too often, I found a positive in it: it allowed for a good amount of Lois Lowry’s language from the book to make its way into the movie. Ultimately, the narration proved to hold the audience’s hand and guide it through the story like a seeing eye dog does the blind rather than create a story that takes the reader along for the ride.

The film is loaded with a few A-list actors--Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Katie Holmes as the mother of Jonas--and also features some brief appearances by Taylor Swift as Rosemary, the previous Receiver of Memory who failed ten years prior to Jonas’ selection. Meryl Streep’s performance is the only one that stood out as above average--she brought just the right mix of cold reserve and ruthlessness befitting of her position as Chief Elder. Jeff Bridge’s take on the Giver, with his tics and his slurred speech, made me see the character as more comical than the immensely pained, sad, weary, and burdened man I’ve come to know in the novel. As for Taylor Swift--I know a grown man shouldn’t be admitting this, but I’ll say it--I’m a huge fan of her. Huge. In this movie, though, I was not. Not that she did a terrible job--it just seemed so out of place and reeked of a tickets ploy using star power. Beyond that, the performances by relative unknowns Thwaites as Jonas and Odeya Rush as Jonas’s romantic interest, Fiona, were suitable to the task, but neither made too much of a lasting impression.

By the end of the movie, which was only 97 minutes long, I felt a little shortchanged. This complex, subtle story that I’ve spent so much time with over the last six years felt like it had been pared down with a cheese grater, melted with a few new flavors and synthetic substances, and plopped out as an underwhelming, dancing jello mold.

The story’s themes and conflicts were less four-course meals and more half-price appetizers. I understand that a book has to be chopped a bit to make it to the big screen. I understand that I have an above-average emotional attachment to this story. I still say that the movie fell short of delivering the emotion that the story deserves. Maybe it has to do with the run time; maybe it has to do with the fact that the audience has very little to discover since, for much of the story, the narration told them what was happening and how to feel.

Perhaps, one day, I’ll be bold enough to try my hand at a screenplay for The Giver despite Jeff Bridges beating me to the punch. Hollywood’s memory regarding reworked movies is short enough, right?

Truth and Consequences: Breaking Bad

bblogo2guys So many times when I've talked about Breaking Bad around friends who don't watch the show, they've given me some kind of look or comment. The message I've gotten from them, both real and perceived? "You watch a show about crystal meth? And a guy who makes it?" Oh, how judgment burns sometimes.

For a while I felt a little guilty that I loved the show as much as I did--I mean, it was, after all, a show about crystal meth and a guy who makes it. Every week I was watching someone cook it, deal it, smoke it, snort it, lie about it, and/or kill because of it.

Frankly, isn't this the kind of show I should be boycotting? I'm on staff at a church. And I'm a teacher. How many times have I talked to my kids about avoiding drug culture at all costs? How many times have I lamented that movies and television glorify issues like drug use, senseless violence, gang culture, and the abuse of sexuality? How can I sit here with a clean conscience and love a show that does all that?

Here's the thing, though:

Breaking Bad doesn't glorify any of that.

I have a friend named Denny--he's the one who pushed me to watch the show in the first place, and then pushed me again when I almost stopped watching late in Season 2--who explained  to me late one night at his place why this show is so great. It's also explains how Breaking Bad is a show about meth and a guy who makes it but doesn't glorify it. As soon as he said it, I knew it was true:

Consequences.

Bad behavior in the show produces real, gritty, heart-wrenching consequences.

Not like in every superhero movie where Ironman or another tights-clad protagonist grapples with some combination of demi-god, monster, or experiment-gone-wrong jumbo villain and brings buildings crumbling down around them and blowing up just about everything in sight. After said villain is vanquished, our hero is triumphant and the world goes back to normal. Oh, except half of New York City is in ruins. What about that? What about the ensuing economic crash? What about the slow, painstaking rebuilding process?

Oh, we could go down the list of TV shows, even the gritty ones, where little consequence takes place. On the other hand, you know what I love about the show Arrested Development? That a seal bites off Buster's hand in Season 2--and the show commits to it. I fully expected them to have his hand magically sewn back on, but it never happened. And that hand, or lack thereof, has become an incredibly hilarious part of the show.

Really, consequences are what make Breaking Bad so terrible and so amazing to watch at the same time .

As Walter White and Jesse Pinkman delve deeper and deeper into the meth business, as they make more and more money, they end up paying dear costs. They lose their families, their friends, their morals, and really, themselves. As we watch Walt lose more and more of the trust of his family, more and more of his humanity, we cringe. We drop our jaws in disbelief. We yell, "What are you doing??" We shake our heads in disgust. As we watch Jesse, we do much of the same we do with Walt, but then we also start to feel pity, then sympathy, then heartbreak.

At the end of the day, anyone who thinks that watching Breaking Bad is glorifying meth and drug culture hasn't watched the show. It does exactly the opposite. Breaking Bad is much closer to Intervention than it is to Half Baked in its portrayal of drugs.

More than it excuses drugs, it shows us, in a way no show has ever done before, just how dangerous, how tragic, how devastating drugs can be. And that danger is only elevated because Walter White isn't some at-risk youth who grew up in the ghetto with no real parents, probably destined to life on the street. He's a middle-aged, educated, white, boring chemistry teacher. A husband. A father. A man who found himself in a desperate situation, having to provide for his family with a terminal cancer diagnosis staring him in the face. And in his case, doing the wrong thing with good intentions led him down a slippery slope to destruction.

(Little aside: more Christian artists, producers, and publishers should take notes. You don't have to have a sterile, safe story with a heavy-handed moral message to express a worthy theme.)

We get the message loud and clear. We squirmed and screamed and sighed with each subsequent lie, each murder, each twist. We wanted it to stop, but we wanted it to keep going.

Please, no more. But then please, more. So, yeah--you know how I feel about this up-and-down, stomach-twisting, roller coaster ride that had me hooked on it like blue sky?

Best. Show. Ever.

 

 

The Best Halftime Show Ever.

No matter what you thought of Beyoncé's halftime performance yesterday, no Super Bowl performance can top U2's from 2002. Five months after 9/11, U2 played a great show that gave tribute to the victims of the tragedy. And unlike the pop performers at Super Bowl halftime shows, U2 didn't jump from song to song to song every 45 seconds. You can read more about the performance, their 2006 halftime performance, and the story of how they happened here. Here's the last song--"Where the Streets Have No Name"--with the tribute:

Here's the full performance:

The Indulgence of Anger

I watched "Django Unchained" the other night. As with many Quentin Tarantino films, I really enjoyed certain aspects of this one--the dialogue, the characterization, the nod to other genres and eras of film. But there's one element of the movie that I can't get behind. It's this glorification-of-vengeance-and-violence theme that Tarentino seems to love. "Inglorious Basterds" was much the same way. In that movie, the protagonists are a band of Jewish-American soldiers who violently kill Nazis and try to kill Adolf Hitler. In "Django," Jamie Foxx plays a liberated slave in pre-Civil War America who joins a bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) in killing fugitives from the law, who are conveniently all also white and racist.

And it feels good to watch these characters shoot and pulverize, maim and dismember the type of people that make our blood boil, the type of people that mostly got away with horrible things. It is fake, after all, so no harm done.

Right?

I hesitate to dismiss so easily this indulgence of anger and blood lust. And really, that's what's going on--indulgence. It sounds silly in our culture to suggest we not indulge, especially because this is fictitious anger and vengeance. I have to pause, though.

Because anger's a really sneaky creature.

It dwells underneath the surface, usually undetectable by anyone on the outside, and then it suddenly comes out and erupts in ways for all of us to see. I've heard people use the biblical saying, "In your anger, do not sin," to justify being angry as long as you physically and externally don't lash out. I have a bit of a problem with that. I do think anger to an extent is unavoidable, and there are times for righteous anger. But if we give ourselves excuses to continue to dwell with our anger, entertain it, and feed it, that's when it becomes this growing creature that is more and more in control of itself than we are in control of it.

I recently found out another female I know has been physically abused by a significant male in her life. I've always wondered how a person could come to a place like that, where they would lose control and physically assault the person they hold most dear. I suspect it's because he let his anger lie around. He fed his anger and indulged it and never suspected it could grow beyond his control. That's when you get a guy who can say emphatically, "I would never her!" to actually hit his girlfriend. Or fiancée. Or wife. He, like many of us, underestimated how stealthily anger grows under our noses.

I think about the times I wrestle with anger. It's funny. Each and every time I give in to or indulge my anger, i don't feel vindicated, or empowered, or whatever Hollywood would like me to feel. More than often, I feel embarrassment and regret. Every time I turn on the TV or put on a movie, though, the message is loud and clear: Get angry, blow up, go nuts--it's great fun for everybody.

And it's funny when I watch a guy go to town on a p.o.s. printer à la Michael Bolton in "Office Space." It's significantly less entertaining when I find out that people close to me are being assaulted by people they trusted.

Anger too often rips apart. It tears at seams instead of mending them. It seeks to burn down bridges instead of building them. It grows like cancer under our skin and takes over before we're able to stop it.

That's why I'm not okay with fully embracing the intoxication of violent, angry revenge. It feels too good, and it's so far from what anger actually produces. I respect the power of anger too much, and I've seen it sink its teeth into so many people I know. Including me.