Monday Movie ~ The Giver ~ “We gained control of many things. But we had to let go of others.”

We saw The Giver at the weekend. Having read the novel a few months ago (my post on it is HERE) , the story was fairly fresh in memory. I'd read a couple of early reviews of the movie, so was ready for most of the changes made to the original.

(Beware spoilers!)

Main change was in the age of the leading character, Jonas, from a 12-year old boy to a youth of around 16. He was selected to train with the Giver to become the new carrier of historical memory for the whole community. Something indefinable was lost through this age change, I felt. Hollywood, however, needs to put bums on seats to keep filling its coffers. Bums on seats requires romance, sex, and action these days - or any days. Hollywood hasn't often gone for subtle allegorical items, it likes to hit the audience sharply up side of head with film themes. Consequently we have the addition of a budding love relationship to the tale of The Giver, along with a chase involving a (shock horror) drone towards the movie's end. I could definitely have done without that drone! How come all memories of drones hadn't been wiped out, eh? Eh????

The film mostly stayed within the novel's broad storyline, adding visuals which may or may not match those seen in the imagination of readers. The movie depicts a community living upon a synthetic looking plateau or mesa top - something I'd not seen in my mind's eye when reading the book. The dwelling places, clothing, and Giver's house were much as I'd imagined though. I'd imagined the Giver himself to be much frailer than the burly and still handsome Jeff Bridges. This movie had been Bridges' dream to bring to the screen for some 20 years though, he was entitled to take a lead part. In an interview on Letterman's show recently, Bridges said that long ago he'd wanted to film The Giver with his father, Lloyd Bridges in the Giver role. It wasn't too difficult for me to re-assess Giver's appearance, but I did feel that Jeff Bridges put a lot of what he, personally, had gleaned from the novel into the part - maybe rightly, maybe not.

We enjoyed the film overall. It sparked a long conversation later, as we listened to some music. Any film that can cause husband to converse about societal issues while jazz greats are playing in the background has to have much to recommend it!

Basically, the novel and film, set way, way into the future (I wish some indication had been made of exactly how far) contrast human nature, when allowed to follow its natural instincts, versus human nature controlled and reined in. There was, we were led to believe in the novel, an important reason for the control of society in this manner, but it wasn't explored in any depth. An event, or set of events known as "the ruin" had, at some point in the past been about to lead to an inevitable extinction of the human race, or so we assumed, connecting the dots. "Sameness" had been imposed, long ago, on groups of survivors. Advanced technology must still have been available to them. This "Sameness" brought about, by mass manipulation, a society with no individuality, no sense of seeing colour, no memory of past history, no fear, no pain, no war, no violence, no strong emotion, no lies, and using only precise language. I came to the conclusion that these impositions had been placed on the surviving groups of people not from some fascistic attempt to control, or a yen for power, or wealth (money seemed not to exist), but as a way to save the human race. The reining in, we discover during the novel and film, involved genetic manipulation, euthanasia, and not to mince words, the murder of a proportion of babies. These things, presumably, had been necessary evils early on, perhaps to keep population control in place while climate was controlled, and a new form of civilisation developed and took shape. As in every endeavour in which we humans take part though, all had gone too far. We never know when to stop do we? But human nature is not capable of being so severely reined in for ever, or even for long.

Keeping society in check was the job of a council of "elders" led by a cringe-inducing Maggie Thatcher-like Chief Elder played by Meryl Streep. A line of Chief Elder's:
"If people have the freedom to choose, they choose wrong...every single time."
By the way, we are not told how the council of elders had managed to escape the "Release" (euthanasia). Probably a case of "not what you know but who you know"?

The film's ending strayed a little from the novel's ending. The novel's ending left it open for an allegorical comparison to bible and other religious/spiritual stories : an individual sacrificing everything for the good of all. By Jonas crossing the boundary into Elsewhere, the people of Sameness would recover memory, colour, emotion and all that entailed. The baby Jonas carried with him on his escape was named Gabriel.....I wonder why?

Last lines of the novel (below), after Jonas had "broken the spell" as it were, by breaking through the boundary, but by now he and the baby were freezing, to the point of death:

"Suddenly he [Jonas] was aware with certainty and joy that below, ahead, they were waiting for him; and that they were waiting, too, for the baby. For the first time, he heard something that he knew to be music. He heard people singing. Behind him, across 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."

(In the film more words were added to these, to provide a less "final" ending.)

Hmm - "across vast distances of space and time" ? That could indicate moving across the "Sameness/Elsewhere" boundary was actually an exercise in time travel! I hadn't quite grasped that. Somehow, through highly advanced technology, had the Sameness community sped on into the future, through many centuries, while the "old" world remained, as it was before, warts and all? Or maybe I'm going just too sci-fi far on that tack.

Lois Lowry, author of The Giver:

"A lot of people I know would hate that ending, but not me. I loved it. Mainly because I got to make the book happy. I decided they made it. They made it to the past. I decided the past was our world, and the future was their world. It was parallel worlds."

The Giver is well worth seeing, whether before, after or instead of the novel. Similar ground has been covered before, in a variety of ways, but never quite like this.

Jeff Bridges & "The Contender"

We watched the movie "The Contender" on TV this week - a stroke of genius by someone at HBO to screen this particular movie at this particular time. The plot-line could not have been more appropriate in 2008, though the film was released in 2000.

It's an engaging and thought-provoking story of US politics at the highest level. A Vice President has died and the President is in the process of appointing a replacement. The president himself is nearing the end of his second term and wants to leave on a high note. He would like to appoint a woman as VP. He has opposition from the other side of the aisle, there is much muck-raking, and skulduggery.

A clip from the president's (Jeff Bridges) speech which brings the movie to a close:

"Understand, those of you who worked to bring Laine Hanson down that she asked to have her name withdrawn from consideration not because she isn't great, but because she isn't petty -- because those two conflicting leadership traits could not live as one within her body or her soul.

Greatness: It comes in many forms. Sometimes it comes in the form of sacrifice. That's the loneliest form. Now it turns out that Laine Hanson is a woman, an American of devout principle and she has inspired me to act alike, and I cannot accept Senator Hanson's withdrawal.

And I'm now calling for an immediate voice of confirmation of Laine Hanson. And Mr. Speaker, I would like to make this a live roll call. I want to see the faces of those of you who would eliminate the possibility of greatness in American leadership because of half-truths, lies, and innuendoes.

I will not be deterred by partisanship.

I will not be deterred by misogyny.

I will not be deterred by hate.

You have now come face-to-face with my will. Confirm my nominee, heal this nation, and let the American people explode into this new millennium with the exhilaration of being true to the glory of this democracy.

Thank you."

Remind you of anyone? A dedication at the end of the movie stated simply "For the Daughters". I discovered that Jeff Bridges has three daughters, and wondered whether this was his idea.


Jeff Bridges, someone who never fails to bring his characters to life, plays the president. Joan Allen portrays his fagile-looking yet strong and determined female pick for VP. Several familiar faces, all excellent character actors, are included in the supporting cast: Sam Elliott, Gary Oldman and William Petersen .

Jeff Bridges is one of those actors who commands respect from audience and peers alike, yet he has never become a block-busting big-name star like Harrison Ford, Kevin Costner, Bruce Willis, Mel Gibson - someone whose next movie is eagerly awaited, trumpeted to high heaven. He's as good looking as any of the fore-mentioned guys, he's a better actor than some of them. I wonder what it is that propels some to the starry heights, and others equally deserving, while not exactly ignored, remain at a different level of the public's star consciousness. He hasn't, to my knowledge, ever starred in a real wham-bam action movie in the style of "Lethal Weapon" or "Die Hard" - maybe that's the key? Too laid-back, I guess.

Jeff Bridges was born on 4 December 1949 in Los Angeles, California, Astrotheme gives his time of birth as 11.58 pm.



On-line biographies all describe Jeff Bridges as "laid back", a thoroughly nice guy, versatile, and hugely talented. In addition to acting, he paints, is a keen photographer, musician and song writer, and he is founder of the End Hunger Campaign.

In one interview he mentions that his grandfather was "a Scouser" - which, being translated means that he came from Liverpool, England. Liverpudlians are a pretty laid-back and likeable bunch, it's in his blood then! Is it also in his natal chart?

First thing - it's a strong chart, with planets on three of the four angles. Saturn/Mars on the ascendant, Sun Mercury and Chiron on the nadir (opposite midheaven), with Moon very close to midheaven, top of the chart. It's the chart of a dynamic personality, maybe emphasised further because there's more than a single planet on two of the angles.

Sometimes I find that textbook definitions of an aspect just don't fit what I feel about the person involved. This is such a case. In the chart of an actor, it's understandable. We hardly ever see "the real person" on public display. Here, for instance, we have Sun and Moon in opposition, Sagittarius versus Gemini. Cookbook (textbook) interpretation don't fit descriptions of Jeff Bridges offered by his peers and colleagues, who are in a better position to know the real man. He's described always as an extremely laid-back individual, such folk seldom have to deal with lifelong inner tensions and struggles indicated by a natal Sun/Moon opposition. Could it be, perhaps, that in the case of an actor with this aspect, tensions can be brought to the surface within his acting roles, leaving personal life calm and in laid-back mode?

A second placement and combination which doesn't quite ring true from cookbook interpretation is Saturn conjunct Mars on the Virgo ascendant. The ascendant is said to be the lens through which a person sees the world and the world sees the person. Via Virgo, a streak of perfectionism will appear, Jeff's attention to detail in every part he has played in his long career has resulted in many awards and nominations. The Virgo element fits then. Saturn and Mars conjoined on this Virgo angle are likely to be strongly evident in the personality. On first thought this conjunction would seem like a negative rather than positive pair to find in such a strong position. In some instances, depending on the rest of the chart, the same combination could produce a hardnosed, mean fighter, a strait-laced, aggressive miserable miser, or, as in this case a disciplined hard working character with energy to spare, always eager eager to accept a challenge.

Jeff's Sagittarius Sun and Mercury square (challenge)his Mars/Saturn in Virgo, which could be why the Saturn/Mars combination doesn't get things all its own way. Good natured, jovial expansive Sagittarius planets, also on an angle, also strong, largely overcome any negative energy from Saturn/Mars. Moon in Gemini at the top of the chart underlines Jeff's versatility and ease of communication, and form yet another square the Mars/Saturn conjunction, serving to lighten it even more.

Venus in the last degree of Capricorn and Jupiter in the first degree of Aquarius form a conjunction, this in 5th house of pleasures. Here's his artistic and musical talent (Venus) combined with Jupiter, his Sun's ruler, in socially aware Aquarius - his charity work. This combination also serves to underline his hardworking yet easy-going nature.

This chart is a good example, I think, of how a negative factor in a natal chart should never be taken in isolation. Here, I see good humored Sagittarius shining through, any negative aspects being allowed to play out within the native's (the actor's) career, turning a potential detriment into a boon.