The Giver, a liberal progressives dream society, a socialist nocturnal emmission

I just saw the movie the Giver, I can see why liberals are saying it is exactly the kind of society that we should all be aiming to achieve in their reviews, and panning the second half of the movie.

If you are a liberal, a progressive, a socialist who think in order to make society better, everyone must be treated equally and the only fair and just world is one free of seeing differences that can divide, this movie is for you, an absolute must see!

Although, I did read the book and the book gives a much more detailed description of the type of Utopia that Obama is aiming for all of us and the kind Hillary would absolutely adore also. No war, no prejudice, no envy, no hate, no bad feelings, only feelings of contentment.

Read the book for the detailed blueprint for achieving the type of utopia that the Democratic Party is envisioning for all of us.

Liberals will really like the line "when humans are free to choose they always choose wrong", all choices are made scientifically to achieve complete equality of outcome for all. When a decision outside scientific choice is needed, then a panel of leaders convenes to decide what is best for all.

There is no religion, no arguments, no conflict, no one different.

I highly recommend everyone read this award winning book before going to see the movie, which as usual for movies, leaves out a great deal of description of the liberal/progressive/and completely socialist atheist society where no one is unhappy, no one hungry, no one poor, and everyone gets along all of the time.





Mods, if my title is too offensive, let me know and knock off the last 4 words, no harm, no foul

I really haven't witnessed the Obamas or the Clintons living a modest life or that equal to 99% of the rest of the World's population. Maybe you should choose different "characters" as a reference.

a reply to: Bilk22

I guess I wasn't clear

It is the life they want the rest of us to live

Note: The leaders in that society make all major decisions for the rest of humanity because "they always choose wrong". They'd be in hog heaven making all the major decisions for everyone else, because they think they do know what's best for the rest of humanity.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Bilk22

I guess I wasn't clear

It is the life they want the rest of us to live

Note: The leaders in that society make all major decisions for the rest of humanity because "they always choose wrong". They'd be in hog heaven making all the major decisions for everyone else, because they think they do know what's best for the rest of humanity.

Now you've confused me. Where do you stand on this? Are the assessments you wrote in your post, your thoughts or are they just a summary of the ideal expressed in the movie? You haven't made that clear.

a reply to: Bilk22

They are the ideals expressed in the movie. I think every liberal/progressive/socialist should read the book and see it

so they can see what true equality without religion and based on what is best for society looks like.

If you haven't read the book I highly recommend it. I'm not the author or an any way affiliated with either the book or movie.

I simply think it is important, prophetic and insightfully accurate a work as the book 1984.

Hopefully, that lets you know my personal opinion.

a reply to: grandmakdw

OK I "got it" now

The book used to be required reading. I doubt it is now, but it is a great book. A super short read, I won't get into the whole politic aspect of it. But I do highly recommend it as well.

I read The Giver in school. Granted that was quite a long time ago, I've always been under the impression that it was authoritarianism being highlighted? Could have sworn that's what it was highlighting. Maybe my memory's incorrect after this long. That said, I wasn't a fan of it. The story seemed bland to me back then.

First read it in high school, scared the heck out of me. I put it in the same category as Brave New World and 1984. Everybody gets the same lot, citizens appeal for approval, hospices for the old (if I remember correctly) and the killing of babies.

The book summed up in a sentence: We're all trapped equally by the system and the key to freedom is thinking and existing as far away from the trap as possible.

originally posted by: denybedoomed
The book used to be required reading. I doubt it is now, but it is a great book. A super short read, I won't get into the whole politic aspect of it. But I do highly recommend it as well.

It is no longer required reading, just like 1984 because it is so prophetic
about what happens when the socialist/progressive movement wins

It is definitely as important a work as 1984
and it is feared as much as 1984 by those in power

a reply to: Nyiah

You were probably too young to understand the societal implications of it. I certainly thought 1984 was boring when I read it as required reading in early high school. Because I had too little life experience and too shallow a view of life to truly understand the book and the prophetic nature of it.

Try the movie now that you are an adult. I think you'll feel differently.

Sorry im not following here, are you doing a movie review or just attacking liberals,socialist and progressive way of thinking?

originally posted by: grandmakdw
a reply to: Nyiah

You were probably too young to understand the societal implications of it. I certainly thought 1984 was boring when I read it as required reading in early high school. Because I had too little life experience and too shallow a view of life to truly understand the book and the prophetic nature of it.

Try the movie now that you are an adult. I think you'll feel differently.

Very doubtful, but perhaps if I stumble across it on the TV at some point. To be honest, this as a movie is about as appealing to me as The Hunger Games is. Which is to say, not particularly. However, if other people like the socio-political movie plotlines, more power to them

I refuse to see the movie, as much as I love The Dude.

The Giver is one book that I don't think would ever translate to the screen very well. A favorite of mine as well.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969


I liked the movie, a lot, but then I like the book a lot.
And I don't like very many movies and neither am I much of a movie goer, like my husband is.
I want a movie to stretch my thinking process rather than just entertain me, those are the kind of movies I like.

My husband who had not read the book and is not politically aware, nor does he care about politics, found it interesting.
After I explained all the parts the movie had to leave out that were in the book, he liked it better.
But that is the way with movies based on books.

So if you have not read the book, which is quite short by the way and written in a very easy to understand way, you will like the movie much more than if have not read the book.
Which I think is true of movies based on award winning books anyway.
As an aside, I read the entire book in one sitting and not a very long sitting at that,
but I have to admit to being a voracious reader.

The acting was stellar, especially the young man who played the lead.
The cinematography fascinating, as the first part of the movie is in black and white.
Meryl Streep, well can I say more about her major role in the film?
Katie Holmes was scarey good.
I adore Jeff Bridges, so can't give an unbiased opinion on his performance, which was outstanding.

The movie did take a few liberties with the book, as all movies based on books.

A must see for anyone who likes a movie that makes you think, that stretches you, and is based on sociopolitical ideas that intrigue you.

The movie itself is a compelling review of socialist/progressive/liberal thought, as it could quite easily play out in the not too distant future.

I hold the same opinion of progressivism/liberalism/socialism as the author of the book does.
So to ascertain my thought you would have to either read the book or see the movie.

Don't know how much more I can say review wise.

Geez! It's the movie forum, thought I was in mud pit

I guess it's a must see now. I'll read the book first though, as recommended.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I read The Giver in school. Granted that was quite a long time ago, I've always been under the impression that it was authoritarianism being highlighted? Could have sworn that's what it was highlighting. Maybe my memory's incorrect after this long. That said, I wasn't a fan of it. The story seemed bland to me back then.

You were quite young and like I when I read 1984, not aware of the differences in political thought processes.

It highlighted the importance of being quite careful and precise with ones words.

It stressed the importance of not offending anyone at any time or in any way.

It stressed the need for the leaders who had the citizens best interest at heart to closely watch citizens to make sure they were always content, careful in thought, careful in word, and careful not to offend other citizens.

It stressed the importance of the greater good and complete and total fairness of outcome for all citizens.

All citizens had an absolutely equal amount and quality of everything one needs in life.

Contentment of citizens was a primary value, as was people being totally color blind and totally unaware of any differences between each other.

There was absolute peace among people, absolutely no fighting or desire to fight or argue. There was complete and total contentment with ones life and a strong value for doing what was best for everyone rather than the individual.

So it stressed the goals of socialism and progressivism.
Authoritarians don't care if the citizens are content or not, they generally don't care at all about fairness of outcome for citizens; but I can see how when you were a child you may have seen it that way.

a reply to: grandmakdw

No war, no prejudice, no envy, no hate, no bad feelings, only feelings of contentment.

You're right grandmakdw - no point in wanting or working for those things now in the herebefore

It'll all have to wait until we die and we move into our cozy apartments in the hereafter

:-)

Or, is it a mansion? I forget

Did you like the movie?

edit to add: never mind - I see now that you did. I was not getting that part from your thread title :-)

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Have you read the book?
Seen the movie?
Are you asking a question about the movie?

If not, your comments are simply rude.

a reply to: grandmakdw

I was hoping to get your opinion on a film - but instead found an anti-liberal diatribe. Politics, arrogance and condescension, right here! In the movie section. You know - where people discuss films?

:-)

Sorry to interrupt. Please, by all means - carry on with your conservative nocturnal emission