In 2015, one has to wonder just how many tales of a dystopian future can be told. In each of the works we’ve read for the class, it’s the same set-up: a war sometime before the novel destroyed civilization as we know it and a group of people felt it best to cast off those shackles and establish a new order. The Hunger Games has proven it can draw in crowds to the movie theaters with Divergent not being terribly far behind. The latter does not have the critical acclaim of the former but the two released films seem to earn enough to justify their production. So what do I think keeps crowds coming back for more, be it adaptations of the sequels or authors and screenwriters penning new ones?
Looking at this story, I can see some crossover with Hunger Games that can intrigue people. In a world where people like to have an icon, someone to look to and be inspired by, we get another female lead in Tris. She initially comes off as questioning her future, wondering if the path laid out for her is the best one. It starts as a coming of age story, something that any young adult can relate to. Tris is sixteen years old at the start, and for a person in reality, that can be when adults start sending them messages about thinking what you want to do with the rest of your life. The time to make that decision is coming quickly, so you have to think about it now, they say.
Though disbelief has to sort of be suspended when we see the actors taking the roles of these characters. I’m sure they give the best performance they’re able to, but I got the impression, and confirmed, we have another case of 20-somethings playing teen roles. It was certainly noticeable in The Giver and mildly noticeable in The Hunger Games.
Shailene Woodley gives it the best she’s got as Tris but was in her early 20’s at the time of production. It’s not exactly a new thing, giving older actors these teenage roles, but certainly someone of that age might already have an idea of how they want to spend their life. With the demands of today’s society, it’s very highly advised to do so! So why would film studios want to take this route with these actors in a rough environment with lots of conflict? It can certainly be a way to inspire the target audience, but like I said with Hunger Games, it can come back to image.
Why hire physically attractive people for leading roles? Either to appeal to one demographic and potentially provide sex appeal. I explained the former attribute with Katniss in Hunger Games where Jennifer Lawrence never got too rugged and mostly maintained a pretty pristine image as she fought for survival in the games. Yet I can see the latter with the character of Peter, someone who we probably are supposed to dislike in the prose. Yeah he’s violent and could probably be a big source of conflict if pushed in the wrong direction, but that can be taken in a different direction through film.
A writer can describe a character like this with all the rugged physical descriptions they want, and a filmmaker can take that to mean they want someone who is well built and has no trouble acting arrogantly. That could be a reason why so many people seem attracted to the antagonists as well as they heroes, they can have bad intentions and may even prove incredibly dangerous, but if you have someone the audience finds attractive through looks or acting, that could be a big draw for them.
So why focus on all of this talk about character motives and physical appearances? I think as the success of Twilight shows, crowds can enjoy a love story. Crowds translate into making money. With Divergent, I certainly got the impression as the relationship between Tris and Four was played up in order to say to people who haven’t read Roth’s original story that, “Look! There’s still room for love in a future where these people fight against an oppressive power!”
Then again, one can wonder if the romance in a story can be played up because with a film, it’s best to take the show, don’t tell approach. In prose, the writer has all the space and time they want to let us know what a character is thinking, especially when told in a first-person narrative through the perspective of one of the characters. In a film, that exposition in text can either be replaced by additional dialog by the actors or be demonstrated on-screen. As I’ve called to before, it can be a matter of personal taste. Will a few smiles or shared experiences be more credible to an audience than reading several paragraphs that describe how a character feels about another?
I think that Divergent has a nice premise that makes me want to keep reading about these characters and what they plan to do once this story has concluded. Though that also conflicts my desire to keep reading the Hunger Games trilogy (and I’m completely fine leaving The Giver with one book). However for all that it does do well, at times it just can’t help feeling like an attempt to get in on the “teens rise against oppression” craze that those latter two works, and to a degree Harry Potter, sparked. It’s a common business practice for any industry, you strike while the iron is hot.
Yet for all of these stories’ claims about being just like everyone else is dangerous and not good, they can start to blend together after a while. I’m sure that’s not what the authors intend, but actions always have consequences, whether they are desired or not. The film adaptation is fairly decent but I’m not sure if it’s one I’ll return to. Though I’m sure there will be some people out there who find the concept and characters even more relatable and engaging, so I’m sure this genre won’t be going away anytime soon.
