Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 07/04/14
When it comes to YA films, I'll be the first to admit I'm never taken in by them, but often end up watching them anyway. I've not read any of the books - I've tried reading a couple of YA novels (one I finished, the other I gave up on). Neither of those have made it to the big screen (I think they're either too new or too bizarre). Does Harry Potter fall into YA, because I've read a few of those.
There's been a lot of hype and talk surrounding 'Divergent', a film I knew very little about and was even less interested in it. I wasn't planning to watch it... but then I got dragged to the cinemas anyway. I was, at the time, starved of cinema, so I didn't care much.
So there I was, sitting amongst a shockingly crowded hall of people from every nationality and age. The film starts off with voiceover narration (because there's apparently no other way to introduce the audience into this strange world). The narration is by our protagonist Tris (Shailene Woodley) who sounds eerily like a 12-year-old.
We're introduced to a world congregated in Chicago and segregated into five denominations, plus the factionless lot. It's a weird concept, and not in the least plausible. I don't mean to knock it, but this central conceit just didn't work for me.
Anyway, on graduation day both Tris and her brother abandon their family and head to two separate factions. Interestingly he takes intelligence and she takes bravery. I like that subversion.
The majority of the film sees Tris try to fit in with the new faction. It's like being in the military, because they're trained to fight and defend their world. This is when we come across Tris' potential love interest, Four (Theo James). He's a bit of a jerk, but starts to soften after some time.
The extended training session ends with the two of them hooking up and then attempting to fight the system that's hellbent on taking over. The action only takes place in the last 30 minutes. I won't call the film slow, as most of the scenes do progress the story, but it's not got much in the story department. Also, it uses a lot of dream sequences as exposition, which works, surprisingly, in the context of the film.
I've not read the book - and from what I've read there appears to be conflict between readers/ fans about how faithful the film was to the source material. Having said that, author Veronica Roth was definitely part of the credits, so I assume she had some say in what happened on screen.
As I said, the central conceit just doesn't cut it, so it's hard to get into the world. I'll explain why the factions don't particularly make sense - even if your overriding quality is fearlessness and bravery, you need intelligence to get out of sticky situations, and you need to be selfless to give up your life for another. And, if one wants to be selfless, you can't without being brave. They're all mixed up. If they weren't we couldn't function. You can choose to go into a particular field, but it can't be with the exception of using the others. Okay, I need to stop on this topic - it's only a film.
It's a bit distressing to see only a couple of characters of colour, both of whom are sidelined for the majority of the film - we can do better, people. But there are elements in this film that are laudable. Tris doesn't get by on luck, but on hard work, and she comes across as brave (if not necessarily fearless). She's also got a close to athletic form which makes it believable that she's got a fair amount of stamina.
I also liked the fallible, almost vulnerable older male mentor, because it subverted the usual archetype found in films and literature. He knows what he's doing, but he's been in hiding for most of his life (hence he's a jerk). He has real fears and a scary past that he must revisit from time to time. He also needs Tris to save him (and she does). In an odd way it made him realistic in the film.
One of the most memorable scenes in the film was Tris and her mother fighting the bad guys side by side. I don't see that happen often enough in films.
The sequels are probably already underway, but constant comparisons to 'The Hunger Games' may just put a downer on this film. It's raking in the moolah (because, of course), but may not generate the fanbase as HG. The two films are very different, actually, and I don't see how people are comparing them.
What attracted me (strong word, I know) to HG was its subversion of the norm. We had ourselves a rugged female hero and two gorgeous male protagonists. She was competent and strong. 'Divergent' continues the subversion, giving youngsters a female role model, and its a pleasant change from the wilting flowers we're used to in most films.
The trouble with this film is that it didn't feel quite as memorable as it should have. This may be down to the fact that most of it is an introduction into the world. The main threat was on the outskirts for the majority of the film, and the threat didn't feel real (or important) till the protagonists were thrown into it.
It's worth a watch for its fairly competent female hero and does little else to set it apart. There may have been scope for innovation in its storytelling as well as direction, but 'Divergent' treads the path well travelled.
When it comes to YA films, I'll be the first to admit I'm never taken in by them, but often end up watching them anyway. I've not read any of the books - I've tried reading a couple of YA novels (one I finished, the other I gave up on). Neither of those have made it to the big screen (I think they're either too new or too bizarre). Does Harry Potter fall into YA, because I've read a few of those.
There's been a lot of hype and talk surrounding 'Divergent', a film I knew very little about and was even less interested in it. I wasn't planning to watch it... but then I got dragged to the cinemas anyway. I was, at the time, starved of cinema, so I didn't care much.So there I was, sitting amongst a shockingly crowded hall of people from every nationality and age. The film starts off with voiceover narration (because there's apparently no other way to introduce the audience into this strange world). The narration is by our protagonist Tris (Shailene Woodley) who sounds eerily like a 12-year-old.
We're introduced to a world congregated in Chicago and segregated into five denominations, plus the factionless lot. It's a weird concept, and not in the least plausible. I don't mean to knock it, but this central conceit just didn't work for me.
Anyway, on graduation day both Tris and her brother abandon their family and head to two separate factions. Interestingly he takes intelligence and she takes bravery. I like that subversion.
The majority of the film sees Tris try to fit in with the new faction. It's like being in the military, because they're trained to fight and defend their world. This is when we come across Tris' potential love interest, Four (Theo James). He's a bit of a jerk, but starts to soften after some time.
The extended training session ends with the two of them hooking up and then attempting to fight the system that's hellbent on taking over. The action only takes place in the last 30 minutes. I won't call the film slow, as most of the scenes do progress the story, but it's not got much in the story department. Also, it uses a lot of dream sequences as exposition, which works, surprisingly, in the context of the film.
I've not read the book - and from what I've read there appears to be conflict between readers/ fans about how faithful the film was to the source material. Having said that, author Veronica Roth was definitely part of the credits, so I assume she had some say in what happened on screen.
As I said, the central conceit just doesn't cut it, so it's hard to get into the world. I'll explain why the factions don't particularly make sense - even if your overriding quality is fearlessness and bravery, you need intelligence to get out of sticky situations, and you need to be selfless to give up your life for another. And, if one wants to be selfless, you can't without being brave. They're all mixed up. If they weren't we couldn't function. You can choose to go into a particular field, but it can't be with the exception of using the others. Okay, I need to stop on this topic - it's only a film.
 |
| The brave and strong protagonist - Tris. |
I also liked the fallible, almost vulnerable older male mentor, because it subverted the usual archetype found in films and literature. He knows what he's doing, but he's been in hiding for most of his life (hence he's a jerk). He has real fears and a scary past that he must revisit from time to time. He also needs Tris to save him (and she does). In an odd way it made him realistic in the film.
 |
| The vulnerable mentor - Four. |
The sequels are probably already underway, but constant comparisons to 'The Hunger Games' may just put a downer on this film. It's raking in the moolah (because, of course), but may not generate the fanbase as HG. The two films are very different, actually, and I don't see how people are comparing them.
What attracted me (strong word, I know) to HG was its subversion of the norm. We had ourselves a rugged female hero and two gorgeous male protagonists. She was competent and strong. 'Divergent' continues the subversion, giving youngsters a female role model, and its a pleasant change from the wilting flowers we're used to in most films.
The trouble with this film is that it didn't feel quite as memorable as it should have. This may be down to the fact that most of it is an introduction into the world. The main threat was on the outskirts for the majority of the film, and the threat didn't feel real (or important) till the protagonists were thrown into it.
It's worth a watch for its fairly competent female hero and does little else to set it apart. There may have been scope for innovation in its storytelling as well as direction, but 'Divergent' treads the path well travelled.
Comments