Lois Lowry on The Giver
Howl: What were some of the things you felt the film really nailed and got right?
Lowry: The one that comes most to my mind is the design of The Giver’s quarters. I loved that large room they created, with all the books (they went to used bookstores in Cape Town, where the movie was filmed, and bought 22,000 books…then after the filming, gave them to schools). I had envisioned—and described—a much smaller space, but I thought they came up with a magnificent design.
Howl: What were some of the things you would have changed or felt were not as true to your vision in the book?
Lowry: I was a little sorry to lose the book personality of Asher, Jonas’s clumsy and humorous friend. Asher is still there, in the film, but he is a different sort of person, not as appealing as the Book Asher. And of course they made the characters somewhat older than they had been in the book…17 instead of 12. There were practical reasons for doing this—I understood and accepted those—but it did mean that they had to introduce a hint of romance that was not in the book, and although it was well done, I kind of wished for the innocence and idealism of the 12 year old boy.
Howl: What was it like taking something that you visualized in your head and then saw become tangible?
Lowry: This (The Giver) was the third film adapted from a book of mine. I had been profoundly disappointed in the first two. So I was aware, with The Giver, that it might prove disastrous. Instead, even though there were elements of the film that I disliked, it was nonetheless a well-made film, with very competent performances by fine actors. I knew from the start that the film would have to be different from the book, since the book was an introspective one, and they would have to add action. Nothing surprised me.
Howl: How involved were you in the production (pre-production and post- included)?
Lowry: They involved me through every step, surprisingly. They had no obligation to do so. But throughout the process, I read scripts, sat in on conferences with the costume and set designers, watched screen tests when they were casting, went to South Africa to watch filming, and then back in New York I was able to sit in the editing room. And they even asked me to re-write some of the dialogue. The director emailed me again and again seeking my opinions and advice. They did not always take my advice, and in fact during post-production I argued against something and lost (I was sorry that they decided to add a voiceover) but I appreciated the degree to which they seems to value my input.
Howl: How do you feel about the creation of further films based on your other books?
Lowry: It would depend entirely on who was doing it. I would not be averse to further films but I am aware that a different producer would likely not include me at all and so I would simply have to keep my fingers crossed.
Howl: As a writer, how would you say the adaptation of one of your books into a feature film has affected your career?
Lowry: Probably not at all. If I had been a new writer—if this had been my first or second book—perhaps a film, good or bad, and the attendant publicity would have bumped my career up a notch. But by the time The Giver was adapted to the screen, I already had a comfortable and respected career and I don’t think the film changed that one way or another.
Howl: Have you seen other films based on books that you've read (i.e. Jaws, The Godfather, and so on) and thought, "They really nailed it," or "They really butchered that," and why?
Lowry: I was very impressed with the films made of To Kill a Mockingbird and—much later--House of Sand and Fog, (which was written and directed by Vadim Perelman, who was briefly considered as writer/director of The Giver.) To a lesser degree, I thought “Atonement” was a pretty good adaptation. I’m sure I have seen many films that I thought did a disservice to the books…but none of them are coming to my mind, which probably indicates that they were, in fact, forgettable.
Howl: When a book is adapted to a film, some of that world built up in the readers' imaginations is ultimately lost or altered. How do you feel about that and did it do the same for you?
Lowry: This is the most significant difference between Book and Film, I think. A book is subjective. Each reader takes the elements placed on the page by the author, and creates a picture in his/her mind…and for each reader that picture is different because it is based on individual experience and awareness. So if a thousand people read the same book, they are actually experiencing a thousand different books. But with a film…the picture is created by the director and that is the picture the viewer sees. So a thousand people watch a movie and they all see the same movie. It loses any subjectivity, which is sad but inevitable.
Howl: What were some of the most memorable experiences from having your book adapted to film?
Lowry: Memorable—in a bad way—is the amount of promotion required. They included me in that, as well, and it is NOT FUN to do 75 2-minute interviews in one day. But for film people…including top actors…it is part of the job and you have to do it. The glitz…the red carpet, the after-party, etc…was fun, but in no way really connected to the creative effort put into the making of the film. What I enjoyed most was sitting and talking with the director, Philip Noyce, who was a passionate and hard-working and generous man. And also I loved watching the editing process. Incidentally, two things stand out in my memory from that…one, watching a scene in the editing room, I commented, about a bit of dialogue: “I hate that line.” And they took it out! Later…another scene…I realized they had removed a little bit that I had liked a lot, and I commented on it…and they put it back in! My two little contributions.
Howl: What advice would you give to any published writers whose works are being considered for film adaptation? Lessons learned?
Lowry:There is really only one simple piece of advice, and that is to let go. The book exists. It will continue to exist. The movie will be different and will not be the book and you mustn’t expect it to be. If you are going to be devastated by the changes…then don’t sign the contract.
Lowry: The one that comes most to my mind is the design of The Giver’s quarters. I loved that large room they created, with all the books (they went to used bookstores in Cape Town, where the movie was filmed, and bought 22,000 books…then after the filming, gave them to schools). I had envisioned—and described—a much smaller space, but I thought they came up with a magnificent design.
Howl: What were some of the things you would have changed or felt were not as true to your vision in the book?
Lowry: I was a little sorry to lose the book personality of Asher, Jonas’s clumsy and humorous friend. Asher is still there, in the film, but he is a different sort of person, not as appealing as the Book Asher. And of course they made the characters somewhat older than they had been in the book…17 instead of 12. There were practical reasons for doing this—I understood and accepted those—but it did mean that they had to introduce a hint of romance that was not in the book, and although it was well done, I kind of wished for the innocence and idealism of the 12 year old boy.
Howl: What was it like taking something that you visualized in your head and then saw become tangible?
Lowry: This (The Giver) was the third film adapted from a book of mine. I had been profoundly disappointed in the first two. So I was aware, with The Giver, that it might prove disastrous. Instead, even though there were elements of the film that I disliked, it was nonetheless a well-made film, with very competent performances by fine actors. I knew from the start that the film would have to be different from the book, since the book was an introspective one, and they would have to add action. Nothing surprised me.
Howl: How involved were you in the production (pre-production and post- included)?
Lowry: They involved me through every step, surprisingly. They had no obligation to do so. But throughout the process, I read scripts, sat in on conferences with the costume and set designers, watched screen tests when they were casting, went to South Africa to watch filming, and then back in New York I was able to sit in the editing room. And they even asked me to re-write some of the dialogue. The director emailed me again and again seeking my opinions and advice. They did not always take my advice, and in fact during post-production I argued against something and lost (I was sorry that they decided to add a voiceover) but I appreciated the degree to which they seems to value my input.
Howl: How do you feel about the creation of further films based on your other books?
Lowry: It would depend entirely on who was doing it. I would not be averse to further films but I am aware that a different producer would likely not include me at all and so I would simply have to keep my fingers crossed.
Howl: As a writer, how would you say the adaptation of one of your books into a feature film has affected your career?
Lowry: Probably not at all. If I had been a new writer—if this had been my first or second book—perhaps a film, good or bad, and the attendant publicity would have bumped my career up a notch. But by the time The Giver was adapted to the screen, I already had a comfortable and respected career and I don’t think the film changed that one way or another.
Howl: Have you seen other films based on books that you've read (i.e. Jaws, The Godfather, and so on) and thought, "They really nailed it," or "They really butchered that," and why?
Lowry: I was very impressed with the films made of To Kill a Mockingbird and—much later--House of Sand and Fog, (which was written and directed by Vadim Perelman, who was briefly considered as writer/director of The Giver.) To a lesser degree, I thought “Atonement” was a pretty good adaptation. I’m sure I have seen many films that I thought did a disservice to the books…but none of them are coming to my mind, which probably indicates that they were, in fact, forgettable.
Howl: When a book is adapted to a film, some of that world built up in the readers' imaginations is ultimately lost or altered. How do you feel about that and did it do the same for you?
Lowry: This is the most significant difference between Book and Film, I think. A book is subjective. Each reader takes the elements placed on the page by the author, and creates a picture in his/her mind…and for each reader that picture is different because it is based on individual experience and awareness. So if a thousand people read the same book, they are actually experiencing a thousand different books. But with a film…the picture is created by the director and that is the picture the viewer sees. So a thousand people watch a movie and they all see the same movie. It loses any subjectivity, which is sad but inevitable.
Howl: What were some of the most memorable experiences from having your book adapted to film?
Lowry: Memorable—in a bad way—is the amount of promotion required. They included me in that, as well, and it is NOT FUN to do 75 2-minute interviews in one day. But for film people…including top actors…it is part of the job and you have to do it. The glitz…the red carpet, the after-party, etc…was fun, but in no way really connected to the creative effort put into the making of the film. What I enjoyed most was sitting and talking with the director, Philip Noyce, who was a passionate and hard-working and generous man. And also I loved watching the editing process. Incidentally, two things stand out in my memory from that…one, watching a scene in the editing room, I commented, about a bit of dialogue: “I hate that line.” And they took it out! Later…another scene…I realized they had removed a little bit that I had liked a lot, and I commented on it…and they put it back in! My two little contributions.
Howl: What advice would you give to any published writers whose works are being considered for film adaptation? Lessons learned?
Lowry:There is really only one simple piece of advice, and that is to let go. The book exists. It will continue to exist. The movie will be different and will not be the book and you mustn’t expect it to be. If you are going to be devastated by the changes…then don’t sign the contract.