“The Hunger Games” Kinda Lives Up To The Hype; Jennifer Lawrence Exceeds It
My Mother, much to my eternal chagrin, is a fan of the television show Survivor. And while I prefer to stay far away from it and voice my discontent with her choice to watch it, she did long ago provide one Survivor-related detail that I found immensely interesting. She argued the show should win Best Editing at the Emmys year-in, year-out because it consistently took these many disparate characters and storylines, found something to latch on to for the audience and then slowly and skillfully manipulated that same audience into thinking this way and rooting for these people and against these people. And that was the word that kept returning to me throughout the two-and-a-half hours of The Hunger Games – manipulation.
You might have heard of this Hunger Games. Based on an uber-popular young adult novel by Suzanne Collins, it was brought to the big screen by director Gary Ross (who co-wrote the screenplay with Collins and Billy Ray). It centers around a futuristic dystopian society in which people dress like an awesome amalgamation of 17th Century France, an 1850’s riverboat and Oceania in a North America massively altered by some sort of rebellion that has been broken up into 12 distinct districts ruled with an iron fist and heavy whiskers by the President (Donald Sutherland, suitably creepy). But none of this is really the point. This is merely the platform by which Ms. Collins has created The Hunger Games (!!!) wherein one man and one woman is selected at random from each district and thrown together in a televised outdoor kill or be-killed free-for-all adventure! It is a Dystopian Olympic Games! And it is, it seems, what keeps this nation in order.
In a sly bit of scriptwriting economy, we are essentially introduced to our leading lady, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), in the midst of a deer hunt in the woods – not unlike Daniel Day Lewis’s Hawkeye, whom sort of resembles in her graceful defiance – which clues us into the fact that 1.) She can fend for herself and 2.) She’s got skills with a bow and arrow. She has a boyfriend (Liam Hemsworth) and a little sister (Willow Shields) who is ultra paranoid she will be picked for the games. Alas, she is, and so Katniss steps up to the plate and volunteers in her sis’s place. And so Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) are shepherded off to the Capital and prepared for the, uh, Battle Royale. In a deft bit of laconic alcoholism but biting insight, Woody Harrelson works as their mentor, Haymitch, offering advice on how to be last person standing.
Haymitch is key because he explains – especially to the no-nonsense Katniss – how crucial it is to come across likeable to garner “sponsors” (an idea that, unless I missed something, is never truly followed up on) and to get not only the public but the producers such as the Gamemaker (played by Wes Bentley with a ferocious goatee) on their side because if you can get the producers on your side they can, in turn, manipulate events in your favor. That is, far and away, the most interesting idea displayed on this sprawling canvas. Peeta right away senses the necessity of manufacturing (or is it?) a star cross’d love affair between he and Katniss which can endear them to fawning viewers who can aid their efforts. Ah, but the producers, locked away in an expansive editing room, can manipulate right back, whether with forest fires conjured on a whim or with sudden rule changes in the midst of the games. The President even pulls the Gamemaker aside and not-so-subtly urges him in one direction. These are the editors of Survivor working the angles and the players rolling with the punches.
Ah, but that manipulation cuts both ways. Consider that by being introduced to Katniss straight away and no one else we are immediately pre-disposed to rooting for her, and by being pre-disposed to rooting for her we don’t “want” anything that would ruin our “empathy” for her. (When I say “we” I, of course, am not talking about myself.) And so employing admittedly great craft, Ross never – not once! – puts Katniss in a position to square off to the death with someone that has not already been specifically established as unlikeable. Or consider the panther-y mutations unleashed by the Gamemaker at a delicate moment. This is, in theory, the Gamemaker manipulating his own game, but simultaneously it is the film working in a requisite chase scene and using that chase scene as a device to move its characters into position for the climax. This is both annoying and fascinating – Hunger Games, repeatedly, is a movie commenting on the way in which reality TV can manipulate even as the movie itself manipulates us. It’s tough but never TOO tough to prevent itself from offending its intendedly broad audience.
This cinematic seduction, however, is offset by the intent work of Ms. Lawrence. Outwardly it’s straight-forward – a young woman fighting to stay alive. Inwardly it’s uneasy and complex – a young woman who initially seems insulted by all the fakery of bloodshed posing as a pageant, learning as it goes along to embrace the fakery to assist in her hope of emerging victorious. Most impressively she doesn’t even overtly tip her hand in specific scenes as to which way she’s playing. Is she just an innocent caught up in the moment or is she the most clever manipulator of all? And if she is manipulating, can you blame her? Is it natural selection when it’s violent make believe?
The Hunger Games is, like its namesake, a souped-up game show. But Jennifer Lawrence isn’t just a contestant. She’s playing for real.
16 Comments
I thought it was a good movie. I just wished they kept the camera still for some of the dramatic and action scenes.
You know, I wound up sitting in the front row (because the theater was much more crowded than I expected for a Tuesday night) and the shaky cam didn’t affect me sickness-wise like it seemed to affect others. I wonder if there has been so much shaky cam recently that I’m just to immune to it now.
But on a filmmaking level, I think you’re right. Ross did go overboard with it.
Interesting read Nick, the film’s comment on the manipulation of reality tv seems like its most lasting conceit. I am the one person who has yet to see it yet though.
That truly was what interested me the most – a send-up of sorts of reality TV and the way it manipulates us and the way in which it seemed like Katniss was manipulating those around her.
Just seen it and I was somewhat disappointed by the movie. Having read the book, I wondered how the film would work from a more omniscient perspective and I regret that the movie didn’t stick with the Katniss perspective instead. The book could easily have translated into a movie where Katniss is on the screen 100% of the time. Jennifer Lawrence is probably the best thing about this movie anyway.
There was absolutely no need for Wes Bentley’s character or Donald Sutherland’s. There was also no need to show the District 11 suddenly starting an uprising after Rue’s death (NOT IN THE BOOK!).
I also had a big problem with all the shaky cam. It was not only aggravating but also fairly obviously a cope-out in many scenes where instead of spending creative juice to set up an action scene properly, the director just hacks his way through with shitty, incomprehensibly-edited shaky cam.
And more importantly, The Hunger Games felt watered down. Emotionally, there was very little to hold on to. Maybe the scene when Katniss hears the cannon and thinks Peeta died. Maybe the few seconds she spends with Cinna just before the game. That’s it… Rue’s death did absolutely nothing to me, the romantic relationship never was built upon, there was just little lasting emotional impact or images to be had.
In short, it’s a poorly told story, despite all the things at stakes and the potentially rich premise.
Having not the read book, I find it so interesting that they decided to pump up the Bentley and Sutherland characters. I feel like assuming they thought that would make it more audience-friendly or more comprehensible but if the books were such a success then what difference would that make? And I would have LOVED for the movie to focus completely on Katniss because I LOVE movies where the main character is onscreen the whole way (see: Chinatown). But that, too, I think could hamper its box office-ness.
And that’s really the overriding, unavoidable issue, I would imagine – box office. Gotta appeal to the masses.
I actually didn’t mind the uprising scene myself.
That was so corny! Plus it’s nowhere in the book!!!
Yeah the emotions weren’t quite up to the levels of the book though despite seeing the ‘I volunteer’ moment a fair few times in the trailer, it still got to me when watching the film. Same as you though… felt not a lot for the death of Rue. Very strange considering it was a great moment in the book.
Most of the real emotion, I thought, came from what Jennifer Lawrence BROUGHT to it herself. Not so much in the story happenings.
I think the movie went as far with the idea as it could for a teen audience.And as to your comment about Katniss not having to kill anyone sympathetic, while i understand where you’re coming from one could argue that the psycho kids would probably survive much longer than the sane kids in a situation like the Hunger games(Although i feel the actor who played Marvel managed to bring a strange mixture of vulnerability and psychosis to his character near the end). Still, it would have been nice to see her forced to kill someone more sympathetic.
I also think the shaky cam was a cop-out by Ross to make sure the movie got a PG-13 rating.Sometimes implied violence can actually have more(or the same amount) of impact as the more graphic version, but i don’t think Ross was able to find a way to accomplish that.
I also found Katniss and peeta’s relationship kind of confusing. Like i know peeta loved Katnis(Or at least i thought so), but i was never sure whether katniss ever felt the same way.
Interesting. It felt to me like while there might have been a little bit of a flicker there between Katniss and Peeta, they were mainly using each other to get what they needed. I’ve since been told, though, that the romance is played up more in the book. So maybe I was just getting a false impression. But I really felt like that’s what the movie was going for.
Yea the romance is played up more in the book. Actually, just about everything is played up more in the book
But back on topic, I think the movie did a fairly good job of portraying the romance as somewhat confusing as Julian stated. In the book, Katniss is never really sure of Peeta’s romantic intention but she tends to think it is to play the game and win the crowd.
Also, the movie showed Gale as being Katniss’ de-facto boyfriend but never in the book does she see him as more than her best friend.
I will agree without hesitation that Lawrence is easily the best thing in the entire film; she’s magnificent, very nearly matching and even topping her work in Winter’s Bone. Coming in a close second is how much the film’s themes resonate and ring true in our current political and social climate; I don’t think we can say we’re far off from Panem when we can write about the movies we love from the safety of our homes or offices while wearing clean clothes, while some people in the world don’t even have access to clean water.
The shaky cam didn’t do anything good for me, though, and while I get why Ross went that way in some scenes– it’s a clear cover-up for the kid-on-kid violence, disrupting the imagery to avoid the hard “R” this otherwise would surely have earned– it’s kind of a wasted technique here.
The shaky-cam is just so difficult to do right. And there would have been other ways, I suspect, for Ross to cover up that violence.
interesting is the word for this movie. Looking at the book reviews and seeing the movie, it was different but great! Very emotional and great scenes on the field!Another movie Im looking forward to is The Love Guide starring Parker Posey June 19th ! Love her!
Trackbacks