My Super-Late Thoughts on "The Hunger Games"

Yeah, I realize The Hunger Games (movie version) has been out in theaters for two and a half weeks now--but I only saw it a week and a half ago, so I'm not that far behind, by my own reckoning. I also realize that a "review" at this point wouldn't really mean much to anyone, so I'm not doing a review of the movie, per se. Instead, I'll share a few thoughts about what worked in the Hunger Games movie and what didn't work; I also want to do some speculating on what future movie installments will bring.


It probably goes without saying, but SPOILERS AHEAD!

I enjoyed the Hunger Games trilogy for a number of reasons. They were fast-paced and intense. They took place in an intriguing (if sometimes sketchily written) dystopic future. They all contained interesting moral dilemmas & sly commentary on our society's obsession with fame, violence, and entertainment. But most of all, I was a big fan of the story's narrator, Katniss Everdeen (kind of a silly name, but that goes for many characters in the books...oh well).


Katniss, to me, is the anti-Bella Swan; a girl who is tough, brave, confident, resourceful, and talented. She is not afraid to bend rules she finds unjust, if it means the survival of her loved ones. She is from a healer's family, and displays that nurturing ability on multiple occasions. She doesn't depend on a boyfriend to feel a sense of self-worth. She can also be maddeningly oblivious to the fact that two good-looking guys are crazy about her (yes, this book series also has a love triangle; thankfully, it's kept mostly as subtext).


In spite of all that, Katniss doesn't feel like a "man with breasts," as do many other "tough girls" in popular entertainment. She has moments of insecurity, fear, and dread. She secretly enjoys putting on pretty dresses for the television cameras.  She makes mistakes (sometimes big ones), and agonizes over the consequences of almost everything she does.  In short, Katniss isn't perfect, but she is compelling and sympathetic--she's real enough that you can relate to her and want her to overcome all the obstacles in her way.

thanks, CNN.com

So I was relieved when my favorite part of the books (the portrayal of Katniss) ended up being the strongest point of the film as well. Jennifer Lawrence is a very talented actress; she really nails Kat's world-weariness and distrust. However, she also sells the inner vulnerability of the character, such as her frenzied protectiveness towards her sister and mother, and her grieving over a dead Tribute during the Hunger Games. During the lead-up to the Games, you can really feel Katniss' paranoia and discomfort at the role she's been asked to play. Her relationship with fellow District 12 Tribute Peeta Mellark also feels like it grows organically throughout the film; from initial fear and hostility towards mutual appreciation, trust, and respect.


The budget for the film was apparently pretty low, and it shows; wide shots are few & far between (in fact, the film felt like it was almost all close-ups sometimes), and most of the CGI sequences are short & quickly glossed over. In addition, director Gary Ross felt the need to rely on the ol' shaky-cam a bit too often; some of the action sequences can be pretty hard to follow. As it turns out, Ross will not be directing the inevitable sequel, Catching Fire, so it will be interesting to see how the visual style changes from film to film.

However, these are minor nitpicks; and where Ross succeeds is in getting good performances out of his whole cast, not just Lawrence. All the adult actors are pretty great (Stanley Tucci as Ceaser Flickerman and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket were the stand-outs for me), and the kid/teen actors make the most of their roles, even though many of them aren't onscreen all that much. I'd heard some negative buzz about Josh Hutcherson (Peeta) before I saw the film, but I actually liked his performance! He sold Peeta as a nice guy who was in over his head on a number of levels, which is pretty much how I imagined him.


So anyway, what I'm trying to say is: I enjoyed The Hunger Games! I went to see it with a couple of girlfriends, one of whom pointed out a few inconsistencies from book to screen, many of which I hadn't noticed myself. I admit to not being a super-fan of the books (I've only read the series once all the way through), so my expectations for the film were similarly moderate. I really enjoy both book and film, I just don't think either of them are masterpieces.

However, I did notice a couple of things that might have made the film a little more understandable/palatable to people who'd never read the book before (SPOILERS SPOILERS AHOY):


1. Explain Haymitch's backstory a little better! In the book, Haymitch is the sole surviving Hunger Games champion from District 12; he's also a raging drunk and a general wreck of a human being. His character slowly transforms from a wastrel into a valuable ally; he sees Katniss & Peeta's potential and manages to pull himself together for their sakes, and for the sake of his District. I always found him one of the more interesting supporting characters in the book.


In the movie, however, it's never specified where exactly Haymitch is from; for a viewer who's never read the book, Haymitch might as well be any old Joe Schmoe from the Capitol, which makes his connection to Katniss & Peeta pretty tenuous. Woody Harrelson, who plays Haymitch in the movie, isn't terrible in the role...but he segues from "drunk passenger on a train" to "Capitol mover & shaker" a little abruptly for my liking. Here's hoping there will be room for the character to grow in the following film. 

2. More romantic tension, please. I know, I know...I just said I prefer my romance as subtext. As you may have guessed, I have little tolerance for silly love triangles. However, The Hunger Games puts an interesting spin on the romance, "forcing" it for the sake of survival. Katniss knows she has to play at being Peeta's boyfriend; it earns her more support and sympathy from the Capitol audience watching the Hunger Games on their televisions. However, she does this for maybe one scene in the film (when she's tending Peeta's wound), so it looks like a detail the film almost forgot. Oh, Peeta does a fine job expressing his unrequited love to Katniss, but Katniss herself seems barely aware of it (this could be due to either the actresses' desire to underplay it, or the director's...either way there's no romantic tension there).

from goodreads.com

In the book, Katniss plays along a lot more convincingly, which makes her inner confusion on the matter more believable. Here, it plays like she's checking an item off a list. More importantly, she never has the conversation with Peeta at story's end ("it was all just for show/I never really felt that way about you"); this provides a lot of interesting tension into their relationship going forward. Hopefully, this issue can be revisited in the sequel. I don't need tons of scenes of people moping around and talking romance, but Katniss' inner struggle with her emotions does add an important facet to the story.


3. What exactly are the Hunger Games for? To be fair, the movie does make an attempt to explain this (the propaganda film at the beginning, etc.). However, one thing the movie could have made a little more clear is that the Hunger Games are intended to pit the Districts against each other (and thus keep them from uniting against the Capitol again). The Games aren't just about entertaining the corrupt and repressing the rebels (although those are certainly important aspects); they are about poor children killing other poor children, and every District resenting every other District for the loss of their children.


While it may not be the most realistic motivation, it's definitely spelled out there in the books as a reason the Games have been so successful for so long. That's why Katniss & Rue's friendship (and her treatment of Rue after her death) are so meaningful in the books; it's the child of one District showing compassion for another, something that almost never happens during the Games. In the movie, District 11 even revolts after Rue's burial--a good indicator of what's to come; however, it may leave the uninitiated asking, "Well, why don't most Districts revolt during the Games? This is terrible stuff...how come they take it lying down all the time? What makes Rue's death so significant?" The book does a better job of answering this than the movie.


Anyway, those are my two cents. Overall, The Hunger Games is a fun movie; not a game-changer, not a triumph of cinema, but definitely a fun time at the movies. Both the book and the movie have issues, but they are minor ones that don't seriously detract from the excitement. It's my hope that the sequel will improve upon its predecessor...here's hoping the studio stresses quality over speed, and doesn't go for the quick cash grab.