Twenty four kids left in an Old Country Buffet, only one will make it out alive. The new hunger games next on
Sick, Sad World
In the Hunger Games, based on the first in a series of three novels (The Hunger Games, Catching Fire and Mockingjay) by Suzanne Collins, sometime in the future, several of areas in the United States revolt and a civil war ensues. The Government puts the rebels down, and, as punishment, every year, the twelve districts that fought against the government are required to choose one boy and one girl, ages 12-18, to compete in the hunger games. There, the children battle each other to the death until only one remains.
That is the story I gleaned from the film, although, if I got some details wrong, don't blame me, because the film wasn't too interested in delving into the world it was creating. The Hunger Games is far more interested in the hunger games than anything else. That is the first of my two major problems with this film. One of the two issues that prevent anything more than a very conditional recommendation.
As the first in what should be four films (Mockingjay will be split into two films, as is popular to do these days), you would reasonably expect that the first film would take the time to establish the world in which the story takes place. You would be expect a society that watches children battle to the death for entertainment would at least receive some reflection, if not by the members of high society themselves, at least by those who are forced to lose children and brothers and sisters, to the games. Heck, maybe even the combatants might have some thoughts on the matter, but not here. These issues are only given only the most cursory acknowledgement, and then it is off to the games. The filmmakers seem to be able to accept teenagers killing each other for the world's enjoyment. Imagine Blade Runner where, after a few establishing shots, you have Deckard chasing replicants in the woods, and you have a rough idea of what happens in the Hunger Games.
It is unfortunate, because this is inexcusable for a dystopian sci-fi world to ask us to root for the hero as she engages in the killing of other children, and not even acknowledge the obviously disturbing elements of its story. But the film is even more gutless than I have let on. The Hunger Games has a bad case of the "PG-13's". This film's many action scenes (especially one that takes place during the beginning of the games) are visually incomprehensible. The reason is simple, if you could actually see the 16 year old slit the throat of the 12 year old, you would be very bothered by that image and the film would garner a "R" rating. Wait, you mean that the concept of teenagers killing each other for sport is disturbing? This film is afraid of facing the ideas that it presents. They don't want you to be freaked out by what you are seeing so they go out of their way to make sure you don't think about what is really happening. Imagine Lord of the Flies where you aren't suppose to find the concept of children degenerating into savages disturbing, and you have a rough idea of what happens in the Hunger Games.
Now, my wife, who has read the books, assures me that the social-political story avoided here is important in the next two stories. That's great and all, but that still doesn't excuse this film. There is also the problem that the series will (most likely) never be able to shake it's PG-13. That means this series will never be able to fully explore the promise of its ideas. I know that the books are young adult fiction, and that an "R" rating will eliminate its main audience, but that makes it hard for a film to live up to its ideas when they are as brutal as the ones presented here. Maybe the next stories are far shorter on violence.
There are two films that popped into my head while writing this. First is the Truman Show. That is a film about a man who was raised in a TV show, where he was being watched by the whole world without having any idea about what was happening. It deals with a similar concept of watching the innocent and helpless for entertainment, but Truman is much more direct in dealing with the issues that it presents. It also has an insidious undercurrent, pointing out similarities between those watching Truman in the film, and those of us watching the movie. In short, it doesn't shy away from its premise.
The other film that I was thinking of is maybe the greatest film ever made about a dystopian future, Alfonso Cuaron's masterpiece, Children of Men. No other film has succeeded in creating a living, breathing future gone-to-hell better. It doesn't hurt that Alfonso Cuaron is a brilliant director and that it's cinematographer is Emmanuel Lubezki, one of the great directors of photography, but Children of Men does a better job setting up its world in the first two minutes than The Hunger Games does in its two-and-a-half hour running time. The other relevant point is how differently Children of Men deals with violence. There are two murders in this film that are as devastating, and as devastatingly violent as any I have ever seen. They don't glorify it and they don't relish in it. They are extremely hard to watch, and they should be. Watching the whitewashed teenage slaughter of the Hunger Games just feels like such a copout of what could have been a searing concept. Maybe it would be possible to do justice to their concept with a PG-13, but the Hunger Games doesn't find a way.
To look at the Hunger Games from a craftsman's level, it is competently put together. It moves relatively well, and does a fair job generating suspense. There are some obvious plot devices and an unconvincing romantic subplot that I found obvious and unbelievable. If there is one part of the Hunger Games that is hard to find fault with, it is the acting. Jennifer Lawrence is terrific carrying the lead role, being both a convincing emotional and physical presence. I wish the film had followed through on its potential, because she deserves a better picture to lead. The other acting highlight is Woody Harrelson, who livens up any party he is invited to.
The fact is that this is still a fairly entertaining movie, despite its failure, or rather its unwillingness to follow through on its intense concept. If you can tell your brain to stop noticing the issues this film sets up and then goes out of its way to ignore, it is a decent film.
**** for straight entertainment value
** for failure to address its issues
*** (out of *****) overall
Jennifer Lawrence has definitely come on as one of the more interesting actresses of our generation. Not the best, but she imbues Katniss with a humanity, toughness, and vulnerability that frankly would have been lacking otherwise. I appreciate that she actually added some depth that unconvincing romance. It seemed to me and my fiancee that she didn't love him; she liked him, but basically turned it "on" for the cameras so both of them could get out. If they are indeed meant to be a couple, and the future movies develop a love triangle, I think I'll lose all interest, but the idea of her using him as a device to save him, save herself, and also give the proverbial finger to the game itself is a good idea.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, though, I agree with your assessment. The PG13 rating is a disservice to such material, and from what I understand the books are more violent, so I don't know that citing the "Young Adult" genre justifies the need to try and essentially "edit around" the violence... This reminds me of something Oliver Stone said when NATURAL BORN KILLERS kept getting slapped with an NC17 despite multiple cuts for the MPAA: "They kept saying it was too violent. Not bloody or gory, but the imagery - the visual style - was too violent. Well, yes - that's the point! We're making a movie about violence, of course it's violent! What else do you want to talk about?"
I also found the cinematography distracting. At times, it worked, but for the most part the nonstop handheld just made the geography of the action - even simple action, like walking around - incomprehensible. The editing was nice, though - the film moves pretty briskly.
In the end, THE HUNGER GAMES is different than I expected. In some ways better, in some ways worse. I was concerned, for instance, that the bulk of the film would be about a love triangle of three people I hate... well, I like Jennifer Lawrence, and the third guy is barely in the movie, so that wasn't a problem. The action was fairly disappointing, as it was hard to tell what was really going on. Also, the band of merry murderers were annoying. I get that there probably are, indeed, people who would actually ENJOY playing a game like this, but I still found their reactions unbelievable. Too jubilant. Another thing I liked is actually how little time was spent on the actual "game." I expected an action movie with a little bit of set up, but a bulk of the film takes place in the city, not the jungle. I agree that the world is not particularly well developed (other than lavish costumes, I got little sense of how these people really lived), but I respect the attempt.