Film: The Hunger Games

That facial expression? Get used to it.

The Hunger Games - 2012, Directed by David Ross, Written by Suzanne Collins, 12A  
Written 25/3/12
"May the odds be ever in your favour."

On Sunday, I went with some friends to see The Hunger Games, a film that is getting a crap-load of good marketing right now. Hailed as the new Twilight, the film promised to mix great teen drama with actual themes like the rich/poor divide and the superficiality of modern society. And if it had done that, I would not be writing this review.
     The Hunger Games is an adaptation of the first in a trilogy of books, written by Suzanne Collins. It concerns a futuristic vision of America called Panem that is split into twelve "districts" of varying economic status and the central Capitol, whose elite residents control the wealth and power of the other districts. In remembrance of the quashing of the districts' past rebellion, two young people are taken from each district and forced to participate in a televised fight for the death in a Truman-esque dome. Katniss Everdeen (Hereafter Catnip) is from the rundown District 12, and volunteers to help save her sister from being chosen.
     At The Hunger Games' core, there is a set of very interesting and very relevant ideas trying to burst out. There are varying comparisons to modern America's perception of shows like American Idol and the X Factor, trading admiration for freedom from public humiliation. There was also some biting political reference to the 1% controlling the 99%, which is an important issue the world over. But that had to be channelled through the characters and through the medium, and that just didn't measure up to the standard that it had set for itself. The background inklings of this themology was there but it never got a chance to really shine through, and when it did it didn't correlate with the foreground action.

Catnip, Peeta and The Facial Expression.

     I was told by one of my friends, who have actually read the series, that Catnip's major personality trait is a staunch will and a sombreness inherant in her life that made it difficult for her to smile. This, I can clearly say, did not translate through to screen, and it simply appeared as if Jenniffer Lawrence was emanating Keanu Reeves' acting repetoire with her single facial expression. And even with this in mind, I didn't get, "stony and resolute" from her performance, I got "stony and wooden." This may have worked in the Arena scenes in which she was fighting for her survival, but in the exterior scenes where she had to win over both her friend and the population of the Capitol, she just doesn't come across as a likeable character.
     One of the things that people have been comparing to Twilight are the hints of a love-triangle between the central female protagonist and the weak pretty guy (Peeta) and the rustic strongman (Gale). These characters never met, and thus this didn't materialise, despite a few romantic overtones. These romantic overtones were channelled into the thematic aspect, being manipulated by the team as a PR device to get the public to route for District 12's fighters. For me it felt too little too late - there was no real representative of what the average Joe got out of the Games in the first place, and setting up a love-story wouldn't change that. The Hunger Games seems to forget the brutality of its own premise.
     However, there were some characters who shined above the rest. Stanley Tucci played an extravagent blue-haired show-host presenting the Games, and provided some of the film's best satire and comic relief. On the heroes' side was endearing past-winner Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), whose initial apathy fell away into a noble character that felt a lot more warm than our protagonist. Other than this, a lot of the characters fell into single dimensions. The "evil" alliance of teens in the Games stripped the situation of any moral ambiguity. The President of the Capitol punished his underlings without consideration for future action. The cute little girl had to die, if only to squeeze as much out of the scenario as possible. That last one really got me, because The Hunger Games spent so little time really lamenting the Games' potential for suffering that the death of this character, who we'd seen for a maximum of five minutes, didn't really hit me as much as they wanted it to.
     There were a few other nitpicks, especially in the details of this dystopian future. Why are there no guns? Why do the poorer areas of the US look like they're pre-Civil War, and yet everyone has a television? Why does the international community not care about this brual totalitarian regime? How does the world of The Arena work? How were the makers of the show able to conjure creatures out of midair? Why does anyone watch this damn show? If you compare this to Pleasantville, director David Ross's previous effort and one of my favourite films, it covers up these details in a really competant way. They weren't vital to the film, but they did take me out of it.
     David Ross's direction seemed to take an odd turn here, and while it was quite proffessional for most of the time, there were long stretches where he employed shaky cam. This is a clique in Hollywood born in The Blair Witch Project, one that really, really needs to die. The first 20 minutes of the film can at times be nigh unwatchable due to the weird cuts and shaky cam, and it adds absolutely nothing to the film except a migraine. Elsewhere, the same technique is used to disguise really shoddy fight choreography and keeping things at a PG-13 rating.
     And yet. I still enjoyed myself, and I'd still see both the sequels. Why is a very difficult question to answer. Likely, it was because I see potential in what The Hunger Games trilogy can do, and because I loved the rich aesthetic. The aesthetic was highly deriviative and didn't make much sense, but it was still incredibly modern and the time spent in the capitol was a lot more interesting from a science-fiction point of view than the incredibly repetitive running through the same stretch of jungle. Regardless of what I think of the film's characters or message, this is a very beautiful film in both its grand set-pieces and in its visual depiction of the human race.
     The Hunger Games is deeply flawed in several places, and it feels more embryonic than it really should. But I'd still reccomend you go and see it, because at its heart it's a story with a lot of potential. The action stuff in the Arena wasn't for me, but it has captured the hearts of many others and I'm sure that things will have improved by the sequel, Catching Fire, in November. It's sad to see such potential go to waste from the director of one of my favourite films, but I can only hope that the more political sequel will remove any comparisons with prior works and allow Suzanne Collins' trilogy to really stand out.

Thanks.