Hunger Games Book Series & Film Review
#DAMMIT, DISTRICT 12 #YOU DO THIS EVERY YEAR!
#THIS IS WHY WE ALWAYS LOSE
I put off seeing the Hunger Games in theaters until Sunday (I didn't want to spend more than $7 on a movie ticket, I have an appointment Saturday afternoon, etc), but I re-read the first and part of the second books in anticipation.
I can't remember what I was reading before I first began The Hunger Games, but the second time around I was coming off some primo adult lit. So to go back to YA where every detail was relentless described - the food, the clothes, what everyone looked like - it felt like Suzanne Collins was holding my imagination's hand. And while I don't think Collins is the best at stringing words together, I think she does have a knack for creating memorable characters and amusement-park ride pacing.
The thing she is worst at? Coming up with names.
I Can't Take You Seriously
If You're Going To Call Yourself That
Despite her ability to well-frame and populate her universe, Collins is really, embarrassingly bad at creating names for her characters. Katniss is two letters off catpiss, and no parent alive would consider that name without making that connection. The fact that Collins never addresses it in the books says to me she didn't want to dignify the criticism, or didn't think it was founded. I found out later that katniss is a common name for sagittaria, a type of aquatic plant whose name means "belonging to an arrow." So name-based character development, OK. But your main character's name is Catpiss. You made that decision, and thought it was a good one.
The characters are more or less named for the material their District produces or what they specialize in - Peeta works at a bakery, Thresh is a field worker, Gloss is a materials worker, etc. Sometimes it works fine (Haymitch is decent, Prim is cute), but on the whole you just wonder: What was she thinking?
The worst by far is set aside for the "muttations," because the word mutations needed some edge. It's here that I think Collins really no idea how entymology works, or how words evolve into slang. Mockingjay, the term for a hybrid bird isn't bad - but jabber jays sounds like a Pokemon. So does tracker jackers, the mutated form of a wasp.
Maybe the alliteration looks all right on paper, but it sounds awful in your head.
A Horse of A Different Color
For me, the story only gets interesting when they get to the arena. It's like a roller-coaster funhouse of action - I love getting to that point and know I can't put it down until I finish it. The first two-thirds are all window dressing until we're running around in woods, killin' or bein' killed. Before that - I don't really care for the Reality TV Show allegory because I never thought it fit with the tone of what was going on, but that dissonance is probably why it works.
The Capital tries so hard to make these children look desirable and civilized before they send them in to kill each other. As a sponsor, who I assume is the real beneficiary of the Games, you're not betting on who will win based on how good they look in evening wear or how witty they are. You're looking for skills, a resilient mindset, brute strength. Clear skin and charm won't get you far when someone's shooting at you. The implication that the sponsors would rather spend money on looks than ability is used purely to make them look frivolous, which I'll get into a little more later.
The way I understand it, when gladiators were prepped for the arena, their physical prowess and ferocity were highlighted. They were treated like animals - even after retirement, they were more showhorses than people. Their value lay in what they had done more than what they looked like.
So it's weird to me that the Capital would waste so much in resources beautifying these kids before slaughtering them anyway. I can understand some of it needed to look good on a television screen, but not to the extent it's focused on within in the story. The exaggeration of it is probably meant as a commentary, but the concentration on it through Collins's writing throws me off. She really gets into the detail of hair removal, dresses, and special effects. Even as a girl who enjoys some of those things, they aren't what's interesting or important to me in this environment.
Arguably, the reason Katniss won in the Games wasn't because she only had Peeta's spin and Haymitch's preferential treatment. The worst jams Katniss found herself in she got herself out of using her cunning and skill. She wasn't reliant on the sponsors, but she did benefit from their favor.
Though I can understand why it's alluring for the reader. Being sent off to a deathmatch is a lot more appealing if you get your fifteen minutes on the way. People like to ruminate on what it would be like if they were famous - who doesn't like to dream of being adored by millions for your personal quirks? And The Hunger Games dives deep into that fantasy with a big fat counterweight of having to kill and likely be killed to know that fame. It indulges and unlocks some of our fears of celebrity - the ruthlessness that a person must cultivate to survive stardom.
Beyond the ridiculousness of the Death Pageant, the other big qualm I have with the series is how:
The Capitol is Cartoonishly Evil
What always struck me about the Capital was it's similarity to the Emerald City. Everyone dresses in bright, outlandish colors, acts simperingly ridiculous, and has absolute faith in their Great and Powerful Leader. It's an extreme, but it never felt realistic next to the rural folksiness of coal-mining Appalachia (though there's something to be said for Katniss being an ass-kicking Dorothy).
Now what galls me is the fact that Panem apparently understands "Bread and Circuses" keep people happy and non-revolutionary, but for some reason chooses to endlessly punish the Districts in order to remind them not to rebel.
Issue #1: You Know Who Doesn't Rebel? Happy People
Wouldn't it be better to integrate the Districts into Panem so there's not an Us VS Them mentality away from the Capital? I don't mean make it all one District, but make the Districts understand they're a valued part of the system even if they're not rewarded for it beyond lip service (and don't do The Hunger Games, obviously).
The Capital isn't going to put revolution out of a citizen's mind by continually reminding them of it. Creating an event celebrating their loss and continually penalizing them for it is going to make the Districts feel divisive from you and more likely to rebel. Watching their victors win a battle to the death makes them think they, too, might have a chance in a fight.
Issue #2: Why You Gotta Be Trying To Kill Katniss All The Time?
You know how to make Katniss less of a threat? Undermine her credibility. Not with fire or bombs or made up rules. Falsify evidence she's colluding with the Capital as a spy on the rebels. Make her seem like she's gained something from betraying her ideals. For a system that's able spin murderer to Victor they do nothing to Katniss to make her seem unlikable. They definitely woud have more to benefit from the Districts disliking her because then killing her would be a boon to their own PR. Concurrently, we as readers would be enraged at seeing Katniss portrayed so erroneously.
I hated Dolores Umbridge x1,000,000 times more than I hated Voldemort, and from what I've seen I'm not the only one. Yes, Voldemort killed Harry's parents and his regime killed his godfather - but Umbridge? She got under the my skin because she was trying to manipulate what I thought.
The issue is that the Hunger Games villains have no deeper psychology than just being punitive bullies. The Capital exists solely to be a bad guy who does despicable things - the Goliath to Katniss's David. There's a line in the film: "The only thing more powerful than fear is hope. A little hope is good, too much is dangerous." Then why aren't you using it right.
This seems like an attempt to revise the stance of the Capital, that they're not just doing this for entertainment/punishment, but to distract the Districts from collusion with one another. But once again, thrusting a District's prowess into the spotlight and reminding them not to rebel is going to keep that possibility at the forefront of their mind. Revolution was always going to be certainty.
I can concede the events of the 74th Annual Hunger Games were unusual, as an underdog won where usually the well-fed and well-trained were winners. But the nature of them Games and the fact they're televised live make it difficult to control the outcome. Scrappy upstarts had won before, Katniss and Peeta weren't really revolutionary in that. It was the timing an apparent unrest in the other Districts.
Maybe this is Villainy 201, but the lack of depth in the villains really undermines the tension. I'm not invested in the seeing the villain defeated because I don't have any strong opinions about them.
And None For Peeta Mellark
Another thing that bothered me was how little attention was focused on Peeta. And I don't mean the reader or Katniss, but the Capital. He was the attractive, lovesick boy playing to the crowd - they should have loved him a million more times than ever-stoic Katniss. Katiness was the more fearsome competitor but outside the arena she would have been insufferable. And yet - nothing for Peeta. No sponsers, no fanclubs - all throughout the series he does these amazing PR moves and the reader is never told anyone else gives a shit about him. Peeta Mellark is awesome, and goddamnit - he is trying! The way he reads as Katniss's Ken doll gets under my skin. He's worth more than just what she sees in him.
And from what I'm seeing on Tumblr, I'm not the only one stanning for him:
SHIT SON be cool man be cool they don’t have your photo man they don’t know you maybe that kid could be Peeta I mean it’s a common ass name I ain’t got nothing to worry about I’m inconspicuous as fuck deep breaths deep breathing fuck fuck fuck
maybe it’ll be a bake off
But How Did You Like The Movie?
I... wasn't in love with it.
I'm the Squidward in this scenario
It wasn't bad, but if I happened upon it on TV I wouldn't pay close attention to watching it.
I didn't like the cinematography - everything was either super drab and washed out (District 12/the Arena) or nauseatingly tacky (the Capital). I think the second aesthetic was done on purpose to make the Capitol elite look foolish, but it still isn't something you want to spend your time staring at. Peeta's rock make-up was fantastic (shout out to Ve Neil and Face/Off: Season One Winner Connor!), though Seneca Crane's beard was the best thing aesthetically and it's sad to think that's not going to show up in later films.
Weirdly, I feel like the story itself works better as a book. Many other reviews say it's better as a film, but I think there's one glaring flaw. In the book, you're inside Katniss's head and so her perspective guides you through, gives you clues how to feel about characters, and keeps you from being bored during the long stretches when she's just running around the woods. As the reader's avatar, you can understand and empathize with Katniss's priorities and disdain for the nonsense going on around her. I love book!Katniss to death because I understand her emotions and where she's coming from.
In the movie, I couldn't get any sort of read on Katniss and it alienated me from her character. Jennifer Lawrence's performance is solid and captivating, but I don't think she was given a range. We know how she feels about Rue and Prim, but her confusion about Peeta, the heart of the story, is never really obvious. We get the feeling she's ambivalent toward him, then sort of protective, then furious, then apologetic, then ambivalent again, than conspiring with him, and finally... question mark. We don't know how she feels and as an audience, it eventually slides into indifference. In later films we may see this as their romantic beginning, but for now that ambivalence prevails.
As for Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark, he's amazing. Can't say enough good things about him. He is the emotional core of the story the way he wears his heart on his sleeve and wants to engage almost everyone he meets. You really like him and want Katniss to recognize how great he is.
The other adults characters - Lenny Kravitz as Cinna and Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket were competent but not standouts. Stanley Tucci as Ceasar Flickman is fun, but when he shows up outside an interview or TV screen he's almost invasive. I didn't like that they would switch from Exciting Arena Action! to two candy colored men providing analysis. They didn't do it often enough for the gimmick to flow well. But Woody Harrelson as Haymitch was actually a lot of fun to watch - he played drunk really well, and was funny, acerbic, sympathetic, and smart.
Donald Sutherland is a very thoughtful and subdued President Snow, which I think they did well to portray him as. As the face of villainy for the series, you can never quite tell what he's thinking but you know he's exceptionally aware of what's going on.
Little Rue was such a treasure, but the movie felt like it really rushed through her plotline. She was cute and twee and then she was dead. The rioting that came after her demise felt forced, too. Maybe it was the last straw, but the way it happens with a bunch of dudes standing around in the square and then messing up the offices came off as scripted, made for film.
Prim, too, kind of surprised me. When she teared up during her goodbye with Katniss I was genuinely moved. Though I generally don't like characters who don't have any other function in a series to be a character's emotional touchstone. We understand that Prim is cute and sweet, but aside from Katniss liking her the audience don't have any independent reason to see her as important or worth living for. We're supposed to equivocate that protective emotion with someone else in our lives we love deeply and would do anything for, but it doesn't translate well without more of a touchstone.
Much of the rest of the kid cast went from unremarkable to 'cast-for-looks-over-acting-ability.' (whoever that girls with the knives was awful). Cato would have been interesting if I could have understood what he was saying at the end, and the chatter of the kids as they hunted Katniss was theater-camp level lame improvisation.
From the beginning of the series I'd been trying to figure out how the arena worked - were they indoors or outdoors? Were the cameras in satellites or millions of lenses hidden everywhere? The way the movie did it was to make the arena an indoor area (the ceiling is fake, I'm not sure how they're going to get that to work for the second film), which makes me wonder if they built the arena around a current landscape and inserted the cameras/traps or implanted all of it - plants, rocks, rivers. It seems to me like a giant waste of resources to build all those cameras and traps and then set them on fire for funsies, but you know - oppressors gotta be oppressen'.