The Hunger Games--3.5 out of 5 stars
If there is one thing that I refuse to watch, it's reality TV of any subject. I abhor how it taps into the base human desire to be nosey by snooping into other people's lives and how it strives to find more and more drama and tackiness to exploit ("Jersey Shore" anyone?). The "15 minutes of fame" that Andy Warhol referred to has become an epidemic.
That being said, I should have figured out that a story about a post-apocalyptic future that has a psychotic game show involving children killing each other would capitalize on that very thing. This is reality TV in the extreme.
Let me deviate for a minute here to explain the two (because there really are only two and those that get caught in the middle) film styles: realism and formalism. These film styles are polar opposites from each other. Realism strives to reproduce something as close to reality as possible without distortion. This is where you get documentaries from (and the increasingly popular shakey-cam). Formalism on the other hand distorts and manipulates images that no one would ever mistake for real (like the rose fantasy sequences in "American Beauty"). However, there can be films that blend these the two styles together in the very same film, so the line between the two styles is NOT firm. There is instead a range (with extremes on either side) of these styles.
"The Hunger Games" gravitates more towards one style than the other, but it does utilize bits of both styles. And since Gary Ross decided that his artistic adaptation of the books was going to play up the reality TV perspective of the story, he went full throttle on portraying that. He establishes a dual point of view from the very beginning that allows the viewer to see "behind the scenes" as we build up to the big show.
In taking this perspective, though, the story got trimmed of all excess background information. The background for this society and the reason why we have the games is given in a few introductory sentences that hover silently on a black screen before the viewer is tossed into a television interview with the new game master. Here is the frame for the story in the very first shot: a TV show. Now cut to a scream as one of our main characters wakes from a bad dream about this very same show, ALL shot on a shakey cam to convey that feeling of "realism" that a documentary might provide.
The shakey cam is present in almost every scene that involves action or is just trying to highlight the characters in their natural setting. The few steady shots we see are usually shots of the TV show or behind the scenes in the TV studio as they are producing the show. The additions to the story from the behind the scenes are nice to see, as they just amplify how much the capitol is controlling everything in this production. It also allows for some added perspectives from other characters that are another nice touch. Stylistically, the flip-flopping between these two styles makes a LOT of sense. However, as a viewer in the seats, it's annoying as all get out.
I'm a fan of the books and read them all. I've been waiting for quite some time to see the adaptation of these books brought to life, and all the pictures and trailers I've seen have been promising something amazing. Indeed, the costume design and the artistic touches (peacock feather and butterfly wing eyelashes!) were a sight to behold. Yet I never once thought I'd be seeing 80% of the film in shakey-cam which made it difficult to watch. I want to SEE what's going on darnnit!
That's not to say that this film was shy about showing what was happening. Just as in the books, there is a brutal blood bath at the beginning of the games where kids are killing each other with gleeful abandon and without remorse. It is in your face and terrifying. The camera doesn't look away. However, it flashes through everything so quickly with that shakey cam because it's portraying Katniss' point of view, that not much is actually shown. More of it is implied (which again is a good call as the imagination is much better at filling in the blanks and creating even more horror than could be possibly shown).
It's frustrating after all this hype and waiting to NOT be able to see a majority of the film. And what little we do see, doesn't actually show us that much. We don't get a lot of character development because the camera can only follow people in this film style. This makes things like the relationship with Peeta seems a bit rushed and unbelievable.
This isn't to say that the acting wasn't good. There were many stellar performances here. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss is stunning. Just as she did in "Winter's Bone" she portrays this stoic character with such subtle emotion that my jaw was on the floor repeatedly. She was able to insinuate the most minute movements that gave much greater depth to her character, like the tremble of her jaw that barely betrayed her terror as she was about to begin the games. I don't think anyone else could have pulled that off.
Woody Harrelson as Haymitch was also very well cast. He portrays the grief, cunning, and drunkenness of that character perfectly. Josh Hutcherson as Peeta made that character believable. Stanley Tucci managed to surprise me once again at how effortlessly he became Caesar Flickerman with all his smarminess and flash. He actually made me laugh at how dramatically he flashed his toothy smile when the spotlight hit him on stage. And Elizabeth Banks as Effie was so deliciously hate-able in her ridiculous clothes and statements like "I love that part" at the horrific propaganda film that aired right before the tributes were picked in District 12. I could go on and on. Straight across the board the characters were well cast and well acted. I didn't see a single actor or actress to complain about.
It all boils down to the artistic premise. I'm not sure it's a direction I would have chosen to go with. This is NOT the only thing this story is about. This story is NOT reality TV. Yet, because of that framework, it chisels everything down to minimal background or character development. All we have are these "15 minutes" with these characters. We have the interviews and the costumes. We have the good tidbits (the good death scenes, the good injuries) that make this story titillating and ultimately make the viewers into voyeurs akin to those in the Capitol. After all, didn't we pay to come see this "game" too?
And that is NOT a comparison that sits well with me. I adored these characters in the books and I was appalled at the shenanigans of the Capitol. I would NOT be one of the privileged who bought toy weapons for my children and laughed as they mimicked killing each other. Yet, this is the comparison the film makes with this story frame. This is why, despite my love of the story and the parts that were well done, it ultimately leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.