REVIEW: The Hunger Games
So, on Friday, I saw The Hunger Games. One of the things I found strangest about it, as an experience, was realising that I was going to get the entire plot of the book in one sitting. Granted, it took me only a couple of days to get through the first book anyway - and I know some people do so in a sitting - but there's something about the cinema lights dimming around you and knowing that, within 2 hours and 20 minutes, the entire plot will have unfolded before your eyes. I expected it to be pretty emotionally intense and I wasn't wholly wrong.
I think it survived the transition to film well. It's not as though the books are beautifully written and, at times, Katniss' POV can be a bit much. The books are full of those cringe-inducing misunderstandings so common in teen fiction which, because of their transparency, are just painful to read. Still, you also lose some of the more potent psychological drama when you step outside of that limited point of view of a girl who fears so much and who also offers a seamless delivery method for exposition. Yes, I went there.
The widening of our perspective has definite advantages in the film though: it meant they could include scenes of Haymitch talking to sponsors, Seneca Crane talking to President Snow, Gale watching the Games and all kinds of other things which Katniss could only imagine in the books. And, I have to say, the film did a really good job of making some of the peripheral characters likeable: for instance, I liked Seneca Crane (and his beard, of course, it is a thing of beauty and wonder) and they did a really good job of humanising Cato (who's, you know, a killing machine). Katniss, too, becomes more likeable. A reviewer on BBC Radio 4's Front Row called the film "adventure pornography" and pointed to its wish fulfilment qualities and I really think that comes out more when you're invited to put yourself in Katniss' shoes, rather than having her tell you exactly what it is to walk a mile in them.
It was, I think, both harder and easier to make the world of The Hunger Games sing on film. The Capitol can be created in a way which is pretty true to the books within a couple of establishing shots (though I didn't really think that the costuming was all it could have been). And I was pretty glad to lose some of the book series' moralising that went alongside the world building.
I think that the book's "moral message" was the thing which had the most interesting transformation as it hit the screens. All the stuff in the books about how body modifications are bad has gone straight out of the window and what's left is just a lot of kooky eccentrics and pretty dresses. I think that the contrast of the Capitol lifestyle with life in the districts is enough to make the Captiol residents seem silly and heartless without the book's moralising. Still, The Hunger Games is constantly in danger of becoming the spectacle the books condemn.
There's always going to be something pretty amusing about watching a book which has strong moralising tendencies regarding televised violence being turned into a display of said televised violence. Sure, it's a 12A over here (a PG-13 in America) so there's not much blood in it but we're still watching kids kill each other for fun. Maybe the audience isn't complicit in a terrible act of political oppression but it's still taking some form of pleasure in watching these characters fight to the death. I don't know, I just couldn't help but feel terribly aware that there was always going to be an extent to which The Hunger Games became a version of the thing it was decrying as it made its big screen transition and inevitably lost some of its status as a trauma narrative (though we can be sure that will be there in the sequels. groan*).
(* this groan is due to my belief that the sequels weren't much worth reading, not because I have any aversion to trauma narratives.)
Curiously, the 'reaping' felt very untelevisable (though not uncinematic) and moments like that seemed like kind of a nice reflection/rejection of the wrongness of televising the whole 'event'. But, often in this film, something seemed a little off-kilter and I'm not sure if I can attribute it all to the production design. It's unevenness is probably to do with the structue of the book.
As in the book, it takes a long time to reach the Games themselves: there are approximately 65 minutes before the actual 'Hunger Games' begin and the 'action' part of the movie takes up the next hour or so before the rather speedy (as in the book) ending comes along.
Still, I feel as though I am getting a little too critical and taking this all a little too seriously - probably because I'm currently writing an essay on a fairly similar track to this (just don't let me talk about The Hunger Games' construction of Romanness and we'll all be fine). Really, the film was enjoyable, with fun moments (the TV interviews were a stand-out here). It also retained a good amount of the book's emotional force and had a wider scope for its compassion due to the broadened perspective.
I'll be honest and say that I am not rushing to recommend it to everyone I know but, if you're intrigued by the concept or like the books, you're unlikely to be disappointed. It's good - even if I didn't find it as electrifying or memorable as it could have been. I think it might have been a better movie if it hadn't been so desperate for the 12A rating but, of course, it couldn't hope for success as a tween franchise without one.
Do feel free to comment with your 2 cents on The Hunger Games. I've read the books so no worries about spoiling me (though you might want to warn other commenters for them).
I think it survived the transition to film well. It's not as though the books are beautifully written and, at times, Katniss' POV can be a bit much. The books are full of those cringe-inducing misunderstandings so common in teen fiction which, because of their transparency, are just painful to read. Still, you also lose some of the more potent psychological drama when you step outside of that limited point of view of a girl who fears so much and who also offers a seamless delivery method for exposition. Yes, I went there.
The widening of our perspective has definite advantages in the film though: it meant they could include scenes of Haymitch talking to sponsors, Seneca Crane talking to President Snow, Gale watching the Games and all kinds of other things which Katniss could only imagine in the books. And, I have to say, the film did a really good job of making some of the peripheral characters likeable: for instance, I liked Seneca Crane (and his beard, of course, it is a thing of beauty and wonder) and they did a really good job of humanising Cato (who's, you know, a killing machine). Katniss, too, becomes more likeable. A reviewer on BBC Radio 4's Front Row called the film "adventure pornography" and pointed to its wish fulfilment qualities and I really think that comes out more when you're invited to put yourself in Katniss' shoes, rather than having her tell you exactly what it is to walk a mile in them.
It was, I think, both harder and easier to make the world of The Hunger Games sing on film. The Capitol can be created in a way which is pretty true to the books within a couple of establishing shots (though I didn't really think that the costuming was all it could have been). And I was pretty glad to lose some of the book series' moralising that went alongside the world building.
I think that the book's "moral message" was the thing which had the most interesting transformation as it hit the screens. All the stuff in the books about how body modifications are bad has gone straight out of the window and what's left is just a lot of kooky eccentrics and pretty dresses. I think that the contrast of the Capitol lifestyle with life in the districts is enough to make the Captiol residents seem silly and heartless without the book's moralising. Still, The Hunger Games is constantly in danger of becoming the spectacle the books condemn.
There's always going to be something pretty amusing about watching a book which has strong moralising tendencies regarding televised violence being turned into a display of said televised violence. Sure, it's a 12A over here (a PG-13 in America) so there's not much blood in it but we're still watching kids kill each other for fun. Maybe the audience isn't complicit in a terrible act of political oppression but it's still taking some form of pleasure in watching these characters fight to the death. I don't know, I just couldn't help but feel terribly aware that there was always going to be an extent to which The Hunger Games became a version of the thing it was decrying as it made its big screen transition and inevitably lost some of its status as a trauma narrative (though we can be sure that will be there in the sequels. groan*).
(* this groan is due to my belief that the sequels weren't much worth reading, not because I have any aversion to trauma narratives.)
Curiously, the 'reaping' felt very untelevisable (though not uncinematic) and moments like that seemed like kind of a nice reflection/rejection of the wrongness of televising the whole 'event'. But, often in this film, something seemed a little off-kilter and I'm not sure if I can attribute it all to the production design. It's unevenness is probably to do with the structue of the book.
As in the book, it takes a long time to reach the Games themselves: there are approximately 65 minutes before the actual 'Hunger Games' begin and the 'action' part of the movie takes up the next hour or so before the rather speedy (as in the book) ending comes along.
Still, I feel as though I am getting a little too critical and taking this all a little too seriously - probably because I'm currently writing an essay on a fairly similar track to this (just don't let me talk about The Hunger Games' construction of Romanness and we'll all be fine). Really, the film was enjoyable, with fun moments (the TV interviews were a stand-out here). It also retained a good amount of the book's emotional force and had a wider scope for its compassion due to the broadened perspective.
I'll be honest and say that I am not rushing to recommend it to everyone I know but, if you're intrigued by the concept or like the books, you're unlikely to be disappointed. It's good - even if I didn't find it as electrifying or memorable as it could have been. I think it might have been a better movie if it hadn't been so desperate for the 12A rating but, of course, it couldn't hope for success as a tween franchise without one.
Do feel free to comment with your 2 cents on The Hunger Games. I've read the books so no worries about spoiling me (though you might want to warn other commenters for them).