Hunger Games

Apr 07, 2012 12:07

I saw The Hunger Games last night and thought it was...okay. In general I thought the beginning part was stronger, before they got to the games. After that there were a number of things that didn't seem to translate so well on screen. Sticking in my thoughts under the cut, both on the books and the movies. Spoilers for the movie, and possibly for ( Read more... )

books, hunger games, movies

Leave a comment

Comments 22

violaswamp April 7 2012, 17:20:42 UTC
I know some people were glad that the bread gift didn't show up, because they thought that it was a textbook example of a white girl getting special kudos for showing minimal decency to a character of color. I take your view of things, though, because in The Hunger Games, minimal decency isn't so minimal. Minimal decency between those oppressed by the Capitol is precisely what the Capitol is trying to destroy. It takes their conquered vassals' children and makes them kill each other. Under those circumstances, Katniss's solidarity with Rue, and District 11's solidarity with Katniss, and Thresh's sparing of Katniss's life, all have a real and politically threatening importance. (This is followed up in Catching Fire, with Peeta's offer of part of his and Katniss's winnings to the families of Rue and Thresh). None of these are minimal gestures anymore. In a "game" where you're trying to kill each other, kindess, loyalty and a proper burial are no longer basic ( ... )

Reply

sistermagpie April 7 2012, 18:13:15 UTC
That's the way Peeta came across to me too. Basically, I felt like there were a lot of problems raised by the situation, but that Collins tried to address them, particularly with Peeta being self-aware about how what he wanted wasn't necessarily what he was entitled to. I remember really liking when he apologized for sulking about Katniss having played up for the cameras because honestly, what could she do ( ... )

Reply

violaswamp April 7 2012, 18:35:44 UTC
Oh, yes, totally agreed on projecting the real-world situation onto an explicitly different fictional reality. Reading Katniss as "wanting to be childfree" ignores that she is actually AFRAID of having children because she's afraid of what the Capitol might do to them. The belief that she won't have children comes out of fear, not out of what she wants. That background reality makes her decision to have children an attempt to move past her fear and despair, and a sign that she actually did help create a better world. It's not remotely the same as, say, a female character in a book set in modern-day America who initially wants to be a childfree doctor but later settles down and has lots of baybeez after meeting the right man.

Not only is there no mention of Peeta pestering Katniss (it says he wanted kids, not that he badgered her at all), but Katniss also chooses to be with Peeta largely because he's the kind of nurturing person who would want kids, and because he gives her hope that maybe her future won't be horrific and that ( ... )

Reply


effervescent April 7 2012, 17:31:23 UTC
For the tvs thing - idk, I actually think that the Capitol wouldn't care. They'd probably even take pleasure out of being able to punish the citizens for not watching if they became too poor to have access to something that they can watch them on.

I think for the movie audience (especially those who haven't read the books) the riot will get across the point more effectively than the bread, to be honest. They have the moment with the salute at the beginning, which we already know as viewers is something the citizens share with each other from when Katniss was leaving her District. Then the riot shows the idea that people are angry and ready for a rebellion, ready for change if they can just join behind someone who can serve as a figurehead, whether willing or not. In the book we're so much inside Katniss' head that stuff that seemed really important in reading fails to communicate effectively on the big screen unless it's given enough time.

Reply

sistermagpie April 7 2012, 18:17:02 UTC
I was reminded above that Katniss's family has a battered TV--which would have been enough for me. I think what I found jarring was just that the way it was set up it didn't look so much like a TV show so I felt like the reality show aspect wasn't coming across. But now that you put it that way, I think you're right that probably the capitol is more interested in the richer people following it that way than the poorer districts, since they aren't buying into that narrative to begin with.

I do think the riot in itself was okay, I just felt like it seemed more linked to Rue's death than Katniss honoring it. I mean, they are absolutely already ready for a change, but I felt like this way went a little too far over to the side of it just being that without Katniss being much of a figurehead. But then, like I said, that was such a favorite moment of mine that I was bound to be hard to please if they changed it for something else.

Reply

tamerterra April 7 2012, 18:57:25 UTC
I think that the timing implied that it was due to the show of respect (I haven't read the books) - if it was just because she was dead, then it would have happened before the burial, but it was only when Katniss gave the salute that the expression on that man's face changed from 'Rue is dead, and we expected that, and it's sad but that's life' to 'this girl in the middle of it all cares, we can show that we care too, and this shouldn't be just how life is'.

Reply

sistermagpie April 7 2012, 19:39:08 UTC
I think I might be oversensitive to it since I liked the book version so much. I'm glad to hear that other people saw it differently because I really want it to work! The person I saw it with didn't even get that we were looking at District 11 (even though it even said it) so I might be too worried about people missing it.

Reply


valis2 April 8 2012, 15:06:09 UTC
I did not read the books, but I saw the movie, and can honestly say that I was not really moved by Rue's death. Partially because I was expecting Rue to be a ruthless character, I think. I had no idea what to expect, and I assumed that all of the other kids just wanted to be the winner, and I saw Rue as possibly being calculating. I thought she might be part of a trap, and I didn't get it until after she died that she was actually a good character.

I loved the costuming and the concepts. I absolutely loved when Effie was on the stone podium during the Reaping, wearing those ridiculously high heels and fashions, and is literally teetering on the edge as Katniss walks up the steps. There were some really well-done moments.

But I could absolutely tell overall that the emotional underpinnings of the story had been condensed. There was not much of a connection for me emotionally. I liked the world that had been constructed, and the images, but I just think they didn't have enough time to really set up its heart.

Reply

sistermagpie April 8 2012, 23:29:41 UTC
Interesting! And that makes sense, really, because the whole point is that everyone needs to be playing a deep game. Katniss can rely more on her physical prowess, but it's stated more than once that mental games come up too. In fact, in a later book we meet at least one past winner who won by doing something similar. Also Rue's death is the way Katniss avoids having to make a choice about killing her or not. They're both aware that one of them will have to die (at least) even while they're being friendly to each other.

I'd be interesting to hear what you thought of the books if you happened to read them, to see if they were more emotionally engaging to you.

Reply

valis2 April 8 2012, 23:44:17 UTC
I did notice that she did not have to kill any "friendly" characters in the movie--is it like that in the book as well?

Reply

sistermagpie April 9 2012, 00:01:12 UTC
Yes, I think the deaths in the movie and book are all the same. And of course Peeta doesn't have to kill anyone--though the book makes more of a point of remarking on how he killed Foxface by accident.

Reply


horridporrid April 8 2012, 21:09:49 UTC
I actually liked how they changed the reaction from District 11 over Rue's death. For some reason I thought the three-finger salute was a District 12 thing (I have no idea where I got that from -- possibly my own head?) so that the viewers in District 11 responded to Katniss's gesture that way seemed like districts linking together in a way the Capitol is actively trying to prevent. And then it looks like their riot is actually going somewhere and then of course the Capitol's higher tech and weapons shuts it down and meanwhile, Kantiss has no idea what she's sparked and is crying by herself in the woods. Would not have worked in the books, of course ( ... )

Reply

sistermagpie April 8 2012, 23:34:38 UTC
In the book, iirc, the three fingered salute was a District 12 thing--one that was a bit antiquated and not used much, but they used it when Katniss volunteered because it required a special show of respect. Which is also why Katniss uses it ( ... )

Reply


black_dog April 8 2012, 22:54:20 UTC
I haven't seen the movie yet but I read the book just last week, so it's very interesting to get hints about how the movie handled things differently. Looking forward to seeing it.

I think you're absolutely right about Rue's death and the bread scene in the book -- That's exactly the kind of connection the games are trying to destroy. Violaswamp's comment is dead-on-target as well -- the idea that the Capitol rules by specifically breaking down solidarity and connections between people, that gestures of solidarity are radically threatening to them, seems central to the book. The games seem to be set up to torment the participants on exactly this point -- cooperation is necessary in the middle-stage of "play," and then the spectators have the perverse pleasure of watching former allies eventually turn on each other. The changing rules about partners from the same district seem intended as a further refinement of cruely. And of course, although we remember Katniss' wonderful gesture with the berries at the end of the games, there ( ... )

Reply

sistermagpie April 8 2012, 23:40:16 UTC
There is a bit of a contrived romantic triangle...but luckily Katniss doesn't care much about it, especially once you get to the contrived danger thing coming up ( ... )

Reply

black_dog April 9 2012, 00:11:12 UTC
Oh cool, I'm looking forward to your post about Peeta. Nice to have media in common again! Seeing as I'm usually so out of touch it's lucky I can speak the same language . . .

And I can completely see Katniss just shrugging off all the annoying hype re: Peeta. Though on principle, I still think she should have checked him out when she had the chance, I mean, who knows? :)

I re-checked the berry scene: it's interesting that although Katniss fully considers the significance of the act, it's actually Peeta who tells her to "hold them out" so everyone can see. I love the complexity of Katniss' calculations, here awareness of the game she has to play, defying the Capitol but retaining deniability.

Good to know about Catching Fire. Hooray for contrived danger!

Reply

sistermagpie April 9 2012, 00:17:56 UTC
I'd forgotten that Peeta said that! Which fits for him---he's the one who's really savvy at playing the audience that way. He started the fake romance story, so it fits he'd tell her to hold it up.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up