Based on the first entry in Suzanne Collins's popular teen lit trilogy, The Hunger Games tells the story of a futuristic America, retitled Panem, as it exists in the aftermath of a failed revolution. Panem consists of various districts, each responsible for a particular resource or industry, but the Capitol is only place that benefits from the Districts' labour. To remind the District inhabitants of their socio-political place and financial vulnerability, the Capitol hosts the annual Hunger Games as a ritualised public execution display. Two tributes are selected to represent each District in a fight to the death where only a sole survivor out of the initial 24 can claim victory.
Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) finds herself in a nearly impossible position as her younger sister Prim (Willow Shields) is selected as tribute for District 12. Almost instantly Katniss volunteers to take Prim's place, a perfectly legal arrangement; she is soon joined on stage by Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), a soft-looking young man who will become a great ally or a formidable enemy. Together they set off to the Capitol where the game makers, other contestants and Panem's President Snow (Donald Sutherland) prepare to launch the 74th iteration of the formalised culling.
This being based on teen lit and aimed at a mainly teen market, there is a love triangle in play as well, as Katniss leaves behind a childhood friend and possible romantic interest, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), as she sets off for the Games.
For most part, The Hunger Games is a competently made, involving tale of survival and propaganda in a world where centralised power serves to oppress everyone else. Jennifer Lawrence is good as Katniss, who's been touted in popular media since the film's release as a "new type of female hero", which I frankly do not see. Katniss is able to look after herself mentally and physically while acting as a surrogate mother to certain characters - didn't Ripley do all this in Aliens? In any event, Lawrence is the best thing on screen, which is good since the character is in nearly every scene. With the exception of Sutherland's small performance and some fun with Woody Harrelson as alcoholic mentor figure Haymitch, none of the actors get as much out of their characters as Lawrence does. Certainly, it is gratifying to have an active female protagonist on screen for the change, "active" at least when compared the catatonic mope-and-frown of Bella Swan in that other teen lit series.
The film has been criticised for being "obviously inspired" by the blood soaked Miike-shenanigans of Battle Royale, but the films are so different it is unfair to play the later version off of the first release. Both films owe a great deal to Stephen King's Running Man in any case. Any discussion of originality is pointless and the films are different enough to appreciate on specific levels.
The Hunger Games has some issues. On a technical level, the film has some terrible CGI, including the worst fake flames I've seen in ages, as well as some unconvincing backgrounds that make Gladiator's murky backgrounds look positively classy. Also, this is another film where much of the action is in dire need of a tripod. Too much of the action is shot and edited in such a way that you can never really see what's going on, apparently because director Gary Ross believed such shaky cam filming would result in a greater sense of urgency. It has the opposite effect.
Structurally, I found the first part of the film (before any of the real action kicks off) more compelling than the action-packed second part set during the Games. Admittedly, I may have been put off by a completely ridiculous make-up effect practiced by one of the Games contestants. Also, there are too many coincidental occurrences which altogether means that there is a main character that never really gets its hands dirty as far as the brutality of the Games is concerned. The same may have happened in the book, but the book was more successful in convincing the reader that things would work out the way it does.
Thematically, the film covers familiar ground: a rather totalitarian society divided by income and sheer physical force. This is old school Marxist stuff but it makes for fine viewing provided that you don't expect Brazil. To be sure, the book handles the theme better within its medium than the film does as a film. The target audience will watch the film for the spectacle in any case, not for its social criticism.
No comments:
Post a Comment