60 Second Movie Review: The Hunger Games (2012)
April 21, 2012 8 Comments
After finally finishing The Hunger Games book — remember books? — I allowed myself to visit the Cinemark Century Theatres in Redwood City in order to see the film. At 3 o’clock on a Thursday afternoon, no less. Because I’m a rebel.
Coming straight at you, here are my rapid reactions.
The film really cuts to the chase, opening by displaying titles on the screen explaining how the Hunger Games operate.
Effie’s condescending and cruel attitude toward the underprivileged reminds me of Barbara Bush saying that the displaced Katrina survivors massed at the Astrodome were basically lucky duckies. The two appear to share the same hairstylist and and the same sense of self-importance.
Most of the adjustments for the big screen seem to be in that vein of trying to explain the narrative to the viewer without taking us inside Katniss’ head, so they show us a lot involving the people who run and comment on the games. I didn’t recall a Guy Who Kinda Resembles Ashton Kutcher (Seneca Crane, the Head Gamemaker) playing such a large role in the book, but it does makes sense as a guide for the viewer.
To some extent it’s actually better than the book in the way that it reflects how our media is used to justify the cruelties of our economy.
I didn’t mind the toned-down violence. To have had the same level of violence on the screen as there was on the page might have been gratuitous and put us in the position of taking pleasure in the pain, which is of course a major critique of the roaring crowds in the Capitol.
On the other hand, casting an adult actresses in the lead role of Katniss Everdeen did take the edge off, not just regarding the level of cruelty, but concerning how overwhelming this journey is supposed to be for her. In the book, she’s a sixteen-year-old struggling to make sense of the transition from girl to woman (cue Britney Spears) even while fighting for her life. In the film, it’s hard to believe that Katniss and the oh-so-handsome Gale Hawthorne aren’t already playing a few rounds of “trap the squirrel,” if you know what I mean. (And I’m not sure that I know what I mean, if you know what I mean.)
The film works best at evoking the emotional moments, such as that of Katniss volunteering to take the place of her sister Primrose. I wonder how that played, though, to audience members who didn’t know the book. Were they impacted by the cues of the music, even though they didn’t have access to her internal musings? In the book, it’s about Katniss’ mental as well as physical journey, but that first component is largely missing from the film.
In the book, Katniss’ outburst against the Gamemakers conveys the fury of adolescence. In the film, it’s a character trait without additional layers. In the book, it seems obvious that Peeta is not pretending to be in love, while in the film at times it seems like a legitimate possibility. Similarly, the possibility that Katniss is in love with Peeta seems diminished in the film. This is not a critique of the actors, including Jennifer Lawrence, who blew me away with her performance in Winter’s Bone (2010).
Lawrence does everything they ask her to in The Hunger Games movie, usually playing it quiet, which is far better than going over the top.
Some of the characters appeared on film as they do in the book (Lenny Kravitz’s Cinna is instantly likeable) while others have gone Hollywood (Woody Harrelson’s Haymitch struck me as a tame Hollywood drunk).
Where I would have expected the film to excel — the action! — it actually turned a tad boring, perhaps because those sequences were written for a book, where a character’s internal musings are a bit more suspenseful. Watching Katniss cut down a hornet’s nest just isn’t as thrilling on 35mm, and the final combat scene was particularly underwhelming. Come to think of it, the slow pace in the second half of the film just didn’t work for me. I enjoyed the film, but mostly as a fairly faithful translation of the book. I doubt I would have taken to it had I seen the movie first.
Three final thoughts…
1. “May the odds be ever in your favor” should be adopted as the official motto of the New York Stock Exchange.
2. Rather than filling me with awe, the fiery entrance into the stadium by Katniss and Peeta seemed a bit silly, like it was out of an old Flash Gordon film.
3. So, has enrollment in girls’ archery classes skyrocketed nationwide?
My last movie review was of Vertigo (1958).
All of our movie reviews can be found here.
SEE ALSO
The Ink Caster: The Hunger Games Movie
magnae farmae: Official: Gary Ross says he will NOT direct Catching Fire
Spinning Top: Hunger Games: Just Another Sports Movie?
The Hunger Games: 16 Things The Hunger Games Movie Missed
My Life in My 60′s: The Hunger Games leaves me craving for more
About Matthew
I haven’t read the book or seen the film. My kid has the book, but hasn’t been enthused about reading it for some reason. I think she got through a few chapters, and then she pretty much put it aside. Appaerntly she couldn’t care less, so maybe I’ll steal it from her and see what the deal is, since I’m obviously out of the cultural loop on this one.
For me, the book picked up when the actually games began, as Collins is fairly adept at describing the action and strategy of it all. But I wouldn’t say you’re missing something vital if you sit this one out.
I hadn’t read the book, and I thought the film was pretty good. I don’t usually like teenager movies. I thought this was a lot better than the “Twilight” movie I saw. As a matter of fact, I went and ordered the book from the library and am now reading it. I was 1575 on the list! I guess people gave up on reading it after seeing the movie! I wasn’t sure about the premise, but I guess it’s mild compared to reality television.
A very unscientific sampling of people with whom I’ve spoken, who saw the movie but didn’t read the book, seem to be split in their reactions, while most of the people who read the book seem to have enjoyed the screen adaptation. That’s hilarious, that so many people gave up on waiting for the book! I think it’s probably still worth reading after watching, because the book has a lot of extra psychological stuff — all the things going on in Katniss’ head.
In the book Katniss is the only narrator. She, and we, can only speculate as to what is happening, what others are doing and why, which drives the tension of the book. The movie had to expand the roles of Head Gamemaker, President Snow and Stanley Tucci with the blue hair. It was either that or use a voice-over.
I’m glad they didn’t use a voice-over. So was my niece.
My 11yr-old niece loved, loved, loved the book. She reads a lot. She loved the movie even as she was able to break down the changes and weakness compared to the book.
The desperate search for water, Gale’s disappearance, the other loops snipped away from the story, the unnnecessary cheesiness of the fire effect, the softening of the horror of those things at the end…
She’s part of the reason I loved the movie. I also thought the film-makers did a great job considering the constraints they were under.
THG had to be PG-13. This meant the softening of some, actually all, deaths. Deaths of teenagers.
The actors playing Katniss and Peeta had to be adults. If they were minors they could work a maximum of eight hours a day, five during the school year. Working at night would be problematic.
The transition to visual filters out most of the action in the book. In the book the tension comes from Katniss’s conflicting and shifting internal state. I don’t think there’s much physical action at all unless you include trying not to starve, eating rich food, searching for water, wound treatment, figuring out the strategies of the other tributes, hiding from them… and avoiding killing them.
The biggest problem/mistake was eliminating Gale. No love triangle means no emotional maturation, no transition from girl to woman. In the book, I agree with you, Peeta’s love is real. Katniss would not agree.
I don’t know the child labor laws enough to know that Katniss and Peeta had to be adults — weren’t the Harry Potter kids underage in the first few of those movies? I suspect it was motivated more by desire to make the film PG-13, as you mention, and to not scare off the adults. They seem to have wanted to make it as mainstream as possible while not offending those who love the books, and I think they did a pretty good job at walking that line. Oh, and in the book Katniss does eventually start to wonder wonder whether Peeta’s love might be genuine, but now I’m reading the second book and we’re back to a guessing game again.
I don’t have the book anymore. My mom took it. I thought part of Katniss’s conflict was over Peeta’s motivation: Is it genuine, if it is can I use it to my advantage? Is it a trick to help him win, is it a trick to help us win? With a little bit of: What will Gale think, why should he care, why should I care?
[I think I'm remembering it accurately]
I took Peeta’s words at the platform, “One more time, for old times sake.” to be the words of a bitter, rejected teen resigned to no more kisses. Not someone who, as Katniss thinks, has been play-acting all along.
I think your characterization is correct. I had understood your earlier comment to mean that you thought Katniss was certain throughout the book that Peeta (Pee-tah, in Bostonspeak) was fakin’ it.