The odds are in favor of The Hunger Games

DISCLAIMER: Spoilers abound here. Why are you surprised?

DISCLAIMER #2: I read the book first, so this review will in fact be looking at the film through that lens – but it will NOT be dedicated to dissecting and/or complaining about the differences between page and screen. Just FYI.

Ok. So, I finally saw The Hunger Games with my sister last night. I’m still reeling a little bit, for a lot of reasons. First off, let me say this: The Hunger Games is one of the strongest adaptations of a book to the big screen that I have seen in a very long time. The writers, director, and cast could have tried (and probably succeeded) in dumbing down Suzanne Collins’ fine YA novel into the next Twilight Saga (read: a big-budget cash cow with little to no substance under the hood). But they didn’t. The film is, for the most part, an unflinching adaptation of a grim, sometimes very dark, dystopian future  story that is also one of the more original concepts to be put to page in the last few years. Is it perfect? No. But it stands head and shoulders above many other movies in the multiplex.

Let’s jump right in. As I’ve already mentioned, this movie is very faithful to the source material of Suzanne Collins’ YA novel, and that is a very good thing.

 I say that as both a fan of the book and (as my friends will tell you) a notoriously picky film geek. If I think something is poorly written or adapted, I will say so with the fury of a thousand very small, but very angry, suns. This is not the case here. The script is strong, standing solidly both as an adaption and as a film script. The dialogue is tight and believable in almost every instance, and the story kept me fully focused for the entire run time.

[Sidenote: it’s worth pointing out that the Hunger Games has a run time of almost 2 ½ hours, which is a rarity for films in general these days, and especially for movies targeted toward a teenage demographic. The movie never dragged, and almost every minute was well spent.]

           

            The casting director here should be commended. At first, when I heard about some of the names being mentioned, I was a little hesitant. [Sample inner monologue: “Lenny Cravitz? What the what? Who’s idea was that? Isn’t he as singer with an afro or something? Why is he playing Cinna?”] Some of the minor characters, such as the Tributes from District 1 and 2, were unfortunately one-dimensional, portrayed like the nastiest of high-school bullies (but with weapons). That’s not necessarily the fault of the actors, but still, I felt that it took away from what was otherwise a very fresh palate of characters.

The one performer I was behind from the beginning was Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. I saw her feature debut a few years ago (The atmospheric Winter’s Bone, in which she gave a gripping performance, well worth checking out if you haven’t already) and had been looking forward to more from her ever since. Here, she stands and delivers as Katniss, doing a fine job bringing a young, complex character to life onscreen on every level. I’m also going to take half a second here and laugh in the faces of those critics who attacked Lawrence for looking “too fat” or “well-fed” on screen. Does stupidity know no bounds? Comments like that are ignorant, foolish, and have no place anywhere in the public spectrum, let alone in the film criticism community.

Carrying on! The single major issue I did have with the film was its cinematography. Much of the film was shot with handy-cam, following the trend of recent years. This is the biggest misstep of the entire production. It noticeably diminishes our perspective on the world we’ve been transported into, and that’s not a good thing. Major scenes are meant to introduce us to the world of District 12, where Katniss lives; the Capitol, the grand seat of the tyrannical government that organizes the Games; and the Gaming field itself. Instead, we get treated to tight, shaky camera angles and flashes of imagery that could have been turned into spectacular tracking shots used to show us the world these characters are inhabiting. In my opinion, the style is a real missed opportunity that should not have been overlooked. Doing so diminishes the power of the world we’re being asked to inhabit for 2 ½ hours. I’m torn on the use of handy-cam during the Games themselves, if only because I wonder if the style is meant to help us see the chaos through the characters’ eyes – flashes of movement, battle and blood that they cannot afford to let their eyes linger on, because they need to worry about surviving. If this was the goal, it wasn’t used consistently enough to really make its point, and in any case, it should not have been used in the first hour and a half of the movie, before we entered the actual arena.

A second, admittedly more personal and minor problem I had with the structure was [SPOILERS in case you missed that warning the first time] the added scenes with the Gamemakers. For me, part of what made the novel so engrossing was that, after the Games begin in earnest, we know nothing about what is happening outside of the arena. We are placed in the same situation as Katniss and Peeta, having to watch them rely entirely on their own smarts and skills, in a territory that is as unfamiliar and dangerous to them as it is to us. Here, we’re treated to scenes of the Gamemakers sitting at their digital tables, conjuring up the next challenge for the Tributes. This seriously affects the pacing of the film, and not in a good way. First of all, the audience always knew what was coming before the characters did. This meant that any element of the surprise and dangerous mystery of the arena was taken away. Second, the contrast between the madness of the arena and the calm tranquility of the Gamemakers chamber sounds like a good thematic contrast in theory, but in practice, it was like hitting the emergency brake on a high-speed train every five or ten minutes for what ended up feeling like no good reason.  

Except to look at the Head Gamemaker’s beard.  Total facial hair jealousy. I wish my facial hair grew in wildly badass curlicues like his.  

I spoke to a friend of mine that saw the movie before I did, and one thing that she mentioned was surprise at the fact that the movie only got a PG-13 rating, because of the amount of violence in it. After seeing it for myself, I’d have to agree with her. Not because this is the most violent PG-13 movie I’ve ever seen (far from it) – but because literally all of the violence had to do with children and teens.

My stomach was in knots at points during the movie, especially during the death of Rue (at least partially because she reminded me strikingly of a friend of mine at school). I now understand completely why my mom saw this movie and hated it. As she said, it is not a “mom movie”. Many of the scenes in the Games were extraordinarily tough to watch. Don’t get me wrong. This film is not gratuitous in any sense of the word, but violence is different when it is people your own age or younger killing one another because that’s the only way to stay alive. It really makes you think, and that, more than anything, is the strength of this movie. I left the theater turning the movie over in my head, and I think I’ll be doing the same in the days to come. The Hunger Games has depth, storytelling skill, and top-notch performances that make it well worth your $8 ticket.