First Day of Discomfort

I talked in a previous post about The Hunger Games, both the book and the movie. Because I'm obsessed with the series (not really, I mean, the entire previous post was about how much I hate/want to take a broadsword to fan-girls/boys/gender-neutrals who take the source material too seriously), you guys get to have a full review of the movie! Congratulations! Woo! I know you don't care but I'm going to keep using exclamation points so that you'll think this is important and keep giving me attention! (But seriously, if no one is paying attention to me at any given moment, I revert to my true form as DJ Jazzy Jeff.)

Don't let this happen to me.

First, a quick, vague synopsis of the movie for anyone who has managed to steer clear of this particular phenomenon: The Hunger Games may or may not follow Katniss Everdeen, a sixteen-year-old girl who might lives in a dystopic future. Something might have happened in the past, and the area that used to be the grand ole' US of A could now be known as the Capitol and the 12 districts (the rest of the world either doesn't exist anymore or doesn't interact with this particular dystopia). The Capitol, due to the actions of the districts 74 years earlier, might possibly but probably not have created the Hunger Games--an gladiatorial event where each district sacrifices one boy and one girl to fight to the death for the entertainment of the whole of the country--to keep everyone in line. Katniss potentially becomes said female tribute after her sister is or is not drawn from the lottery and Katniss volunteers. What may or may not fictionally and theoretically follow is a literal (in the literal sense, not a figurative literal or even a concrete literal sense) blood bath, where we watch the games unfold and the children die.

The movie is a doubly troubling one to review, both because of I am so familiar with the source material and because of the emotions that the movie generates. As much of a stink as I made about obsession with source material before, it's still extremely difficult to separate what you expect the movie to do from what the movie actually ends up doing. Multiple times I found myself having to adjust to the movie's viewpoint and universe and pushing the book to the back of my mind. That being said, all of the changes that I saw were necessary shifts; the original events would not have been able to work as a direct translation from page to screen.

For those not familiar with it, the book is told entirely from Katniss's perspective. After several chapters, the reader starts to feel just as isolated as Katniss is (OR IS SHE?!?!?). Because the movie would become incredibly frustrating without either a) a voice-over of Katniss's thoughts or b) complete silence on the events as they unfold around her, the director and the screenwriter (who happened to also write the book) sacrifice--in a smart move--a bit of the isolation for a lot of the explanation. It's a move that takes a bit of the pressure off of Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and pushes some of the acting responsibilities to the supporting cast, but everyone steps up to the plate.

I can't call the acting flawless (mostly because of Josh Hutcherson's inability as Peeta to make me believe the majority of his emotions at any time he is on screen), but most everyone delivers. Lawrence is stunning and powerful in every scene, taking every trial and disaster truly affecting and heartbreaking. Other supporters, particularly Woody Harrelson (as her mentor, Haymitch) and a surprisingly effective Elizabeth Banks (as the annoyingly effervescent Effie Trinket), truly embody their characters and breathe just the perfect amount of comedic relief and connection to solid ground that a movie like this could easily lose.

The moral theme, one that tends to be either simplified or entirely lost in blockbusters like this, is strong but not forceful. In my film class we talked recently about reflexivity in film, or when a movie explicitly acknowledges the fact that it is a movie. I wouldn't say The Hunger Games goes that far, but it does take a few big steps in that direction, using its plot to show the moral bankruptcy that must exist for a populace to enjoy watching a bunch of children dying while showing us at the same time that we are, in fact, enjoying children dying. By placing the audience on the same level as the gluttonous Capitol, the movie reaches a level of directness that the book is unable to achieve: the bad guys are not just out there, we are the bad guys, and we need to feel as terrible about it as the movie makes us feel.

Visually, the movie is a treat as well, and not in a way that most summer movies would be. The cinematography is stunning, jarring when it needs to be but eerily still when the situation calls for it. One particular shot (which you can see in most of the trailers, so I don't count it as a spoiler) which shows Katniss's walk to the arena, flanked by two Peacekeeper guards, sticks in my mind just as clearly as the Curly Hill scene from Nightmare Before Christmas or the first shot of an eye opening on Lost. It's just that good.

That's not to say the movie is visually perfect, however. A bunch of the actual special effects leave something to be desired. There's a lot of work with fire in this movie, and it's pretty hit or miss. This can partly be chalked up to the descriptions in the book that, though they could not really be omitted from the movie for continuity's sake, don't really translate well from the descriptive to the visual. The movie succeeds in its realism, but its not-so-much realism (such as a dress that is wreathed in flames) looks almost comically out of place. Katniss's costumes (in both of their appearances supposed to be awe-inspiring and geniusly designed) are about as breathtaking as Papa Smurf.

'Sup.

Those isolated moments aside, the rest of the film shines and would be among the best I'd seen all year if it hadn't been for awards season (it doesn't exactly stand up to The Artist, but it isn't exactly meant to). I'd give it 3.5 out of 4, and seeing as in two days it made more money for its creating studio than any other film it had made, we can probably expect to see the final two installments in the series hitting theaters in the near future.

P.S. - My mother's friend brought up an interesting point about how unwatchable and unenjoyable the film is not just because it is violent because it is violent towards children. Although I didn't feel this way personally, I can see it being a problem. For me the violence served a purpose and was never glorified or excessively cruel. Never did a death seem trivial, and never was there too much gore to appreciate the harshness of the attacks.

I recently read a review here that disagrees with a lot that I've said, saying that the movie does not delve into its theme enough and does not inspire enough disturbance. The claim goes something like "more violence would have made this a truly great movie because I would have been extremely uncomfortable watching it instead of entertained". I entirely disagree, and I think that anything more would have been excessive. But I feel like that's kind of like saying asking a hit-and-run driver to run back over his victim because you enjoyed the first hit too much and you think the second time will make you really feel the right emotions.

Don't just keep driving, he's probably still alive in there.

Anyway, I disagree with him, and with the other side of the issue, but if you agree with either of them you are either a) slightly creepy and should get that looked at or b) probably not morally bankrupt like the rest of us. Either way, this movie might not be for you.

Edit: oopsie, missing paragraph in the middle replaced. Not sure how that happened. Stupid blogger (he said to pretend that it wasn't his own fault).