The Hunger Games
It is hard to imagine that we are coming up on the ten-year anniversary of the first installment of the Hunger Games trilogy. Ten years? Really? Look back at the film, how it has aged? Is it still relevant today?
Based on the 2008 novel by Suzanne Collins, “The Hunger Games” directed by Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Ocean’s 8) captures a dystopian world in which a powerful state government regulates smaller outlying provinces by annually taking two children from their districts and forcing them to compete in a fight to the death in a massive futuristic outdoor arena. Only the victor can survive. The story harkens back to “The Lord of the Flies” in that humans become animal like and lose all sense of morality in their quest to stay alive. All except a few led by the protagonist, Katniss (played by Jennifer Lawrence) lose much of what it means to be decent human being in the struggle. The world is bleak and heartless, driven by political power struggle and a desperation to keep the status quo. So yeah, we can still relate to this film today. Maybe even more so that when it came out in 2012.
A young Jennifer Lawrence leads the cast as the introverted Katniss. Here’s where the movie struggles to capture the feel of the novel. The protagonist’s thoughts can’t be played out in a film the way they are revealed through a novel. So, the long periods of time where Katniss struggles alone in her quest to survive forces Lawrence to have to reveal a great deal of her mindset, without many words. This is doable in film, but it requires an accomplished actor making excellent acting choices and maintaining the ability to convey a world of information with the smallest gestures, body movements and expressions. Lawrence, at this young point in her career, didn’t have all these skills yet. So what the viewer often sees is a lot of “doe caught in headlights” expressions and not much information as to what the character is thinking.
Then teen heart throb, Josh Hutcherson, who plays Peeta opposite Lawrence, fares a little better, but he is given more dialogue to use and had a great deal more film work already under his belt at the time.
The result is, at times, a slower story than perhaps it needed to be as we find ourselves waiting for information to come to us that we aren’t getting from the actors. Again, it is more of a story structure problem than the actors.
What does work about this film is Ross’ direction which often uses first person camera angles to let the audience see the action from the character’s perspective. Ross keeps the viewer intimate in the story and gives the sense that we are right there with the characters. Much of this is accomplished with the hand-held shaking camera which gives films more of a documentary feel with its constantly moving and giggly style. This technique was really hitting its stride when this movie emerged, and although a bit overdone at times making it hard to tell what’s going on, overall, it is effective in bringing a sense of reality to the story. Ross let’s the story breath and hits many of the emotional moments needed to keep us engaged.
The questions address in the film are still very poignant today. Do we really value human life? What are we teaching our kids in this current violence saturated world? Are we squandering our resources instead of using them to help as many people as possible? And what are we willing to put up with from our government in order to preserve our wealth and maintain our status quo? This last questions really resonates as the people in the story who are watching the hunger games on their televisions react to the battle with various degrees of moral indignation and in some cases gleeful enjoyment. One only has to look at our behavior as a nation over the last year on either end of the political spectrum to see that we have moved much closer to this dystopian world that is comfortable to admit. Watch any reality TV show today and see the joy viewers get out of TV contestant’s lives being ended. They are literally being killed, but metaphorically, they are being obliterated or “cancelled”.
“The Hunger Games” is still truly relevant as a film and as a story. It does contain unnerving violence that isn’t graphic in detail. Ross often turns the camera away to avoid showing specifics. However, it is children killing children that makes the film at times hard to watch.
God and religion are not addressed in the story at all. It is an amoral world ruled by political power and religion simply isn’t addressed on any level. Morality is lifted up as a higher standard as Katniss and Peeta struggle to preserve the dignity of others and resist for as long as they can the temptation to harm anyone else. They are symbolic of a better way.
I can’t recommend this film for children. It is too violent and bleak. It is a good sounding board for deeper conversations with teens about the role of politics in our lives and how we as a society value or devalue human life. Like “Lord of the Flies” it is an upsetting story designed to provoke thought and evaluation rather than mindless entertainment and should be treated as such. It is only a “family movie” in that, if seen, it should be processed by adults and teenagers together with a healthy discussion afterwards. It isn’t really the kind of film you throw popcorn at the kids and go to bed as they watch it.
Content Overview
Language: Mild language several uses of “d—m” H—l” “OMG”
Sexual Content: Katniss kisses Peeta
Violence: There are several violent murders committed by children on children. It isn’t glorified. It is treated as tragic and is one of the main points of the story. There are definitely disturbing images that make the film purposely hard to watch.
Objectionable Content: Katniss’ mentor Haymitch has a problem with alcohol and is seen coping with his problems through drinking.
