Saturday, March 24, 2012

"The Hunger Games" Reviewed


The Hunger Games is set in the future after something - that is never fully explained in the film - has ended civilization as we know it. As society was rebuilt, it was carved into the 13 districts of Panem, each specializing in cultivating, producing, or mining a region-specific resource, but the rich got richer and the poor got poorer until the people rebelled. The Capitol was able to stop the uprising, but as punishment for those dark days and to remind the population of its power over them, the Hunger Games were created. Every year, one girl and one boy from each district, between the ages of 12 and 18, are selected to pay tribute by participating in a televised contest where they must fight to the death. A lone survivor is crowned champion, and their district is provided with special privileges and additional food for a year. The film begins right before the participants of the 74th Hunger Games are selected. It follows the two tributes from District 12, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) as they travel to the Capital, prepare for the games, and fight for their lives.

It may be a bit of a stretch to believe Jennifer Lawrence, with her curvy, well-toned features, is a starving kid from a coal-mining town, but she really is terrific as Katniss, whose years of hunting in the wilderness have focused her senses and sharpened her instincts. Lawrence pulls it off admirably, her performance maintaining the character's vulnerability, while still projecting strength. Josh Hutcherson, a veteran of family films like Zathura and Journey to the Center of the Earth, is able to step into a more mature role and imbue it with a sad, but determined quality as Peeta, who feels overshadowed by the attention that Katniss receives, but understands the dynamics of playing the game better than she does.

The film also stars Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bently (Academy Award Nominee - Best Beard, 2012), Lenny Kravitz, Stanley Tucci, and Donald Sutherland as the President of Panem. Special mention, however, should go to Woody Harrelson for his stellar work as Haymitch Abernathy, a former champion from District 12 who is tasked with preparing Katniss and Peeta not just for the games, but also for the media circus that surrounds their time at the Capital, which is like a futuristic version of the Roman Empire at the height of its decadence. Haymitch deals with his own demons by drinking them away each day, but regardless of whether he does so because of surviving the games or as a result of having to relive it each year, he is the example of the price ultimately paid by "winning."

The film was directed by Gary Ross (Seabiscuit, Pleasantville) who made a name for himself in Hollywood as a top-shelf screenwriter with hits like Dave and Big to his credit. He has always gravitated to stories that place more emphasis on one, or just a few characters instead of sprawling epics or plot-driven pictures. It comes as no surprise then, that his focus is solely on the character of Katniss, using her journey as the backbone for his approach to the story, both visually and dramatically. It's clear from the first scene that this is her story; even the time we spend with Peeta, the only other main character, is done purely through her point of view. This helps to eliminate unnecessary subplots, but also makes it difficult to develop a villain, the lack of which is the film's major weakness.

There's no one to root against. The other tributes are really just obstacles, not characters. The rich socialites of the Capital city are sick and out of touch, enjoying this perverse brutal entertainment, but they are just an audience, no better or worse than those who watched the gladiators in ancient times. The game-masters are just following orders, maximizing the entertainment value by stacking the odds in favor of the audience, and the President is trying to keep the peace and follow customs that were put in place years before he took charge. Like our current worldwide economic meltdown, there is no one person to point a finger at; it's a combination of things that allow the Hunger Games to continue in Panem. Very realistic, but it's tough to wring drama out of gray areas, and a bit more focus on giving the audience someone to dislike would have strengthened the picture.

The Hunger Games will draw comparisons to films like The Running Man and the Japanese cult hit, Battle Royale, but what separates it from those films, is a determination to stay as intimate as possible from the opening scene to the closing credits. This may disappoint fans who are looking for more brutality, since a lot of that happens offscreen, but considering the core audience is teens, there is a threshold for the level of gore that can be shown. It seems a successful approach though, because they're able to use techniques that depict violence in a way that maintains the emotional impact without soaking the screen in blood.

8.4/10

1 comment:

  1. There are things to like, and not to like, about the Hunger Games. But ulitmately, I enjoyed this film. Initially, I wasn't looking forward to seeing a movie aimed at tweens, but after reading your review i felt a little more confident that this might be a decent enough flick.

    First, i'll to lay out a few of what I saw as "the cons":
    -the concept is derivative. It's been done many times before in films, novels, and comic books.
    -the set-up for this dystopian future is pretty vague and simplistic, with alot left unexplained. It didn't seem very well conceptualized. My wife, who's read the novels, explained it more completely to me after watching the film. Problem is, the more she explained it to me, the more implausible it became...which is probably why the filmmakers decided to not dwell on it.
    -the premise, throwing a bunch of teens and pre-teens into televised gladiatorial combat, with the tacid consent and acceptance of their parents (and the entire adult population for that matter), is utterly absurd. But this has to be accepted, since the source material is a series of books aimed at young adults. Alot of people seem to have over-analyzed this aspect of The Hunger Games, ad nauseum. But the bottom-line is that these books were primarily aimed at tweens, so the leads are going to be the ages of the target audience.
    -Some scenes were either poorly written, or (if deviating from the source material) poorly executed. Example: you chase an injured girl up a tree with every intention of killing her. You have training, numbers, and loads of tools and weapons at your disposal. Oh, and she's armed. She's within range of your weapons. And you decide to just....camp out and wait for her to come out of the tree? Really??? You're not going to knock her out of that tree, which would be easier to do? Blame this on the writer, I guess...
    -Lastly...no one seemed very "hungry" to me....

    On to the pros (which I think greatly outweighed the cons):
    -Casting and acting was stellar. The leads and supporting cast were pretty excellent. Their talent overcame the flaws and holes in the script, and made the film compelling to watch. And their reactions to certain circumstances rang true. Jennifer Lawrence has a bright future.
    -Characterization of the leads was really good. Wish they could've done more with some supporting characters; but you've only got so much time to work with in a movie.
    -Visuals were great. This was a good-looking movie. The different aspects of the futuristic world were interesting.
    -Considering this was a PG-13 movie, the action was really well done.
    -The dynamic between the oppressive ruling class and the oppressed peasants was well done, especially considering the violence constraints of a PG-13 movie.

    Overall, this was an interesting, entertaining, better-than-average popcorn movie. I'm interested to see how the sequels will play out.

    ReplyDelete