This is in response to Eoin Macken's review of The Hunger Games for Phoenix Magazine, and his subsequent post about it on his personal blog. I'm only posting it here because Blogger has a 4,096 character limit for its replies.
_______________________________________________
Okay, I waited to read your review until I saw the film itself. Having read the trilogy in one go after receiving them for Christmas, I didn't want that to color my reaction.
Alright, I'll admit it. It still kinda is.
Having said that - the film itself is one of the better book-to-screen adaptations I've ever come across. Mainly, this is because the author, Suzanne Collins, co-wrote the script and was able to keep intact the necessary structures needed to further the story along without the needless subplots that may or may not be touched upon at a later date. Better yet, the film was written AFTER the entire series was in print. Makes a world of difference when everything is already flushed out before the scriptwriters take over [I'm looking at the catastrophe of the final three HP films here].
In wading through the rather verbose axiom that is your review, I do agree primarily with what you say. It was a fairly average, run of the mill Hollywood movie featuring pretty young white people with problems they must overcome to be together. Unfortunately, I feel as if you are missing out on exactly why people see this series as a Big Fucking Deal. Maybe this is because you didn't read the books. Maybe it's because you only saw the surface of what was going on. I don't know.
In the books, we do not have the pov of anyone from the Capitol - we only have Katniss'. However, instead of including a narration that more often than not is distracting to the story, they gave us more of President Snow and Seneca Crane allowing us to see all the suppositions Katniss has in the books but w/out all the guess work. The film, by including conversations between these two men, simply states what she conjectures as fact. Nice. Neat. Clearly labeled exposition. Unfortunately, this gave us classic action movie set-up's that I felt detracted from the main story - the oppression of the people, the murdering of children, the caste system, etc. Also, they portrayed Crane as too nice a character. Remember this is the Head Gamemaker. It's his job to design the dome and create the creatures to torture and kill these children when they fail to kill each other themselves. That man should not be something celebrated, but in the end when he was left with a bowl of nightlock, you couldn't help but feel sorry for him. Such nice facial hair; wasted. Neveminding the fact this sympathy completely misses the point.
While many akin what happens in the arena to Lord of the Flies, overall the Panem of HG is more a dystopian society a la Brave New World, or The Handmaiden's Tale. LotF is too convenient a platform, and not all encompassing of what this truly is - not an island infecting a limited group of people who eventually go back to the real world, but an entire continent attempting to re-build after wars and famine living under oppression and in slavery. There's no going back because there is nothing to go back to.
Did you leave the theatre knowing that each District and its inhabitants are nothing more than slaves for the Capitol? Workers forced in to labor, forced to give up their children year after year as punishment for the crimes of their ancestors? I guess their lack of historical reference [ha! it's fiction] beyond "74 years of killing. We must remember this is a punishment blah blah blah" has to do with keeping their PG-13 rating and the time down more than anything else. Also, those MTV quick cuts used during the heaviest of violence. It's based on a YA novel; can't have that being rated outside the targeted demographic in the MPAA system now can we.
I'm torn on agreeing with you concerning the character of Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and his, and others in the districts, lack of screen time. They did cut fairly often to facial expressions "back home", but the film-makers didn't really show how watching the Games wasn't because people were worried for only Peeta and Katness, they were also worried for themselves - they personally would be punished if they didn't watch. They were just as invested in what happened as if the other 23 reaped were after they themselves. Neverminding the fact that riches [okay, extra food and medicine] were given to each district that the winner came from. No one wanted their children to go, but when you're starving more often than not, that extra food comes in handy if your district wins. It's called The Hunger Games for a reason. I'm saddened this wasn't more fully expressed on the screen beyond that short hilltop moment of exposition between Katniss and Gale.
Even with the little things left out, this is the first film based on a book I've seen where I didn't spend the next day and a half explaining everything that happened, and why, to Hubs. He, like you, thought of it as a nice piece of mindless entertainment. Thankfully, it was a complete PoME and not a half-assed one. It had a beginning, middle and end, and left just enough room to make the sequel plausible, but not a necessity. It wasn't an epic masterpiece of directing/acting/cinematography brilliance that was LOTR, but it was infinitely better than any of the HP films and leap-years beyond the travesty that was/is the Twilight franchise.
Many reviewers, and fans alike, are stating HG as this generations Star Wars. I have to agree [somewhat]. It was nice to see a u/dystopian story that's not centered around fantasy or the complete reproductive subjugation of women, but it's still a small rebellion taking on an empire nonetheless. You'll just have to wait for part 3(6) before you know if they succeeded or not. Part 2(5) before you know it's a rebellion in the first place.
_______________________________________________
Okay, I waited to read your review until I saw the film itself. Having read the trilogy in one go after receiving them for Christmas, I didn't want that to color my reaction.
Alright, I'll admit it. It still kinda is.
In wading through the rather verbose axiom that is your review, I do agree primarily with what you say. It was a fairly average, run of the mill Hollywood movie featuring pretty young white people with problems they must overcome to be together. Unfortunately, I feel as if you are missing out on exactly why people see this series as a Big Fucking Deal. Maybe this is because you didn't read the books. Maybe it's because you only saw the surface of what was going on. I don't know.
In the books, we do not have the pov of anyone from the Capitol - we only have Katniss'. However, instead of including a narration that more often than not is distracting to the story, they gave us more of President Snow and Seneca Crane allowing us to see all the suppositions Katniss has in the books but w/out all the guess work. The film, by including conversations between these two men, simply states what she conjectures as fact. Nice. Neat. Clearly labeled exposition. Unfortunately, this gave us classic action movie set-up's that I felt detracted from the main story - the oppression of the people, the murdering of children, the caste system, etc. Also, they portrayed Crane as too nice a character. Remember this is the Head Gamemaker. It's his job to design the dome and create the creatures to torture and kill these children when they fail to kill each other themselves. That man should not be something celebrated, but in the end when he was left with a bowl of nightlock, you couldn't help but feel sorry for him. Such nice facial hair; wasted. Neveminding the fact this sympathy completely misses the point.
While many akin what happens in the arena to Lord of the Flies, overall the Panem of HG is more a dystopian society a la Brave New World, or The Handmaiden's Tale. LotF is too convenient a platform, and not all encompassing of what this truly is - not an island infecting a limited group of people who eventually go back to the real world, but an entire continent attempting to re-build after wars and famine living under oppression and in slavery. There's no going back because there is nothing to go back to.
Did you leave the theatre knowing that each District and its inhabitants are nothing more than slaves for the Capitol? Workers forced in to labor, forced to give up their children year after year as punishment for the crimes of their ancestors? I guess their lack of historical reference [ha! it's fiction] beyond "74 years of killing. We must remember this is a punishment blah blah blah" has to do with keeping their PG-13 rating and the time down more than anything else. Also, those MTV quick cuts used during the heaviest of violence. It's based on a YA novel; can't have that being rated outside the targeted demographic in the MPAA system now can we.
Even with the little things left out, this is the first film based on a book I've seen where I didn't spend the next day and a half explaining everything that happened, and why, to Hubs. He, like you, thought of it as a nice piece of mindless entertainment. Thankfully, it was a complete PoME and not a half-assed one. It had a beginning, middle and end, and left just enough room to make the sequel plausible, but not a necessity. It wasn't an epic masterpiece of directing/acting/cinematography brilliance that was LOTR, but it was infinitely better than any of the HP films and leap-years beyond the travesty that was/is the Twilight franchise.
Many reviewers, and fans alike, are stating HG as this generations Star Wars. I have to agree [somewhat]. It was nice to see a u/dystopian story that's not centered around fantasy or the complete reproductive subjugation of women, but it's still a small rebellion taking on an empire nonetheless. You'll just have to wait for part 3(6) before you know if they succeeded or not. Part 2(5) before you know it's a rebellion in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment