Greetings everyone! Although it has been a few weeks since its initial release, we here thought it a good idea to continue talking about The Hunger Games. Although The Avengers has taken the world by storm, Suzanne Collins’ movie adaptation still continues to impress with a worldwide gross of $635 million and climbing. Its RottenTomatoes score is a very respectable 84%, so this is a rare summer occasion when critics and audiences seem to agree wholeheartedly. The film’s popularity certainly intrigues us, but what has still been left unsaid about it interests us even more. So rich is the film, we thought, that even with our first Double Review covering a myriad of angles we still have plenty to discuss. Below is the latest Conversation between our writers Cliff Bugle and Marisa Carpico, which we hope you’ll join via the comments section below. For those of you who have been debating internally about going to see The Hunger Games we hope our musings give you the extra incentive you need to give it a go and experience it for yourself.

Cliff Bugle

I guess we can start with whatever questions or contentions you have with what I added to your review about the movie.

 

Marisa Carpico

I don’t think I have any contentions. It’s an interesting angle, this idea that the violence is brutal to enforce just how horrible it is. I’m actually surprised you found the violence so effective because there’s been quite a bit of talk in the media that the violence was too toned-down. I take it you disagree with that stance?

 

Cliff

I wouldn’t know where to begin in arguing that there wasn’t enough violence. I was under the impression that the U.S. has been working to deemphasize violence in media. I would more eagerly argue that those who are clamoring for more violence are likely being hypocritical.

 

Marisa

Hmm, I’m inclined to agree with you but for the sake of conversation, hypocritical in what way?

 

Cliff

All I’ve seen on the news and talk shows is concern for the film’s violence, because it’s teen-on-teen violence or because it’s a violent movie marketed to teens. None gave anything close to a sound argument as to why the topic is of concern, but nevertheless they voiced that concern and claimed that they were doing so on behalf of parents.

 

Marisa

I guess I’m talking about it more from a fan reaction perspective. That the violence wasn’t horrific enough is more of a phenomenon among people who’ve read the books beforehand.

 

Cliff

Then they’re twits.

 

Marisa

There’s a discussion here ‘Entertainment Geekly’: A fan and a newbie talk about ‘The Hunger Games’ on EW’s new podcast. The Hunger Games is indisputably the first big movie of 2012. This progressed  to one critic who’s read the books suggests that the violence wasn’t enough and the other responds saying that’s insane because anyone who says child-on-child violence should be more graphic is basically sick.

 

Cliff

Anymore, I have zero tolerance for fans that go to see movies of their favorite books. I’m convinced it’s mostly because they want an excuse to whine about something. I heard it from Lord of the Rings fans, Harry Potter fans, Twilight fans, Watchmen fans, you name it.

 

Marisa

I can definitely agree with you on that. Did you read them beforehand by the way?

 

Cliff

I have not read the books, nor do I intend to. Nothing against them, I just simply have other things to do.

 

Marisa

Sure, and really you can just wait for the movies because my God this movie made a lot of money. I read the books before and I despise that “the book was better” talk so much. I honestly think that perspective keeps people from enjoying the films for what they are. And I must say I found this film thoroughly enjoyable.

 

Cliff

Getting back to violence, the point I tried to make in my review was simply that depictions of it were both justified and necessary. Bottom line, I have no strong feelings about there being enough or not enough of it.

 

Marisa

Speaking of which, I did have a major problem with the visual style, and there’s talk that director Gary Ross might not return for the sequels. Did you find yourself at all distracted by the handheld cameras?

 

Cliff

Not at all. If anything, I thought the direction was the least remarkable/least notable element to the movie. It was entirely competent in that it utilized nearly every Hollywood convention that I can think of, but was utterly devoid of signature.

 

Marisa

Haha, I agree with all of what you said there, but I must say I don’t see it as a positive.

 

Cliff

Hollywood conventions have survived because they work. I have nothing against an industry that has perfected things like continuity editing and complex sound mixing. People associate such things with professional-grade production value, and if they didn’t get it then they’d have even more to bitch about.

 

Marisa

 

I’m not complaining about conventions like editing and sound mixing. That’s well done. What I’m talking about here is the simple legibility of the images. The camera was so shaky at the beginning that I could scarcely understand what I was seeing. And the propensity for close-ups made some of the action a bit difficult to understand. I get that the shaky-cam = more real, but I don’t know, there were moments when that affectation rang a bit false for me in the film.

 

Cliff

I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. I had no problems making out what I was seeing.

In your review you say that the film is hypocritical, admonishing decadence but, because it’s a big budget Hollywood movie, it’s decadent itself. Could you clarify how you think an expensively made movie is automatically decadent?

 

Marisa

I’m not saying it’s automatically decadent, but this is tying into exactly what I’m trying to say above. Handheld cameras came into use so much because they were cheaper to us so now they have become a shorthand for making a film “gritty” or more real. Ross uses that convention to do that to the story, but it’s an affectation that’s unnecessary to tell the story. The film had the money to get the equipment. It’s manipulative in all the wrong ways. The poverty and drab quality of the costumes and landscape in District 12 contrasted with the colors and couture of the Capitol already delivers that message. At the very minimum, Jennifer Lawrence’s performance gets that across. So I just question why it’s necessary. In addition, at an even baser level, there’s the costumes and set design. Money was clearly spent on bringing the retro-futuristic look of the film to life (the art deco interior of the train, the 1800′s-inspired clothing in the Capitol, the Depression-era look of District 12), but I simply would have liked more emphasis placed on just how much the Capitol spends to keep itself happy while leaving the Districts destitute. The Capitol is fun to look at for an audience, and that’s great, but we shouldn’t be enjoying it, we should be disgusted.

 

Cliff

Your stance against Ross’ use of handheld cameras should probably be a minor concern. Are you sure you’re not just sick of every movie under the sun incorporating it nowadays? And I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying about the costuming and art direction. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect an audience to be disgusted by the Capitol and its inhabitants until after they’ve had time to let the scale of the decadence sink in. It’s hard not to awe at the strange and different when it so convincingly comes across as elegant and beautiful.

 

Marisa

No, as I said above, it’s the affectation of it and the fact that it sacrifices the clarity of the image. And yes, the audience can marvel at the Capitol, that’s the point of a futuristic film. But at the end of that there should be a moment where we go, “this is disgusting even if it is highly attractive.” I wasn’t sure that quite came across.

 

Cliff

Do you think that such disgust was one of the more important points of the story, and its overall message/theme?

 

Marisa

Absolutely. I mean, I think we see that in the major death scene that we both refer to in our reviews. Katniss’s reaction is rage at the injustice of the situation she’s been forced into. She starts a rebellion through her reactions to that sense of injustice. Part of that injustice is the way the Capitol uses the children of the Districts for their own entertainment, but there’s also the way they tax their citizens nearly to the point of starvation while they live in luxury.

 

Cliff

I think you overestimate how much of the Games are for entertainment purposes and how much they are for other purposes. You claim that the broadcasting of the Games is a commentary on reality television, and that may be, but that’s hardly the story’s biggest concern. I think the broadcasting’s most significant function is more likely to be for what I outlined in my review – the continuing oppression of the Districts.

 

Marisa

Well, I’m taking the reality TV angle from Suzanne Collins, who said that she thought up the story while channel surfing between footage of the Iraq War and reality television. So I think you can’t dismiss the idea of entertainment. It’s certainly there in the film. And I think the Games serve a dual purpose. They are absolutely a tool to keep the masses in line; you’re absolutely right about that. But the Capitol makes them seem less barbaric and disgusting by using the conventions of what we see in reality TV today. The obsession with fashion, the fabrication of a love story between Katniss and Peeta, the cutesy interview segments that recall ‘American Idol’ or any other reality competition – that’s definitely a comment on at least our entertainment industry. And for the people in the Capitol, it is about pure entertainment. They don’t have to give Tributes, so for them it’s just about good television.

 

Cliff

If Suzanne Collins claims reality television was a basis for her book, I obviously can’t argue against that. And I wouldn’t care to. I guess I just didn’t think the commentary was all that biting or original, and thus not all that notable. Besides the obvious, what specifically have you gotten from the reality TV angle the story uses?

 

Marisa

You mean from the film itself? The answer is not as much as I would’ve liked. That’s what I’m getting at here. What I would have liked from a more challenging visual style or even emphasis on the reality TV aspect is the sort of sick obsession that it breeds. What essentially saves Katniss and Peeta is the obsession that the audience has with their love story. It would have been nice to see the film call out not only the Capitol’s residents, but the movie-viewing audience. The whole point is that turning real life into entertainment lessens the impact of others’ pain. It’s easy to hate the Kardashians, say, because they’ve become an entertainment product. They’re no longer people. It’s easy for the Capitol to accept what their leaders are doing to other people because it’s been glamorized. I suppose that ties back into the violence aspect we covered in the beginning. People who are saying the violence wasn’t graphic are just making that dehumanization clear. No one should ever be demanding WORSE violence against children.

 

Cliff

To be frank, I doubt the movie would have made as much as it has so far if it dared to have a challenging visual style. Had it had one, I agree it could have been used to criticize its own audience, but audiences don’t like to be directly criticized. The lack of style on Ross’ part allows for a plainer adaptation, and the plainest of adaptations is all the readers of the book wanted to see. If Ross had incorporated his own style – even if it complemented what Collins’ story was already trying to get across – fans would have lambasted him for trying to make the movie his own, which to them it’s not – it’s theirs.

 

Marisa

I’m not sure fans would have automatically hated if he tried to put his own signature on the work. Fans were obviously open to the books’ arguments, why wouldn’t they be similarly open to seeing that same criticism in the film adaptation? Fandom has reached a place of such inexplicability and fervor that I don’t think you can make a blanket statement about what they would have liked or disliked. What I’m saying is that it’s a shame the film couldn’t be more challenging visually and rhetorically. How fascinating would it have been to see a wildly successful Hollywood picture simultaneously lambast that Hollywood system? I suppose you’re right though. Making the audience turn a critical eye on itself would have potentially meant less revenue and no studio is going to allow that to happen.

Moving on, you seemed particularly taken with the oppressive government aspect of the film, especially as it pertains to our current economic climate and the idea of a rich upper class being so outlandish that the majority of the populous is destitute. Exactly how strong of a point do you think that is in the movie? Is that the takeaway message you think is most resonant?

 

Cliff

Perhaps. I never read the book and maybe that’s why I didn’t find any of the individual characters particularly interesting. Katniss was smart and easy to sympathize with, but she didn’t really demonstrate much fire. I thought the concept of the story hung over everything as if it were the real star of the film, and because of that I couldn’t take my focus off of it and really try to connect with anyone I was watching. I certainly didn’t have the same kind of investment in Katniss’ romances like all the tween girls do. The real one or the fake one.

And it’s just part of what I try to do as a critic as well. EVERYONE seemed to gloss over the story’s concept (excluding you of course) and focus exclusively on Katniss’ story – which is totally justifiable. But the ramifications of making a world like Panem are huge, and it seemed like they were being either unnoticed or taken for granted.

 

Marisa

Well, I don’t think that’s an incorrect approach. Having read the books, the movie is more of a success if it forgets the romance and focuses on the social criticism. That’s the eventual point. The playing up the romance is really more of a marketing tool to connect it with ‘Twilight’ fans.

However, as to the connection with Katniss, I’m interested to hear that you didn’t quite connect with her. I mean, I think the focus on her and her experience of the world of Panem springs from the fact that the book is dictated in first person from her mind. That disconnect you’re feeling might spring from the first book’s focus on her personal experience rather than criticism of the government. In fact, that aspect isn’t really expressed and explored fully until book 3. Do you think you would have been more interested in her as a character if they’d included the inner monologue of the book through voice-over?

 

Cliff

It’s hard to say. I don’t think my disconnect had much to do with the film’s style. I’m very excited to see a leading female who is clever and compassionate, and can also defend herself and even provide for a man. However, it seems to me that everything she does is almost entirely out of obligation – moral or otherwise. I didn’t catch on to any personal motivations caused by distaste, resentment, social politics, or anything secondary like that. Because of this I found her behavior extremely predictable (for example, shooting an arrow at the sponsors), and therefor rather boring.

Maybe I’m missing something?

 

Marisa

I don’t know, I don’t think that’s particularly incorrect. I mean, I think the point is that she doesn’t want to be some revolutionary. Katniss’s main goal is to simply survive, to get back to Dist. 12. She’s not really making choices based on defying the Capitol. The first time she really does that in the books is when she places flowers on Rue’s body and then gives that hand signal and then later when she tells Peeta to eat the berries. She’s openly defying the system there by saying, ‘’No, I’m not going to take part in your game that’s used to keep the people obedient, I’m going to expose its horror.” And the point of her flirtation with Peeta is that she plays up their romance for the cameras and then eventually, maybe, starts to feel something for him. Is that the sense you got or no?

 

Cliff

About her and Peeta? Yes, but I’m not sure what kind of message that sends when our main protagonist enters into a false romance only hoping that something will come of it after its practical use is utilized. I don’t really find that compelling. In fact it reminds me only of the manufactured romances in the tabloids, which have zero interest to me.

 

Marisa

I don’t think she wants something to come out of it afterward, in fact decidedly not, but she does it to survive because she knows it will interest the audience.

 

Cliff

The seeds are planted for a genuine romance to blossom between Katniss and Peeta. You can’t deny that.

 

Marisa

I’m not denying that the seeds are planted, but I’m saying the distinction that Katniss isn’t actively seeking one is important.

 

Marisa

And do you think that her not choosing to be revolutionary, but doing things out of a sense of moral obligation makes her less heroic then?

 

Cliff

As far as her being heroic, yes I think her near-sightedness makes her less heroic.

No less impressive for her abilities and nobility, but less heroic because she isn’t thinking beyond herself and her family.

 

Marisa

I’d agree with that assessment of her heroism. She perhaps isn’t supposed to be a hero at this point, rather being merely impressive and noble are enough at this stage.

Also, regardless of you not being interested in tabloids, I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss it and therefore miss the point of its inclusion in the movie. Like I said in my review, the film is at least partially about manufactured images. That romance is the prime example of it. Katniss basically fakes all of her appealing media moments: the interview, the romance. What’s real and what sparks that rebellion are the real moments when she’s horrified by what’s happening – Rue’s death, her decision to save Peeta because he once saved her, etc.

 

Cliff

I wouldn’t bother to contest that the story is concerned with manufactured identities and images, as you explained so clearly in your review. I guess my disinterest in that angle stems from my belief in that it’s unnecessary. I fully believe that American society is perfectly aware of how much trash it watches on television; reality shows being the prime examples. But furthermore, I don’t think it cares. So why bother trying to compel an audience to find loathsome something they’ve already decided is stupid but nevertheless excusable?

 

Marisa

Well, you could ask the same question of why call attention to the idea of class conflict. Obviously, Americans are aware that the economic system isn’t working, the Occupy movement proves that. What the aspect is calling attention to is the idea that manufacturing emotion through reality TV actually makes people less empathetic to others’ emotions. By framing the Hunger Games as GAMES, the Capitol tries to reduce the gravity of what is essentially a public execution of children to remind the masses that they’re powerless to change things. Yes, we’ve acknowledged as a society at-large that reality TV is stupid, but we don’t acknowledge that we’re using other people as a means of ridicule. When Kim Kardashian got a quickie divorce, we all laughed derisively, but is such derision of a fellow human being, even if they may be privileged and foolish acceptable? Or let’s look at the way politics, a far more important subject, can often be reduced to a sideshow in media now. The film is saying that, but making everything an ironic parody of itself we’re missing the potential meaning beneath.

 

Cliff

If the film made a connection between its politics and theme of manufactured images I would be on the same page with you. However, as far as I could tell, it didn’t. You seem to be trying to not just draw parallels with but equate our reality TV with the Games, and I just can’t agree. Kim Kardashian is mockable for different reasons than why those at the Capitol jeer at those in the Games. Our reality TV is based on people trying to convince their viewers that they’re somehow important but clearly are not. The Games are first and foremost a political device run by people who cater to such self-interested dolts who reside in the Capitol. The two shows are simply not on the same level.

 

Marisa

No, of course they’re not on the same level, but the Games appropriate aspects of our reality TV climate. The interviews with the tributes where they have to seem likable to get sponsors and survive can be likened to voting on American Idol or even just the quest for ratings. The manufactured romance takes aspects of the matchmaking shows like The Bachelor or just any reality show with a romance plot at all. Romance appeals to an audience and where in our reality it would mean ratings, in the film’s world it means money and supplies. Even the competition style of it is like Survivor or Fear Factor. Those shows often create cults of personality in the same way that the media aspects of the Games do, but the point is that in Panem, lives are at stake. The point being made is that the rhetoric of making those cults of personality is damaging in both realities.

 

Cliff

But damaging in the same way? I’d have to say no. And since this is the case, the theme lacks an important connection to me as someone who lives in a world saturated with reality TV. If I’m not connected, I’m not compelled.

 

Marisa

Again, no. It’s the job of someone criticizing a work to take what a film is saying and interpret its message no? Obviously, the Games are the most extreme case of reality TV as manipulation. That extremity is just making the inherent problems more explicit.

 

Cliff

I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Marisa

We typically do. Is there anything else in particular you’d like to discuss?

 

Cliff

Nothing comes to mind. I think we finished strongly. Well done. Until next time!

 

Comments are closed.