Hunger Games (2012): don't believe all the hype, but don't give up on the franchise just yet

The Hunger Games isn’t as good as I thought it was going to be.  I had witnessed a lot of hype about it beforehand, so thought it was going to be remarkable.  It was enjoyable, but it didn’t match up to the hype in my eyes.  The box office receipts tell a different story though – the film remaining the top-grossing film worldwide for four weeks in a row.  There’s a lot to be said for word of mouth when selling a film.

I thought the visual effects were a little garish in places - particularly the scene where Katniss and Peeta are set on fire and paraded in front of a stadium of cheering fans.  The direction wasn’t particularly interesting – it was quite conservative and naturalistic despite the opportunity for a more sensational style considering the fantastical subject matter and younger target audience.  

The predicament for the director is that he had to portray acts of horrific violence, but keep it suitable for the 12A rating.  He kept it suitable for the kids, but at the expense of realistic violence.  The audience are never really shocked by the violence, but they should be, otherwise the film risks normalising such brutality instead of exposing how wrong and unnatural it is.

Gary Ross has decided not to direct the sequel and Francis Lawrence is reportedly taking his place in the director’s chair.  I am Legend shares similar elements with The Hunger Games world (survival in a dystopian future), so I’m confident Lawrence can make a successful follow up.  It could well be more visually exciting than Ross’ effort too – comparing their filmographies side by side it seems Ross fits well into more grounded dramas like Seabiscuit and Lawrence suits a more fantasy/sci-fi style (eg. Constantine).  

 

I have a couple of issues with the story too.  The parachute packages inspired an incredulous reaction from me, seeming like blatant plot devices and nothing more.  Yes, the film clearly shows they’re bought and sent (legitimately or not) by the contestants’ personal sponsors, but even at this, it seems like quite thin writing.  There are one or two things which just seem utterly implausible too: for instance, the fact that District 1’s Marvel was portrayed as a ruthless, powerful killing machine from the start but was fairly easily defeated by the somewhat underprepared pair from District 12.  I’ve never read the books, so for all I know these shortcomings could be a problem of the filmic adaptation, but much better expressed in novel form.  I’m not going to argue that books are a better storytelling medium than films, or vice versa – it’s like comparing chalk and cheese.

Despite my reservations, there are some parts to The Hunger Games which make me think that it’s not just another fantastical, coming-of-age action-drama aimed at teens and fans of the novels.  I like the issues raised about the dangers of a totalitarian state.  16 year old protagonist Katniss serves as a victim-hero who becomes disenfranchised and awakens to the inequalities of the system.  This theme is not only fashionable in film right now (eg. Dark Knight Rises, Coriolanus, etc.) but also serves as an incredibly relevant analogy (eg. the Occupy movement’s proposed reform of the global monetary system, the Arab Spring’s uprising against dictatorship and tyranny, etc).  The Hunger Games does well to express how not-so-far-fetched such a dystopian society could be.  Hopefully Catching Fire will take this theme and run with it, dealing more with the idea of active protest and revolution – and hopefully Lawrence can make it a little more exciting.