Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 19/08/2012
There was much hype surrounding the making of and subsequent release of the new young adult franchise, 'The Hunger Games'. Most reviews that followed the film's release were positive, and the cast and writing were made much of.
Now, it is my wont not to get taken in by hype. And, I wasn't. But I was intrigued enough to take a gander when the film was finally released on DVD.
The film is based on a successful series of books of the same name. These books are regarded as an antithesis to the popular 'Twilight' franchise. The story is based in the fictional country Panem and follows the unusually named Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who lives in District 12. At some point in this world's history a revolution took place and to resolve the same the Hunger Games were invented. Much like the Roman gladiatorial fights, these Hunger Games are played out for the benefit of the masses - to keep them quiet, in line and well, fearful.
From the beginning we know that our protagonist and her friend, Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth) wish for a way to stop these Games, but they do not know how. Eventually, Katniss has to join the games, alongside Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson).
There's rather a long preamble till the Games begin which includes interviews and prettying up of the Tributes, as the players are called. It is very similar to how reality TV works in the real world, and the supporting cast spend a great deal of time attempting to make Katniss fit into the mold that the audience wishes to see. The satirical look at the real world is not lost on the audience, but more of that later.
Once the Games begin, the pace picks up a little and there is some suspense thrown into the mix. The last half-hour is the most frenetic, and ultimately the most enjoyable, as we come to the requisite conclusion.
I have to admit, I didn't dislike this film as much as I had originally expected myself to. Hell, I was ready to hate it. But no such luck. I actually enjoyed plenty of it, if enjoy is the right word to use concerning a film revolved around kids and teenagers gutting each other to death.
First however, I'd like to say that logistically this film has a few problems. The choice of using children between the ages of 12-18 doesn't make much sense to me. Granted, children are used as pawns all the time, and frequently by parents (willing or unwilling), but in the context of the story it does not do them much credit, as the likelihood of a 12-year-old making it through the Games is zero. In most of the districts they are not trained for the Games, and in the one district they are, the kids volunteer when they reach the age of 17/ 18. Makes no sense. The kids that become tribute are lost causes, so the speech about 'hope' that President Snow (Donald Sutherland) gives has no meaning to those children's families.
Also, it appears that if you get bad/ no advice from your mentors before the Games, you're dead meat, as seen in the film. If people drop dead right in the beginning of the Games, what prompts the audience from those districts to continue watching?
There's the added issue of some tributes being luckier than others. I'm not saying the Games need to be fair, everything is unfair, but how far would the story have gone, had Katniss and Peeta not got the advice/ help, etc. that they did from the people that they met? Things may have turned out very differently had they got the advisers of some of the other districts.
I liked the allegorical nature of the story. How far will humanity go for entertainment? Are we willing to watch people die? The idea is not that far-fetched, at the same time, it isn't that original either. People read the news, and it's usually bad, but essentially it's re-living someone else's hideous reality. Not all of us enjoy that, thankfully, but allegorically, it answers the questions this film asks.
The film was very reminiscent of 'In Time' - the districts were much like the zones in that film, and the rich get richer while the poor get screwed message was also almost the same. Now considering the film is based on a series of books, I'm wondering what inspired what.
Also, the holographic quality of the Games reminded me of the nature of 'The Truman Show' as well as the fascinating 2-part 'Star Trek: Voyager' episode 'Flesh and Blood'. It felt, a lot of the time that the world of the story had derived inspiration from a lot in the past and some of our present. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does have a semblance of similarity that took away from the world of the story.
One of the negatives of the film was the acting. Oddly enough none of the young actors in the film appeared to have any expression on their faces. They appeared to remain completely the same, throughout. While it didn't completely ruin the experience for me, it did take me aback because most of these young actors are touted as being very talented. All right, they are talented, but they could try and show that talent, too.
The older actors, though on screen for very short bursts of time, were far better. I don't like Woody Harrelson much, but he was commendable as Katniss and Peeta's mentor Haymitch. I also enjoyed Lenny Kravitz's performance as Cinna - the stylist. He was a gentle, understanding character that was a much needed entry into the film.
After watching the film I understand some of the hype that surrounded it. It definitely has a great deal of novelty attached to it, and I do commend it for that. I have not read the books so I wouldn't know how faithful it is to the original, but what I saw in the film was definitely different from the usual.
In a world where we must suffer through the 'Twilight' franchise and its ilk, its refreshing to come across a female character who pretty much stands on her own and is front and center in the story she's in. She is given the utmost importance, and her abilities are not superhuman but need-based. I loved the subversiveness in this film - it is there pretty much throughout, and it doesn't take intense scrutiny to find it.
For example, there's the scene when the tributes are being taken to their new home where Katniss sits stoically, while Peeta is wincing back tears. That pretty much tells you how this film is going to go, and I really loved that about it.
It helps, I think, that Lawrence is taller than Hutcherson and has a broad frame. I'm glad they chose a female actor who looks like she could ably take care of herself, instead of choosing an anorexic model-type who would not have been convincing.
Even when the female protagonist is made to fit into a mold, she remains true to herself, and that is an important characteristic that far too many films leave behind.
[SPOILER ALERT] - In the film Katniss ably tends to her own wounds, while Peeta ends up being in way too bad shape to do that himself. He requires her help to gain shelter, and she risks her life to get him what he needs. Also, he obviously pines for her throughout the film, while she appears to just play up to the camera.
The climactic moment of the film was also stunning. The rival has Peeta by the neck and Katniss has to save him. Very nice. We could do with more scenes like that. [END SPOILER]
I don't know how her relationships are described in the books, but Katniss comes across as asexual in the film. This is not unusual - strong female characters are usually at either end of the spectrum - hypersexual or asexual. There appears to be some difficulty in finding the middle ground with these characters, for reasons beyond me.
In Katniss' case I somewhat understand her asexuality as she has just one aim - to survive for the sake of her family. Also, it might be the writers' way of completing the cycle of antithesis to other young adult films which place far too much weight on romantic issues. Romance is used as an advantageous bargaining tool in this film, which is another instance of the novelty and subversiveness of the film.
There is shockingly little of most of the other characters in this film. We follow the female protagonist, and the point of view only changes when there is vital information being revealed that could affect Katniss' situation. For all the talk surrounding the younger Hemsworth, he's hardly in this film at all. And once Katniss leaves, he never gets the opportunity to speak at all! I assume his role will grow in the other films, or else I fail to see why he chose to play this character. It is unlikely to do anything for his career.
I read that Alex Pettyfer was up for the role of Peeta - I'm actually, for the first time, glad he didn't get the role, though. He's a strong personality and I think that would have ruined the dynamic that the current actors brought to their respective roles.
Josh Hutcherson has the most on-screen time after Lawrence and while he doesn't set the house on fire with his acting, he is capable in his role. I feel they could've brought more depth to him, but his character is just a foil for the protagonist. I don't know if Peeta (who I thought was Peter throughout the film) is more fleshed out in the books, but the poor guy has very little to do in the film. However, I can definitely see the appeal of the man - his character is endearing, and the lost puppy look permanently pasted on Hutcherson's face lends itself well to Peeta.
I credit the author of the book for giving young females a character to look up to. I also feel the director of the film, Gary Ross, did an admirable job of not subverting the importance of Katniss. It has been seen before that an important and strong female character ends up playing second fiddle to the male character, even when he isn't the protagonist. Here, at no point does Katniss play second fiddle to anyone.
This film was more than enjoyable, mostly due to its blatant subversion of the male-female characters. It was a refreshing change from the usual fare in this category and I hope it inspires more commercial/ mainstream films to follow suit. The majority of the film solely follows a female protagonist, who thankfully keeps her kit on at every moment. She is strong, identifiable and oddly likable. I understand that there are sequels underway. Let's hope the sequels continue the trait of creating strong, believable female characters.
 |
Now, it is my wont not to get taken in by hype. And, I wasn't. But I was intrigued enough to take a gander when the film was finally released on DVD.
The film is based on a successful series of books of the same name. These books are regarded as an antithesis to the popular 'Twilight' franchise. The story is based in the fictional country Panem and follows the unusually named Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) who lives in District 12. At some point in this world's history a revolution took place and to resolve the same the Hunger Games were invented. Much like the Roman gladiatorial fights, these Hunger Games are played out for the benefit of the masses - to keep them quiet, in line and well, fearful.
From the beginning we know that our protagonist and her friend, Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth) wish for a way to stop these Games, but they do not know how. Eventually, Katniss has to join the games, alongside Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson).
There's rather a long preamble till the Games begin which includes interviews and prettying up of the Tributes, as the players are called. It is very similar to how reality TV works in the real world, and the supporting cast spend a great deal of time attempting to make Katniss fit into the mold that the audience wishes to see. The satirical look at the real world is not lost on the audience, but more of that later.
Once the Games begin, the pace picks up a little and there is some suspense thrown into the mix. The last half-hour is the most frenetic, and ultimately the most enjoyable, as we come to the requisite conclusion.
I have to admit, I didn't dislike this film as much as I had originally expected myself to. Hell, I was ready to hate it. But no such luck. I actually enjoyed plenty of it, if enjoy is the right word to use concerning a film revolved around kids and teenagers gutting each other to death.
First however, I'd like to say that logistically this film has a few problems. The choice of using children between the ages of 12-18 doesn't make much sense to me. Granted, children are used as pawns all the time, and frequently by parents (willing or unwilling), but in the context of the story it does not do them much credit, as the likelihood of a 12-year-old making it through the Games is zero. In most of the districts they are not trained for the Games, and in the one district they are, the kids volunteer when they reach the age of 17/ 18. Makes no sense. The kids that become tribute are lost causes, so the speech about 'hope' that President Snow (Donald Sutherland) gives has no meaning to those children's families.
Also, it appears that if you get bad/ no advice from your mentors before the Games, you're dead meat, as seen in the film. If people drop dead right in the beginning of the Games, what prompts the audience from those districts to continue watching?
There's the added issue of some tributes being luckier than others. I'm not saying the Games need to be fair, everything is unfair, but how far would the story have gone, had Katniss and Peeta not got the advice/ help, etc. that they did from the people that they met? Things may have turned out very differently had they got the advisers of some of the other districts.
I liked the allegorical nature of the story. How far will humanity go for entertainment? Are we willing to watch people die? The idea is not that far-fetched, at the same time, it isn't that original either. People read the news, and it's usually bad, but essentially it's re-living someone else's hideous reality. Not all of us enjoy that, thankfully, but allegorically, it answers the questions this film asks.
The film was very reminiscent of 'In Time' - the districts were much like the zones in that film, and the rich get richer while the poor get screwed message was also almost the same. Now considering the film is based on a series of books, I'm wondering what inspired what.
Also, the holographic quality of the Games reminded me of the nature of 'The Truman Show' as well as the fascinating 2-part 'Star Trek: Voyager' episode 'Flesh and Blood'. It felt, a lot of the time that the world of the story had derived inspiration from a lot in the past and some of our present. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does have a semblance of similarity that took away from the world of the story.
One of the negatives of the film was the acting. Oddly enough none of the young actors in the film appeared to have any expression on their faces. They appeared to remain completely the same, throughout. While it didn't completely ruin the experience for me, it did take me aback because most of these young actors are touted as being very talented. All right, they are talented, but they could try and show that talent, too.
The older actors, though on screen for very short bursts of time, were far better. I don't like Woody Harrelson much, but he was commendable as Katniss and Peeta's mentor Haymitch. I also enjoyed Lenny Kravitz's performance as Cinna - the stylist. He was a gentle, understanding character that was a much needed entry into the film.
After watching the film I understand some of the hype that surrounded it. It definitely has a great deal of novelty attached to it, and I do commend it for that. I have not read the books so I wouldn't know how faithful it is to the original, but what I saw in the film was definitely different from the usual.
In a world where we must suffer through the 'Twilight' franchise and its ilk, its refreshing to come across a female character who pretty much stands on her own and is front and center in the story she's in. She is given the utmost importance, and her abilities are not superhuman but need-based. I loved the subversiveness in this film - it is there pretty much throughout, and it doesn't take intense scrutiny to find it.
For example, there's the scene when the tributes are being taken to their new home where Katniss sits stoically, while Peeta is wincing back tears. That pretty much tells you how this film is going to go, and I really loved that about it.
 |
| The rugged hero - Jennifer Lawrence |
Even when the female protagonist is made to fit into a mold, she remains true to herself, and that is an important characteristic that far too many films leave behind.
The climactic moment of the film was also stunning. The rival has Peeta by the neck and Katniss has to save him. Very nice. We could do with more scenes like that. [END SPOILER]
I don't know how her relationships are described in the books, but Katniss comes across as asexual in the film. This is not unusual - strong female characters are usually at either end of the spectrum - hypersexual or asexual. There appears to be some difficulty in finding the middle ground with these characters, for reasons beyond me.
In Katniss' case I somewhat understand her asexuality as she has just one aim - to survive for the sake of her family. Also, it might be the writers' way of completing the cycle of antithesis to other young adult films which place far too much weight on romantic issues. Romance is used as an advantageous bargaining tool in this film, which is another instance of the novelty and subversiveness of the film.
 |
| The pretty heroine - Josh Hutcherson. The girl back home - Liam Hemsworth. |
I read that Alex Pettyfer was up for the role of Peeta - I'm actually, for the first time, glad he didn't get the role, though. He's a strong personality and I think that would have ruined the dynamic that the current actors brought to their respective roles.
Josh Hutcherson has the most on-screen time after Lawrence and while he doesn't set the house on fire with his acting, he is capable in his role. I feel they could've brought more depth to him, but his character is just a foil for the protagonist. I don't know if Peeta (who I thought was Peter throughout the film) is more fleshed out in the books, but the poor guy has very little to do in the film. However, I can definitely see the appeal of the man - his character is endearing, and the lost puppy look permanently pasted on Hutcherson's face lends itself well to Peeta.
I credit the author of the book for giving young females a character to look up to. I also feel the director of the film, Gary Ross, did an admirable job of not subverting the importance of Katniss. It has been seen before that an important and strong female character ends up playing second fiddle to the male character, even when he isn't the protagonist. Here, at no point does Katniss play second fiddle to anyone.
This film was more than enjoyable, mostly due to its blatant subversion of the male-female characters. It was a refreshing change from the usual fare in this category and I hope it inspires more commercial/ mainstream films to follow suit. The majority of the film solely follows a female protagonist, who thankfully keeps her kit on at every moment. She is strong, identifiable and oddly likable. I understand that there are sequels underway. Let's hope the sequels continue the trait of creating strong, believable female characters.
Comments