The odds were always in favor of a Hunger Games film adaptation. A blockbuster YA adult book series about a tough girl with two fellas competing for her attention. No pop culture phenomenon is complete unless you can say you are either Team Jail-bait Hottie #1 or Team Jail-bait Hottie #2. And in this case it's Team Gale and Team Peeta.
But the most refreshing part of these books is how much of a backseat the love plots take in the face of concerns for basic human survival. Our heroine, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is a girl who most of the time can't be bothered with the gooey mushy stuff, and if she does allow some flirtation, she's knowingly manipulating the situation to get out of the games alive.
The books hook you in with the compelling scenario of a future dystopia in which each of 12 subservient industrial districts offer a teenage boy and girl to the capital city of Panem every year as tribute to compete in a perverse, hellish Olympics called the Hunger Games in which the kids all fight to the death with only a single victor. This premise had been first explored in cult film form with Battle Royale, but there's something so taboo and fringe-y about the content that still makes the mainstream success the books have achieved surprising. How do you root for a protagonist that has to kill ruthlessly? Especially a teenage girl. It's one thing if you're Russell Crowe and get to kill either unequivocal villains or glorified extras in breast plates.
But in the Hunger Games, every child is a victim, despite how bloodthirsty the child. Unfortunately, Suzanne Collins and by extension, the movie, steer clear of dicey, moral ambiguity-land, and to me that has always been a shortcoming. Whenever Katniss gets her hands bloody, she neatly avoids any ethical quandaries. The film gives us two dimensional "careers," blood-thirsty competitors that are on the offensive. But given the situation these children are placed in, shouldn't they be absolved for their blood lust? The movie and books don't seem interested in exploring that territory, and we're left with heros and villains in the arena. And if it's easy to villify the opulent, baroque capital city of Panem and its elaborately coifed denizens, it's also disturbingly easy to root against other tributes.
And perhaps this is where the film succeeds the most: in implicating the viewer in the viewing of the Hunger Games. Even if it doesn't seem aware of all its implications. It is intentional that the Hunger Games is just plain fun to watch and that raises some interesting questions about finding child slaughter entertaining. The material lends itself to confusing the Panemanian (?) audience of the Hunger games with us. The book begs for cinematic treatment in that half of the events of the novel are televised, and by omnipresent cameras in a vast arena. Playing with this, Gary Ross' camera work tries to mimic a reality show feel, and lots of shaky handicam work ensues with sometimes nauseous, if effective, results.
Jennifer Lawrence is certainly appealing as Katniss Everdeen. She is able to telegraph so much emotion with so little. What an economical performance, which, in a big blockbuster movie, helps to ground the film. Of the supporting characters, the adults are clearly having more fun in their roles than the kids. Elizabeth Banks chews the scenery in a role she did some campaigning for; Woody Harrelson is relaxed and revels in the drunk, pseudo Mr. Miyagi Haymitch. If Josh Hutcherson is a little dull as Peeta, it can't really be helped. Peeta is kind of dull until the third book.
The pace is brisk, the movie well structured, building anticipation for the games in its first half, and keeping the adrenaline running in the second. Fans of the books will definitely not be disappointed. This is a faithful adaptation with author Suzanne Collins very much involved in the process. The concept and hook of the series is considerable, but just in the same way the books pull some of their punches, so too does the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment