The Hunger Games
Released By Lionsgate Films, Available on DVD and Bluray September 3rd 2012
Cert: 12A
Director: Gary Ross, Writers: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins & Billy Ray based on Suzanne Collins’ novel
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland, Wes Bentley and Lenny Kravitz
Plot Summary:
In a war ravaged future the Capitol of Panem selects a boy and girl from each of the 12 districts to fight to the death in the Hunger Games. When Katniss’ younger sister is selected for the games, Katniss takes her place and becomes District 12’s first volunteer. Now on live television Katniss must use her survival skills to fight for her life and become a beacon of hope.....
Ok. Let’s get the comparisons out of the way. Firstly, the big one, yes its Twilight. So we have the first of a planned trilogy of films (unless they decide to split the final book in to two movies as is the standard Hollywood practice these days) based on a
The film’s lead is a head strong teenage woman, on the cusp of an extraordinary moment in her life who for the majority of the film remains stoically humourless. The Hunger Games also features a love triangle which will surely have implications in future instalments.
This in reality is where the Twilight comparisons end. For a start, in Jennifer Lawrence we have an actress who is really starting to impress and can convey more than one emotion. The opening scenes of Katniss hunting and interacting with her sister recall her role as Ree in Debra Granik’s film Winter’s Bone and set a precedent for the themes of nature and living off the land that feature in Katniss’ story throughout the film.
The other reasonably obvious comparison is to the 2000 Japanese shocker, Battle Royale. This is an understandable comparison as the film takes a class of school children and puts them in an island environment where they must fight to the death until one remains within the allotted time, or they all die.
This comparison is in some respects a little unfair as the films are dealing with subjectively different subject matter – the battle royale act of this movie refers to a protocol designed to deal with unruly children whereas the Hunger Games are a method of keeping down the entire population in a twisted future class system
The level of violence shown in Battle Royale (which a teen targeting Hunger Games could only hint at) brings a level of intimacy lacking in the Hunger Games. Showing the violence in such detail has the power to move the viewer and draw them in to the plight of our heroes (and villains) If anything, by not showing the deaths of the teenagers in the hunger games the children become disposable products to be bought, sold or ‘sponsored’
It is very likely that Battle Royale was a huge influence on the source material (and to a lesser extent on the adaptation) even just as the inspiration for a controlling government forcing kids to fight to the death, but in reality The Hunger Games is as similar to Battle Royale as the latter is to Lord Of The Flies, both a literary and filmic precursor to the Japanese movie.
So is The Hunger Games any good? Well actually, it’s not bad. Reviewing solely on the basis as a film as opposed to an adaptation of the book, The Hunger Games has lot on offer to enjoy. Firstly, as previously mentioned the central performance from Lawrence is a fine one and it needed to be as there are few moments where she is off the screen. Lawrence brings a believable toughness to the role which goes beyond physicality. There is a true resilience in her performance that underpins the idea that she could be one of the favourites to win the games.
Lawrence also excels at bringing a maternal quality to Katniss, and one which appears to have been foisted on her since the death of her father left her own mother emotional broken. Her relationship with surrogate sister Rue plays on this further and Lawrence brings a tenderness to scenes that could easily have been overplayed.
Less convincing is Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark. Whilst he brings a wide eyed enthusiasm to early scenes where he first sees the Capitol and displays charm and charisma in his scenes with Stanley Tucci’s Caesar Flickerman (what was Suzanne Collins thinking when she came up with these names?) Hutcherson’s scenes with Katniss fall a little flat doing little to sell the central romance.
The supporting cast sports a surprising array of Hollywood talent. Donald Sutherland phones in his performance as the malevolent leader of the governing power and the underused Wes Bentley hints at a larger back story in the role of Seneca Cane – much more could have been made of this character and his motivations, in particular the feelings of someone who is effectively show running the deaths of 23 children.
Woody Harrelson impresses in his minor role as the obligatory former winner, a now permanently drunk waster who turns things around before the final reel. The reasons behind his apparent alcoholism are hinted at but never fully explored but Harrelson does well with the limited script that he is given. A big Surpise is Lenny Kravitz as Cinna who in a minor role, brings much needed warmth to the to Capitol's appearance obsessed elite.
Gary Ross would not have been an obvious choice as director having only previously directed Seabiscuit and Pleasantville. Ross has created a visual palette which is as disparate as the districts of Panem At times the world is akin to the late 1800s in the rural west and at others it recalls the world of southern gentlemen and dandies of Gone with The Wind.
Probably the most striking visuals (which give the clearest understanding of the difference between the haves and have-nots) are Elizabeth Banks portrayal of Effie Trinket and Stanley Tucci’s glorious blue hairdo. Trinket is one of the more memorable characters, partly due to her self-serving and cloying behaviour, but mostly down to her appearance. Equal parts southern belle and harlot, Banks is a tornado of powdered wigs, ghostly make up and over the top styling which sums up much of what is wrong with superficial upper-class in the Capitol.
The violence understandably is relatively toned down (on screen) however it is still unsettling to see children killing each other in the opening battle, resulting in a number of lifeless kids lying in heaps on the ground. Another scene sees Cato snap the neck of another youngster in a fit of anger. The glee with which some of the characters take in this pageant of death is genuinely chilling. What makes this film slightly more effective than Battle Royale in depicting that this is affecting children, is that the kids who participate in this contest are aged from 12 to 18 with some clearly being very young whereas Battle Royale‘s cast are physically much more mature.
My biggest gripe with The Hunger games is that it does not really know what it wants to say. Yes a contest that has children fighting to the death is obviously wrong and yes class systems can result in the poorest of people fighting for causes they do not believe in or even fully understand. Yet the Hunger Games does not seem to have a clear point to make. There are moments of minor satire regarding the cult of celebrity but these are too few and far between.
Ultimately not a bad movie, I view the Hunger games as more of a missed opportunity than anything else. There are hints that sequel Catching Fire may further explore the shadowy motivations of President Snow and the impact of Katniss’ actions at the end of the film. If I am dragged along by my girlfriend to this movie, I won’t complain too much, it could be worse – it could be Breaking Dawn part 2.
Rating: 7.2 out of 10 Kevin Williams
