[MOVIE] The Hunger Games

Yeah, see my post right above yours. I didn't mean to come off like a d*ck.

I think the story has been misunderstood by some who had not read the books, not by all who had not read the books. So I do not see that as a problem with the filmmaking. Those people who couldn't follow along with the film should read the books if they want to know more.

#noneedforahashtag

 

I think part of the story is that neither Katniss or Peeta ever wanted to kill anyone - Katniss did once, but only in self-defense (the person that killed Rue) but that was it. It was part of the idea of them trying to maintain their humanity in the midst of the games.

She did get lucky, obviously. But I'd argue that's true of basically all "action" movies where one small set of good guys manages to survive overwhelming odds - there has to be some suspension of reality there.

I think it was implied by the "trust me" that she knew they weren't going to allow both of them to die. I don't think she knew what would happen, though.

 

Don't worry, I didn't think you were being jacka$$y lol

I actually wanted to know what you thought of as the 'message' of the movie.

The reason is, the thing has kind of bothered me since I saw it, because I just don't get the message they were going for, and yet a movie such as this is at its very heart a 'message movie'.

So I have been scratching my head, and I suspect reading the books would make it clearer.

In any case, I just have a problem with the whole thing as presented in the movie. I will attempt to do my best to explain why it bothers me below:

Spoiler

First and foremost, a civilized society would NEVER condone such a thing as the Hunger Games as presented. Not even one time, much less every year. It's absurd. It is the type of thing people go to war over, not meekly accept as a 'penance'. Frankly the entire premise is ridiculous.

To me, that makes this story a satire - social commentary illustrated with extremes and absurdity.

And that's ok. Ridiculous is ok, as long as the 'message' is clear.

So, asked to suspend our disbelief and accept that the residents of all 12 'Districts' would blithely go along with watching their children slaughtered every eyar on some kind of weird broadcast, the question is, why? What is the point?

Penance? That is the explanation given at the beginning. The 12 districts 'rebelled' against what is clearly (at least currently) a corrupt and evil oppressive tyranny. The rebels lost, peace was restored, and the central government decides to be forever cruel and punitive, by brutally slaughtering the districts' children for sport and entertainment before cackling buffoonish crowds of the clownish wealthy elite? How is that penance? Penance implies that the price can eventually be paid and the penance will end, but there is no suggestion that this will be the case.

Not only that, but the 12 districts are described as 'poor and starving', or at least Katniss' district is, it is not clear about the other districts.

How can they be starving in a land as verdant and teeming with life as the area in which Katniss goes to hunt? Is it because they are locked behind a fence and forced to starve by the government? That's what it appears to be. If so, why?

This is what people go to war over, this is not what people just accept, especially people who have already rebelled.

So, the fact that the situation exists, and that the people inexplicably accept the situation, it's all absurd, but that is the world the author created, in the service of the 'message'.

So what is the freaking message?

That's what I can't figure out. Violence is bad? Duh. Corruption is bad? Ok. We kind of know that already. A central tyranny callously keeping itself rich and bloated while the bulk of the population is enslaved and starved? Look at the history of any communist nation. We already know it's a bad thing.

I have seen it said that the model for this 'society' was ancient Rome, that empire. Ok fine, but there are no nations like that now. So who is the target?

Satire, in order to be effective, must have a target. Who is the target of this social commentary? Who are the movies characters and situations surrogates for?

My instinct tells me that, like always, Hollywood takes the easy target and makes the United States the big evil bad guy in the world, once again, what with the reality tv and the perceived social injustice, indicated by the overtly implied class warfare.

But that doesn't work, as we have a constitution and a foundation of freedom from tyranny here which would make it impossible that the USA is the legitimate target of the satire.

So, who then? The nearest thing I can think of is a culture like Japan, or maybe China. But Japan rings most true. And, that may be closer too, because, while I have not yet seen Battle Royale, I understand that there are similar themes, and he brutality is not hidden, so maybe that movie will be a good counter-point to this one.

But did the author really write The Hunger Games as a social commentary on the potential cruelty and injustice in a dystopian future Japan.

I doubt it.

I am thinking maybe.. maybe there IS no legitimate 'message' in this film. It seems to me to be a somewhat predictable adventure yarn set against the backdrop of a rather infantile premise of oppression and tyranny.

If there is more to it than that, I just didn't see it.

 

The next two books are all about this exact issue - so I think the story of the series is far more clear once you've read/seen them all. I think the first book set the stage and was more simply a "fun read". You saw a little preview with the mini-rebellion in District 11, but the next two are much more about that side of it.

 

you don't have to go as far as ancient Rome to find a society similar to what is portrayed in the book. Look at the Hitler and the Nazis. Look at Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

Teh Jews and Cambodians easily accepted their fate. When the collective people see themselves as the weak, it's easy to for those in charge to suppress them. And you keep them in check through fear (aka the Hunger games).

as for the message of the movie, i agree with you. it wasn't very clear. the districts backstory basically consisted of the first ten minutes of the movie while everything else was about Katniss's training and the actual hunger games. you don't really get a sense of how destitute they are.

reading Major's post above reminds me there will be sequels. so, hopefully the questions are answered.

 

The author came up with the premise to this series one day when she was flipping through TV channels. Most channels she saw were either coverage of the Iraq War or reality shows. Combine that with some Theseus and the Minotaur and some other Greek stories and you get The Hunger Games.

The rebels didn't just lose the war, they were crushed. District 13 was annhiliated completely, not one person left alive after the Capitol bombed them. I think you can come up with some historical examples of people who have been so thoroughly demoralized that they lose the willingness to push back.

Eh, I think you are placing too much emphasis on that word. But if that bothers you I understand.

Not all of the Districts are poor and starving. Generally, the higher the District number, the worse off they are. The "Inner" Districts have a cozy relationship with the Capitol and really don't have a problem with the status quo. Some of them make it to the Capitol as a Peacekeeper.

OK, you kind of lose me here. I think the message is indeed one that is not entirely original. You know, like every other film, book, TV show and play that has come out in our lifetimes.

You can take your pick as to what you want to take away most from it, but I see it as a critique of a centralized government and of people's willingness to acquiesce to almost any form of tyranny put upon them - and how one goes about erradicating that tyranny.

As for the Constitution being a safeguard against infringments on the liberty of Americans... well... I guess we'll leave that to the D&D

 

H

In a sense, you are right.
When I read the book though, I could see that many things are either hard to explained or just plain boring. You would need quite a bit more of screen to tell how destitude these people are.
When I saw the movie, I thought they did a decent job to make the movie more entertaining at the risk of being more clear.

The movie is better than Twilight, by far.
It's not as good as Harry Potter but only if you compare against the later Potter's movies. Their earlier ones were a little young/ too cutesy. Harry Potter's universe is amazing and the story is easy to tell, I think, once you have the technology mastered. There isn't any hidden message there. The only thing that was hard to play was the relationship between Harry and Voldermort and if you had not read the books, I think you would have had a difficult time understand it too.

 

Saw the movie twice over the past two days, and I will say at first it was kind of a let down, but that was until the second time I saw it. I read the book so in my mind the first time I saw it, all I did was compare it to the book so I think that's why I was disappointed. Then, the second time I saw it I forgot about the book completely and just focused on the movie itself. And I gotta say I think I liked it more the second time around.

I realized obviously the movie is never as good as the book, so why bother getting upset?

Anyway, I think i'll give it a 8.4/10.

Jennifer Lawrence stole the show, and rightfully so. She really impressed me. She's stunning and her acting was superb. Overall I'd say the acting was really great. They portrayed the characters in the book really well, especially Effie and Haymitch. For those complaining about the "clown look" of the citizens in the Capitol, they are dressed like that because remember this book is based deep into the future, so naturally they are gonna make them look futuristic in a sense.

For those of you wondering what the message is, I think that's open to your own interpretation. I definitely sensed a socialistic theme when I read the book, but the movie was a little harder to portray that. The book mentioned that Panem was created on the bases of North America. So basically that is Canada and the United States, but one would easily conclude that the author is more than likely taking a jab at the U.S. in this book. However, I try not to dig too deep in a fictional book and try to compare it to the real world in which we live because let's face it, it's a fictional book. The concept of the Hunger Games is so far fetched that we know it will never become a reality. Could you imagine the uproar of a real nation if that ever happened?

Anyway back to the book/movie. I know it's cliche to say that you have to read the book to fully understand the movie, but it's very true with this movie. There are so many details explaining the situation of the districts and people you almost have to read the book to fully appreciate everything. For instance, in the book Katniss and Peeta go all out in the Games to show their love for each other in order to get more sponsors, thus in order to win the Games. The book shows that although at first it seems as if Peeta is putting on a show, you conclude that he really does love Katniss, and always has since he was 5. Katniss on the other hand thought his love for her was just a show in the Games for them to win. Thus, this causes her not knowing what to feel towards Peeta. The book portrays this very well, but I felt the movie didn't do a good enough job. However, I do think that they did a good job with Gale in the movie. In the book you can tell that Gale loves Katniss but he never confesses it to her. So in the scenes where they show Gale watch Katniss kiss Peeta, they did a good job of showing how Gale feels about it. I actually don't think the movie portrayed the love triangle enough.

They did a good job in the movie in the death scene with Rue. The scene was played out exactly as I had imagined in my mind. Jennifer Lawrence did a great job in this scene. Superb acting.

All in all maybe the book/movie doesn't have a clear message. Maybe we dig too deep sometimes into things hoping we can find a clear, distinct message. Maybe the author had a vivid imagination and wondered "what if"? Either way the first book was great and the movie did a pretty good job translating it to the big screen. Now, I'm off to finish the rest of the series.

 

No.





:grin:

 

It was ok, but having just finished the books I thought they left a lot of crucial stuff out.....stuff that is important later.

DD

 

DaDa - what you saying it it should have been a mini series like The Game of Thrones

Rocket River

 

Question: Did rue's race bother you?

It evidently was an issue for some fans of the book.
http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

not trying to move this to D&D but I found it . . . odd
but not surprising. Evidently Rue was described as dark brown skinned in the book


Rocket River

 

That would probably make more sense and allow for better character development.

DD

 

To be honest, I don't think there HAD to be a message. The concept of the Hunger Games is probably more to draw people's attention to things like survival, betrayal, entertainment, rather than a comment on governance.

While it's true the message of the book isn't very clear, I strongly disagree that 'any civilised nation would condemn it'. The Romans thought they were very, very civilised, what with their government, road system, buildings, but they had some of the most infamously bloodthirsty games in history. Plus the whole world was supposed to be destroyed and rebuilt again, so I'm not surprised if the concept of human civilisation was set back a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if an alien species is looking down at us and thinking 'What kind of savages have beings who volunteer to learn how to kill other beings and get around the world to kill them?'

Also, one note I have to point out, the film adds in completely new scenes for President Snow, which I really like, because it helps to flesh out the supposed reason why the Hunger Games were put on and puts Snow in the forefront of the audience's mind.

 

it definitely would have benefited as a mini-series. i didn't seem to care about anyone who died on-screen, mainly because i had no idea who they were as a person.

 

I never understood, what is the point of having kids from 12-18 in the contest? There is HUGE difference between a 12 year old little girl and an 18 year old mature man, both mentally and physically.

If anything they should at least split the games up into age groups, one for 12 year olds, one for 13 year olds, and so on. That would at least set up for a fair fight.

But I guess fair isn't what the games are about, considering the fake forest fire. The games are totally rigged, which does not explain why it is so popular among the citizens. Who would want to watch such a clearly rigged game? This would be like Stern and the NBA except 10x more obvious and blatant rigging.

 

I never read the books and actually didn't know what the Hunger Games were until the media blitz started. I happened to go see the movie as a tag-along with some other folks.

I had pretty low expectations going in but was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the movie. Parts could have been better, things might have been better explained, etc, but I thought it was actually fairly honest and brutal for a PG-13 movie, even though they didn't show the gore.

 

It's not really popular amongst the citizens as entertainment - they are forced to watch parts; they want to watch because their own people are in it and they care about them; and the winner's district gets all sort of food and other benefits, so there is a desire to win for the district for pure survival reasons.

 

This was something that I didn't like. They did not set the stage very well. It was mentioned once but never returned to.

This is a supposed to be a world after a nuclear war/WWIII destroyed most of the United States. What is left of the US has centered 14 districts as such. The one in the Mountains, which provides protection managed to retain most of its technology and claimed itself the capital over the others and relegated the other districts to its pawns.

In the beginning of the movie, it mentions that 13 districts rebeled, but it never specifically mentions that District 13 was blown off the map and eradicated during the rebellion. That is essentially the deterent to the other districts. The Hunger Games is for them to always remember who is control and in power, and if they do not listen even after that they will be blown off the map.

Spoiler

For anyone who read Book 3, just deal with that last paragraph. I'm not gonna ruin anything for anyone.

Essentially this is a post-apocalyptic world and post rebellion world, controlled by somewhat by fear but mainly by restriction of information. The capital controls the 1 tv station, and blocks people from even moving between districts. Without any outside interaction essentially ever and the fear of extermination if you truly think about rebelling, it is easy to oppress a populous. Especially when severe limit their food, work, and livelihood, most people begin to accept their fate and not really expect anything better.

This could have been much better explained, especially when Katniss and Peeta first see all that food and luxury in the train, as they have NEVER seen anything like that before even on the television.