Cinema Fancy - The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Any time entertainment tries to make a statement of any kind, there will always be criticism.  While the lines between art, entertainment, and commentary have always blurred somewhat, there are some who believe that works of fiction (whatever the medium) that are developed strictly as a medium of entertainment have little, if any, artistic merit or value.  I would argue to the contrary: any work that creates an emotional response within the audience, however slight, can be considered art in some form, even if the response is negative.  When a mass medium entertainment form transcends its trappings and is able to speak to people at a level beyond just merely evoking a response and consuming their time, it becomes difficult to argue against the merits of it as art.  Such is the case with The Hunger Games, and it's sequel, the aptly named Catching Fire.

I failed to mention so in my review of the first film, but when I saw the movie with my wife, teenager, and a coworker/friend, it immediately sparked conversation after the movie.  Not the usual post film questions of "What did you think?" and the like, but we immediately began a discourse on the weighty themes of the film, the implications of some of the plot points, and talking about how the events unfolded and what it all meant.  I suspect that's just what Suzanne Collins wanted, and that translated well in the first film.  This second installment of the trilogy revolves around a quickly planned and executed 75th Hunger Games; the 'Quarter Quell', a special edition of the games that takes place every 25 years.  This particular event seeks to bring back past winners of the Games and pit them against one another in a spectacular event.  President Snow, the reigning leader over the republic of Panem, hopes to use this event to eliminate Katniss, since her presence has sparked hope in the people of the 12 districts, something that the Capitol needs to keep at a minimum to prevent all the subjugated people from revolting.

*SPOILER ALERT!*

Taking place a few months, or presumably close to a year after the events of the first book/film, Catching Fire immediately evokes a sense of familiarity for anyone who read the first book or saw the first film, and could be slightly confusing for anyone who hasn't.  Having said that, it's not entirely necessary to do so to get swept up in the film's cinematics, drama, effects, or pacing.  It seems as though there's a balance between wanting the focus of the proceedings to be on the Quarter Quell, and to the events brewing under the surface, namely, the growing unrest and dissatisfaction of the people of the 12 districts of Panem who have finally been given a symbol of hope in Katniss.  Katniss is, of course, caught in between the two worlds she is now a part of, one where she remains a poor young girl with a duty and responsibility to her family, and the lavish world of the Capitol, a land of plenty that she can now experience while touring to visit the districts and promote the Games as a victor.  Katniss does not see herself as a symbol of hope, and only wants to protect her sister and mother, as well as have a chance to live out her life without fear.

With the death of previous Games Maker Seneca Crane, the Quarter Quell is helmed by returning Games Maker Plutarch Heavensbee (played by the over-cast Philip Seymour Hoffman), who quickly plays both sides of the games by appealing to Katniss during a special reception for President Snow (again, excellently played by Donald Sutherland), as well as assuring President Snow during every step leading up to and during the games, that Katniss would be "destroyed" during the course of the 75th games.  Katniss tries to sacrifice herself once again in the games, this time for previous co-winner Peeta Mellark, with whom she has a complicated relationship.  Former District 12 winner Haymitch Abernathy (portrayed well by Woody Harrelson) is chosen alongside Katniss to participate in the Quarter Quell, but Peeta volunteers to take his place, complicating Katniss' efforts to keep Peeta safe.  All the while, Katniss is torn between her feelings for Peeta (while pushing him away), and District 12 boyfriend Gale Hawthorne (while pining for him).  Effie Trinket, the chaperon and constant companion to Katniss and Peeta during their "tour" after the 74th games, shows some emotional connection to the 2 victors during the tour and the time leading up to the 75th games, possibly demonstrating that she's not completely a heartless nincompoop after all.

There are some interesting parallels between the two films that bear mentioning.  It's interesting that in the "demonstrate your skills" portion of the Games preparation, she is totally confident in herself here, and rather than again displaying her bow & arrow skills as she did the first time, she instead uses the time to stage a political demonstration, completely unaware of the machinery at work behind the scenes.  This compared with the shy, awkward girl who missed the target with her bow & arrow the 1st time, before getting a bit lucky with the arrow shot the 2nd time.  The other thing that is quite interesting is Cinna's dress work for Katniss.  In the 1st film, the initial "girl on fire" stunt gave Katniss an identity, and was played upon for the events leading up to the Games.  This time around, however, as a victor and not a tribute, the "girl on fire" persona is taken to the extreme with the transformation of the wedding dress to that of a Mockingjay inspired outfit.  Combine that with Jenna Malone's spirited, expletive-filled rant on stage as Johanna Mason, and the general unity of the tributes during Caesar's interview show when everyone on stage holds hands and lifts them up to the sky.

Looking at it from a post-watch perspective, it's not hard to see the "plot twist" of Heavensbee being some kind of revolution leader, but I honestly wasn't expecting Haymitch to be in on the revolution at that high level, which I thought was kind of cool.  I liked the fact that Katniss wasn't in on the coup from the very beginning, and that the rest of the victors knew that they would be participating in, and possibly dying for, a revolution that may never get off the ground.  But, as the saying goes, "If you're going to die, die for what you believe in."  It's a solid motivator for them, as obviously their deaths are totally meaningless if they're just fodder for the Games' entertainment value.  I'll be interested to see the 3rd act and how it plays out, especially since it will be split into 2 films, as has become customary for Youth/YA novel-to-movie adaptations of late.  Hopefully it will mean further character development for Gale and Peeta, who are admittedly a bit thin as characters thus far.

Ultimately, if you enjoyed the first film like I did, looked past the obvious similarities to previous "death lottery" films, books, and stories, and took it for what it was, you'll enjoy this probably just as much, if not a bit more.  This isn't a film that will go down in history as one of the most socially conscious or poignant of all time, but in terms of its social impact, it still looks to be quite the phenomenon.  When I first saw it in the theater, I felt like it would be the current generation's "The Empire Strikes Back".  My perspective on that has cooled slightly, as I don't know that it will have that level of impact, but in terms of a movie that crosses over from being a niche sci-fi/fantasy drama into something much more universal in its storytelling and overall cultural impact, Hunger Games: Catching Fire has great potential to scale a similar height, even if it doesn't reach that zenith that the Star Wars franchise did.  Since they tell similar stories of oppression and rebellion against an unacceptable status quo, I believe The Hunger Games as a franchise could become the de facto "rise against authority" story for this generation.  Even if you didn't care for the first film, I still recommend this chapter, because I think it's worth the expanded story and Jennifer Lawrence's performance this time around.

Cinema Fancy - The Hunger Games

I'm not much of a reader, I'll be honest.  I read a LOT at work, being in Information Technology, and much of it is dry research.  So when I read outside of the office, it's often just articles on the internet or blog posts about my hobbies, much like the stuff I write for this site.  As such, it's not in my nature to go after novels, regardless of how engaging their storyline might be, because casual or recreational reading is just not something that interests me.  I feel no shame in this, it's just not my speed.  I'm more of a comic book guy.  But there are books I have read and thoroughly enjoyed, and there are times I wish I had more motivation to read.  As much as my wife and I have enjoyed the Harry Potter series of movies, there are times when I wish I had read the novels to get an idea of where they differed from the movies.  When I saw the three Lord of the Rings films, I was tempted to go back and re-read the books.  And though I know the 1985 Dune film took MANY liberties (I still love it!), I have read and enjoyed the first novel immensely.  Still, I'd generally much rather watch the "Cliff's Notes" version of the novel in the movie and get the general synopsis and essential story points where I can.

*SPOILER ALERT!*

Okay, so it's bordering on trendy at this point to talk about this movie.  I get it.  And no, I'm not trying to get in on the trend, but I was really intrigued by the movie's premise, based on what I had heard about with the books, and the fact that it seemed like a fleshed out version of a short story I read during high school about a "lottery" where someone's name was drawn at random out of the village and eliminated because it was a custom, not just because of a hunger issue or some political ploy.  In any event, the concept itself was interesting enough for me to warrant wanting to go see the movie, at the very least.  With that in mind, my wife and I, along with a couple friends, went to see the movie a week or so ago and I've had time to ruminate on it.

Without going into too much detail or over-simplifying the plot, the story centers around what is essentially a post-World War III country that is made up of what was North America and several large territories or districts.  Each of these districts seem to be made up of a very polarized class-based society where there's a very large divide between the "haves" and "have nots" of the day.  The "haves" want for very little with their lavish clothing and hairstyles, and overabundance of food and amenities.  The "have nots" are left doing all the more menial tasks such as coal mining.  They also end up having to hunt for their food sometimes, as they are often without much food.  This is where we discover the protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, as she is hunting for food for her family due to an absent father and mother who can't function too well on her own.

"The Hunger Games" ares an annual occurrence whereby one male and one female child from each district is chosen at random to participate in a savage contest that pits the youths against one another until only one youth remains alive.  It is a game of fear that allows the "haves" to more easily subjugate the "have nots".  Poor districts (like the one Katniss is from) have kids thrown into the contest primarily as fodder, while richer districts have kids that train for the games all their lives and essentially volunteer for service in the games as a way to honor their district.  Katniss is the first to volunteer from her poverty-stricken district, but only because her younger sister was the one chosen to be in the games.  Thankfully for Katniss, her prowess with the bow and arrow gives her an advantage over just the average kid.

I'm pretty handy with this thing, so don't cross me!

There are a lot of socio-political undertones and overtones in the film.  I think the agenda is largely a left-wing approach that shows the kind of overly classed society that happens when the scales are tipped to far in favor of the upper class, thereby eliminating the middle class and creating the huge divide we see in the film.  I don't necessarily think that the left-wing political agenda works here, however, because it is precisely the more conservative, free-market economy approach that will keep this kind of society from forming.  Socialism, by its very nature, cannot succeed long term without total subjugation of its citizens, because eliminating the drive to succeed will ultimately stifle scientific, engineering, and other advances because the incentive to do so is gone for all but the most ardent, curious, and philanthropic of minds.  That said, this kind of socio-economic fallout would be expected following a major World War, though 74 years after the fact it's a bit hard to believe that there's still THIS much poverty rampant.

Politics aside, the storyline is almost tailor made to cause controversy and get dinner table conversations going.  How can a society, 70+ years after reconstruction following a Third World War, continue to participate in this kind of savagery?  That is the inevitable question that many moviegoers will be asking themselves, and for good reason.  Aren't we, as a society, above all that?  But then, this is not our society.  This is a different world born from different circumstances.  So you help control the lower class people by striking fear in the hearts of parents and children alike by continuing to punish them in this manner.  Why strive to succeed in a district where there's no money, because you can't rise above the poverty line.  Not to mention your kid might be whisked away to die some day in the games.  Life becomes more about pure survival than about relishing any real joy in it.

I was a bit surprised at how disaffected I was about the kids being killed.  Perhaps its because I went in knowing that, perhaps its because it was kids killing each other in a contest they knew they had no choice but to participate in, or perhaps it's because I am less affected by it than I might have been had I been 20 years younger.  The first time I saw The Terminator and watched Arnold smoke those 2 teenagers after appearing on Earth just so he could steal their clothes...well, let's just say I was shocked and a bit incensed.  Why would someone depict that in a movie?  It was only years later that I truly understood the perspective, and so it is that understanding that likely fuels this.  Not that kids dying doesn't affect me; it does.  But I think what affected me more than that is how nonchalant everyone else in the movie was about it, save for the main characters.  Notice how carefully things were planned for Katniss - she only directly killed a couple fellow youths when she was in immediate danger and her life was threatened.  The girl she killed indirectly by dropping the wasp nest down to the ground from the tree-tops wouldn't have happened if the girl wasn't actually allergic to the wasp stings, though Katniss knew that was a risk.  Most of the other kids killed heartlessly, because those that didn't die in the initial run were from the more affluent districts and were kids who had been training for the games their whole lives.  But what strikes me about Katniss and her District 12 accomplice is that they bend the rules as much as they can - never intentionally killing other kids just to win the contest, but actively avoiding conflict until absolutely necessary.  When Katniss honored District 11 by giving the girl Rue a posthumous send-off with flowers and a sign of respect for the cameras, it invoked the kind of outrage and outcry that moviegoers had probably been hoping for, even though the short-lived "revolution" that happens within District 11 is quashed ever so quickly by the police state's forces.

Peace out, homie.

Visually, the movie is at once lavish and understated.  I love the contrast between the impoverished districts and those flowing with riches.  I also love the contrasts between the clean, stylized environments of the district where the games are held and the outdoor locales where the games take place.  I also like how the movie sort of subtly recalls the outlandish, over-the-top fashion sense of Luc Besson's The Fifth  Element, one of my all-time favorite science fiction films.  In some ways, The Hunger Games as a storyline owes a debt to the classic Arnold Schwarzenegger film The Running Man, whether the connection was intentional or purely accidental.  The casting choice was also smart, with a number of unknown names and a handful of actors still toiling in obscurity.  Wes Bentley is enjoyable as the game director, and newcomer Lenny Kravitz (yes, THAT Lenny Kravitz) is understated but plausible as the "celebrity stylist" hired to help make Katniss and her district partner more attractive to game supporters.  Elizabeth Banks is somewhat brilliant as the District 12 Hunger Games spokeswoman - she is gleefully overwrought and excessive, and a beautiful woman is transformed with make-up, hair and clothes (as well as character flaws) into somewhat of an ugly person.

Perhaps the thing that makes the movie so intriguing when it's all said and done, is that it gives us a glimpse into one of the possible futures we face if our world continues toward the path of turmoil, and affords us a unique opportunity to peer into the proverbial magic mirror to see what's to come.  Does this mean we'll have a highly divided class-based society and sacrifice children for the sake of government?  I can't say these things are outside the realm of possibility, given that human nature is more selfish than selfless, and in times where there's very little to go around, the greed of those who have all they need further exemplifies the destitution of those who don't.  As one who hasn't read the book series, I will be very curious to know what they're going to do with the next movie.  With this film having one of the best opening weekends of nearly any film in history, and with it still being a big deal weeks after its release, there's very little chance that a sequel isn't already in the planning stages, if not in the works.  I look very forward to what's coming next in this franchise, because this movie has sparked as much self-reflection in me as both Inception and Limitless - and that's a good thing.