The Hunger Games (2012) **½/5: A very timid film that is not as daring in its promise of change

The Hunger Games (2012)

The Hunger Games (2012) is a so-so film which could have been more daring in its approach so as to suggest some form of change which is what the film is about. The change in the film is a gradual one and there is no suggestion that there is a plan on the part of the protagonists to effect a change. There is no clear cut challenge to the system in which the down trodden tributes from the various districts find themselves in the hunger games. It is suggested in some episodes but not in a significant manner and one wonders about the direction that will be taken in the upcoming installments to actually challenge the system from the bottom up. I will say again that it is only suggested. The changes are only superficial and are related to the games themselves as opposed to the wider society which has to subscribe to this backward practice in the land of the future, called Panem. There are some stupid moments simply because there are times when you cannot reconcile fantasy with reality.

The film stars Jennifer Lawrence as master archer Katnis Everdeen one of 24 teen tributes chosen from 12 districts (2 per district) to compete in the hunger games which occurs in the Capitol where the centre of civilization of a future America resides. The so called civilization or centres of commerce is the land of freaks and wackos who have benefitted from the exploitation of the districts that reside in a state of utter destitution. The allegory is evident. There is usually only one victor to remain after the hunger games where teen slaughters teen if the environment does not get the better of them first. Everdeen’s situation is unique for she is one of the first individuals to volunteer for the tourney after her younger sister is chosen via the lottery which is the traditional route. She takes the place of her younger sister because of her endearing love for her. Everdeen’s choice is rewarded because she is primed by her mentors which include the drunk Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) to become a star to attract sponsors. She is partnered with Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) from her districts as it is two from each district who seems to be an ambiguous character but seems to understand the system. Their relationship becomes important as the film progresses and becomes the impetus for change by the end.  The hunger games are broadcast over the television airwaves and so the people of each district are able to view the events as they unfold. Everdeen’s tactics to enforce change become a media sensation as opposed to an on the ground movement. As a media sensation the movement for change seems timid and pathetic because the media can never effect real change for it is only the movement on the ground that can effect real change. The hunger games are simply a tool of propaganda and so change within the game itself is not real change. The real change should come from the revolt of the districts. By the end Everdeen becomes a star of the hunger games when she should be seeking to abolish the practice.  This is truly American as the fear of revolution from below is compensated by gradualist measures where people do not resort to violence but simply a change in the political process through various conciliatory measures. I was anticipating the impending revolt that would sweep all the districts and see a veritable challenge of the capitol’s authority. This was not to be and so the film seemed stagnant and overly emotional for no apparent reason. The film keeps pointing in the direction of open revolt but then reverts to the games itself. When it seemed to be suggesting revolt I was saying to myself here we go but then wondered concernedly at the anticlimactic moment. It is this tension between open revolt and conciliation that is the main downside of this film; it is not clear about the direction it wishes to go in. The film will not be readily identifiable for future audiences because it did not go all out. Whether this is the fault of the book is not my concern for what is presented on screen is the most important thing at the moment not the book. I cannot read the book while I watch the movie. If the movie captured the essence of the book according to the fan boys and girls then the book itself reeks of juvenilia especially as it is a teen book. It does not seem to be clear to the protagonists that the system itself should be challenged based on the high levels of exploitation. Instead of challenging the system the games are challenged and so society seems to go on as usual with exploitation intact. It never once highlights that the carrot is being dangled in the eyes of the members of the twelve districts. Let us hope that the second installment hints at the impending revolution better than this one. Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) is a better film for these reasons and more mature. The Hunger Games is for teens and those adults who wish to be teens forever and so keep their head in the clouds. The next installment may or may not be an improvement and I am not making a judgement here.

What’s good about this film?

The main positive highlight of this film is that it does not shy away from the brutality of the hunger games themselves. We see children willingly slaughter each other in a desperate struggle to stay alive; it seems even more brutal when the younger children are forced to compete with the older ones. The environment too can be brutal as is discovered with a scene involving some poisonous wasps.  The brutality of the games represents the extent of devaluation of the populace located in the districts especially as the games seem to be their sole purpose for living. I never got a sense of an economy and it was not really clear how the districts are structured apart from the hunting and gathering elements. I assumed that it was a tributary system but the games seem to be the only viable connection between the districts and the capital. This is why I am surprised that the revolution was not in the making from this film. I only learned later on that the actual revolt won’t begin until the second book when it should have begun from this installment. The film does have some good moments involving the central character and her archery skills and the propensity to stand out among the other contestants particularly apart from the leading contender from one district; the district from which the leading contender is a resident has put forward more winners of the games than the other districts in recent memory because it is more equipped for the tourney. The other thing that got me were the tense moments that had me considering whether or not something unexpected was going to happen. I thought it would have gone full throttle instead these moments were anti climatic and so I was let down. When the film did become anti climatic I thought the film would get excessively emotional and melodramatic as was the case with the twilight series. The sad part was that the anticlimactic moment was preceded by a genuine moment that promised some form of kinetic interaction. In the moments of headlong interactions, that seemed suspenseful before the eventual let down, I thought that this teen flick was a marked improvement from the more recent twilight series although the films in the Harry Potter franchise still remain the frontrunner. The Hunger Games differs from the two because it promises some level of realism associated with activities one would only witness in a colosseum.   The film has good visual effects particularly in one scene where artificial flames burn continually on Everdeen and Mellark as a design for their costumes as a means to entice sponsors. The film also has a parallel with the gladiatorial games and by extension roman culture. The game itself provides its own spin however but the original basis for its concept lies in these gladiatorial games once held in the ancient Roman Empire. The scene where all 24 contestants are introduced for the first time in chariots says it all. The President (Keifer Sutherland in a very toothless role), postures himself like an emperor in ancient Rome amidst the cheering mob as he greets them and concludes his greeting with the iconic line of the film ‘May the odds be ever in your favour.’ The parallels will be apparent not only for fans of the franchise but for fans of Rome and its corrupt politics especially as it is now portrayed in the television series, Spartacus. The film does portray the citizens of the capitol as a set of wackos benefitting from the excess wealth on display which contrasts with the poverty of the countryside where the individuals are more rugged and are more dependent on the whims of nature; this would explain why these districts are chosen as the sources of tribute.   These elements should be readily obvious to the non-partisan viewer and for these reasons the film must receive kudos. It is always good when a new interpretation of the future comes to the fore and here we have a vision of an America that has passed and this is why I wished to be more informed about the extent to which the America has changed and received the new name of Panem.

 It is good for the film industry that another major teen fantasy series has come to the fore to fill in some way the gaping hole created by the end of the Harry Potter film franchise and the soon to be concluded Twilight series.

What’s bad about this film?

The main issues I had with this film were its sedateness and un-believability at times. It seemed too sedate when it promised kinetic action and a full throttle styled immersive experience only to crumple in an anti-climactic fashion. I mentioned this earlier and so only a few examples will suffice. It seemed stupid because of the constant manipulation by the city officials that monitor the movement of the participants. In one episode for instance Everdeen is pushing towards the boundary which would see her move beyond the sphere of the hunger games. The authorities conveniently add fire out of nowhere and in another instance they add rabid, beastly like dogs to attack the participants. The games seemed too artificial and unnecessary especially as it is initially thought that the participants would be reliant on their own natural prowess and how they interact with each other violently and the harsh climate conditions. I was not impressed with the aid offered to Everdeen whenever she or Mellark, who is close to her, was wounded. It seemed too artificial and defeatist and I thought to myself ‘what is the point of the hunger games when these participants get help whenever something bad happens.’ I am made aware that Everdeen is destined for some higher purpose later on in the series and so it is necessary that she stay on but what is the point if this is not made clear to the non-partisan viewer. You would think that it was a case of star favoritism. Whenever someone gets wounded a special ointment speeds up the healing process dramatically. The more frequently this occurs the less tense is the atmosphere in the film. In another absurd moment Everdeen and Mellark are paired together so as to add interest to the viewers  of the show. You realize pretty early on that the show is a media event and so I was looking for that moment when the protagonists would come to the realization that the carrot is being dangled in front of them as if they were lambs heading to the slaughter. I was disappointed that the protagonists merely capitulated and embraced the illusion. There was not much change effected only a mere change in presentation on the part of the media. It added some level of sensation to the games and would not affect its dissolution in any great regard. It was rather celebratory when the victors finally emerged offering salutations to the cheering public. There should have been an outright challenge of the establishment and it seems the creator of this story was in support of a gradualist measure instead of an instant upheaval of the status quo. There is no suggestion of real change on the ground level apart from one moment where a young participant is murdered and a riot breaks out. These moments were too few and failed to add to the notion that there is no going back and that a serious challenge has been offered to the exploitative practices of the capitol. If there is to be internal contradiction it should be from the forces that are stemming the revolt and this is not definitive because no revolt is waged. Instead of challenging the games definitively the victors are lauded in a hypocritical fashion with no clear demonstration that dissatisfaction is the order of the day among the districts. The film does resort to romance between two lovers as a serious challenge to the system however this is not definitive and instead of a genuine dissatisfaction being expressed only timid romantic gestures save the day. The only positive from all of this was that the film highlighted it in such a way to suggest that this revolt was always a possibility. It only diffused the possibility by resorting to romance and thereby rejected a genuine on the ground movement. The film therefore seems longer than it really is and an endless tug of war between melodrama and genuine expression becomes the normative expression. The heroes are so trapped by the system that not once is it suggested that a challenge should be offered. I waited for the entire 140 minutes for this challenge and it never emerged. It was hinted at in the beginning when Everdeen and one of her hunting partners (can't recall his name) speak of the great escape especially as the helicopter hovers overhead in search of potential or actual escapees. I thought I was  in for a great adventure but this was not to be especially as there is not much variety in the environment apart from the natural features; I was hoping to get some sense of history of the games and also to see the impact man has made on the environment through the participation in the hunger games. There are no man made relics suggesting a legacy of some sort only artificial resonance coming from above. The games itself seems pretty stupid therefore and I wonder if this is a future that can be envisioned for America especially as world civilization is supposed to be at an advanced state. The place itself seems to be constructed without any attention to the history of the world. There is also no sense of other world empires and so Panem seems very isolated and looms like a false abstract in the imagination of the viewers. You call a place Capitol and do not highlight that capital is a worldwide phenomenon not some isolated event. This is the most accurate depiction of the future by calling the centre capitol especially as everyone knows that it is capital that rules the world however advanced capital would not permit the wholesale slaughter of its surplus population without first working them to death and extracting surplus value in its industries.This tributary system seems more backward than advanced however if that was the intention of the author of the series then she is correct for if this is the future then capital should have advanced beyond the excess bush on display.  The civil war which was said to have resulted in the creation of the hunger games seemed rudimentary and perfunctory in the discourse offered in the film and this is the only real historical information that the viewers will be treated to in the film however it does not resonate and does not highlight chinks in the armour. The intellectuals must be very silent and so everything is devalued under capital (not the capitol)

The heroine does not seem to be effective despite her significant presence in the media. In the hunger games itself she just runs around and climbs in a tree and this would suggest that she does not really want to take part so why is it not made clear instead of her receiving all of these handouts. The games at first seem to be repugnant but eventually Everdeen and Mellark seem to be consuming a lot of carrots i.e. they gobble up the illusion without hinting at the hypocrisy.
.
This brings me to the next point for I never got a sense of the economy and how things circulate through trade which would explain the destitution of the districts. This would explain the true state of impoverishment apart from the tributary system which is associated with the broken empires of Greece, Rome and Babylon which seem to be installed forever in the imagination of the West. This is why I did not appreciate the references to Rome because the backwardness of the future is astounding given man's eternal progression from the darkness.

It is clear that this film will fill the gaping hole left by Harry Potter film franchise and the soon to be concluded twilight series. If this series does not improve people will observe it with a sense of estrangement and this is a  constant  attribute of  fanboy franchises that does nothing for the non-partisan viewer. Decline is certain to ensue.