The Hunger Games is an entertaining, well acted film with a compelling story that delivers on action but never forgets that the story and characters are required to make the film work. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing as Katniss Everdeen, who shines as both a distinctly feminine character with a vulnerable side yet is possessed of an innate strength that carries throughout the film. Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, Stanly Tucci, Wes Bentley, Elizabeth Banks, and Donald Sutherland all give off memorable performances as the adult characters who inhabit this unique world. Liam Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson act as Katniss's potential boy toys in a love triangle, and while they do good with what they are given, they don't really come across as three dimensional characters (Hutcherson at least shows some charisma). While this film is no "Twilight", the romance does factor into the plot, but thankfully never dominates it. That falls to the viciousness of the games, which are set up spectacularly before we are thrown into the thick of it and watch as teenagers kill each other.
Director Gary Ross uses shaky camera movements throughout the film. Towards the beginning, it acts as a hindrance, but once in the arena this style plays to the film's advantage, downplaying the violence to maintain a PG-13 rating but never backing away from the consequences. We may not see a lot of coherent killing, but there's plenty of blood and corpses, and the reactions of the characters confirm how savage the games are. In a day and age where torture porn films like Saw put gore up on screen every other minute, it's nice to see a film where violence is left to the viewer's imagination (and since it's adapting a book, is that really a stretch?) The shaky cam also gives the film a gritty feel, which makes the survival aspect of the film that much more believable.
As an adaptation of the book, The Hunger Games delivers in spades for its rabid fanbase, but at the same time there are several elements that fans may complain about. While they do not get in the way from enjoying the film and are little more than nitpicks, the absence of these elements could pose problems for understanding character motivations in this film and the sequels it clearly sets up (this is, after all, the first of a trilogy, and given its box office gross the sequels are all but guaranteed.) First, the book is told entirely from Kantiss's point of view. Since internal monologues don't work well on film, we lose the insights into Kantiss's head that both explain her motivations and the larger aspects of this world. The film makes it clear that Peeta loves Katniss and that she needs to play it up for the audience, but without the window into her head, uninitiated film goers won't realize that Katniss doesn't really love Peeta; she loves Gale. This whole experience is supposed to make her feel confused about her feelings for Gale, but the film never explains this. It simply comes across as Katniss genuinely loves Peeta. In addition, through her insights we learn that Kantiss's alliance with Rue was because she reminded her of her sister, thus deepening their bond, but again the film never emphasizes this, so the alliance comes across as forced.
Thankfully, the lack of Katniss's POV is made up by the addition of extra scenes between President Snow and Seneca Crane while the games are going on. These help explain aspects of the book's universe (such as the genetically modified mutts and tracker jackers) and the mindset of the government in implementing the games. It is the presence of these scenes that allows even non-fans to become immersed in the film's universe without the insights into Katniss's mind, and succeeds in making the villains more villainous and the heroes more heroic. On that note, the film did something surprising (in my eyes) by starting the rebellion among the districts one book early. This was probably to visualize the larger effect of the games on the districts and to set up the stakes that grow ever higher when the sequels come round. However, if this was the intention, then there was one element not included in the film that I thought undermined the rebellion arc they wanted to start and continue throughout the trilogy.
This element was the treatment of the Mockingjay pin. In the film, Katniss simply buys the pin and it is presented in a context that would be confusing to non-fans. Both Cinna and President Snow know the importance of the pin when they see it, but the only reference to Mockingjays is when Katniss and Rue use them to communicate while in the arena. Never does the film reference the role Mockingjays played in the first rebellion, or how it was a symbol of resistance that Katniss would become associated with as the trilogy unfolds. On that note, while the film references 13 districts during the first war, it never says how the 13th District was wiped out by the Capitol, which will cause problems when it comes time to adapt the second and third books. I think that by not explaining these crucial plot points, the film fails to emphasize the importance of the Mockingjay, which book fans will know but to others will never get why the pin is so important. I would think that a symbol that is shown prominently on the film's posters would have been given a proper explanation, but hopefully this can be corrected in the sequel.
Despite these complaints, I can't really fault the Hunger Games either as a film or as an adaptation. There is a lot of respect to the source material here, both for the universe and the characters who inhabit it. This is a film that will please existing fans and make new fans out of those who watch it. With a few minor adjustments (more insights into Katniss's POV and explanations of the all-important backstory) the sequels can really shine. As it is, "The Hunger Games" possesses a strong story and great character development, and serves as both a worthy adaptation and an excellent film in its own right.
No comments:
Post a Comment