FILM: The Hunger Games



“Happy Hunger Games!”

trills Effie Trinket, our first personfication of totalitarian control of The Hunger Games' dystopian futurescape, accompanied inevitably with a preened English accent. Of course it’s English, people with English accents always represent evil, take Jeremy Irons’ Scar in The Lion King. And with these immortal words, the Hunger Games kick off. 

The film is gorgeously made, with poignant scenes such as the morning before 'reaping' - when the tributes are chosen - shot with no non diegetic sound, enhancing the sense of realism and reality you may find in a reality television programme, which of course is what the story is reflecting on, as the Hunger Games themselves are heavily televised for the manditory watch of all citizens of the state of Panem. Performances throughout the film are impressive, with Jennifer Lawrence striking in the leading role, as well as Stanley Tucci (The Devil Wears Prada) convincing as the hyperbolic Games' presenter, and Elizabeth Banks stepping away from Rom Coms (40 Year Old Virgin, Zach and Miri Make a Porno) to play the embellished and in many ways grotesque Effie Trinket.

Caesar Flickerman, played by Stanley Tucci

I really liked the way the film interpreted many of the subtleties of the book, for example when Katniss does something symbolic in the arena, it leads to a full on riot in district 11. Also ,the gamemakers seem to manipulate the tributes’ fate through a virtual screen, with the ability to generate man made fires or monstrous canines at the touch of a button. This enhances the sense of god like power which they have over the tributes, and the sense of virtual technology being inherently sick.

Thanks to the book it was based on, the film has a gripping and inventive narrative. But this is exploited skillfully in The Hunger Games. The filmmakers followed the novels' narrative respectfully,  reflecting the same themes of  the dangers of reality television, voyeurism and authoritarian corruption; most respectively, of sadism and scopophilia - which is effectively the Morbid Urge to Gaze. Since Orwell's 1989 these frightening issues have been placed to the forefront of culture. The most ancient-set example of such scopophilia being in Roman times, when the gladiatorial games involved slaves placed in an arena to fight to the death for the entertainment of the mob. This is best presented in Ridley Scott's Gladiator (2000).

A more futuristic version, perhaps more comparable to The Hunger Games, is Gamer (Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor, 2009). Starring Gerard Butler, this science fiction film centres around a world where death row convicts are manipulated as characters in a videogame. The film is extremely graphic, as the manifestation of man’s most basic visceral desires: sex and gore. The use of bloody violence here creates intense horror, making the audience reflect on the idea of 'reality games' like, for example Grand Theft Auto where it's deemed cool to beat up 'hoes', as repulsive.

Gamer is certified an 18, as oppose to Hunger Games’ 12A rating. The Hunger Games, by comparison, is much less violent. A scene in the book, where a young girl is run through by a boy’s spear while being caught in a net was inevitably cut from the film, with the boy instead throwing the spear from a distance. This is understandable as the concept of the former would have been too disturbing to convert to a visual format, particularly for 12 year olds. But I felt that was one of the moments in the book which really expressed the horrific nature of the Hunger Games, a sort of Lord of the Flies with girls, where innocence is utterly destroyed.

Moreover there is limited blood or gore in the film, with slashes or wounds limited to the torso area, the extent of which can be hidden by clothing. Does this lessen the threat or realistic feel of the film? To an extent, yes. But I also felt that The Hunger Games was, pardon the pun, far better executed than Gamer, which relied on its viscerality as a shock factor, and subsequently fell apart by the end as the filmmakers evidently struggled to find a narrative resolution. By contrast The Hunger Games relies on terror to create momentum, and this drives the narrative forward as we are tied to the fate of the characters, terrified by what might happen next, and repulsed by the unsettling concept of putting adolescents into an arena to fight to the death. The story is so well executed we don’t need the violence to feel afraid, we are already there, in the arena, imagining the brutality. This is the effect of a good film.

Yes, perhaps the film is tailored to suit a 12A audience, however you can’t blame the producers for not wishing to evade the main targets of the film - since the protagonists are majorly young adults, it would be foolish to alienate this audience. Other than this, The Hunger Games is perfectly made, stays true to the riveting plot of the book, and interprets intelligently where there are gaps in the narrative.

I salute you, Hunger Games,

"And may the odds be ever in your favour!"