Two things you should know up front before you read (and judge) this movie review. First, I have not read the books. I know, I know, I’m a slacker. I will try to go back and read them now to find all the elements and nuances glossed over in the movie. Second, if you haven’t read the books or seen the movie, but you plan on one or the other, you may want to come back and read this blog later. OK, with that out of the way, here is my take on The Hunger Games.
I liked the storyline. I know, a movie about a game where kids kill kids for sport is a little whacked, but still the storyline (we call that the plot in English class) was, overall, one with a positive outlook where the main characters find they can, indeed, be the masters of their own fates. Having said that, I had a little trouble following the motif of the storyline.
At first, there were these overpowering images equating the ruling class as Nazi-esque and the weaker colonies as Jews held bound in the ghettos. The bird emblem, the stone walls, the gray colors, all played a part in sort of portraying this image of the World War II. And then….poof! Those images were gone.
Next I sat in an empty theater thinking there was something special about the fact that there were thirteen colonies and the rebellion was really supposed to make us think of our own original thirteen colonies attempting a revolution against King George, on in this case we lost. Let’s face it, the ruling colony (and Donald Southerland in particular) acted a lot like England under King George or France under Louis.
As I saw bits and pieces of stories from other books and movies and television shows, I wondered if I was trying too hard to over analyze all of it. Maybe, just maybe, because there was so much borrowing going on, the author really didn’t have anything in particular in mind at all. After all, I saw pieces of The Running Man, nearly every Shakespearean play ever written, Rollerball, The Lottery, Star Wars, American Gladiators, every season of Survivor, and more.
But perhaps the sharpest frame of context to me was one of the Corporate-run Government keeping the 1% far above the 99%. Yes, I’m talking about Occupy The Hunger Games. Every colony was known for something related to blue collar jobs who worked long, hard house in sub-standard conditions so the inhabitants of the Capitol could be entertained 24/7. And Colony 12 was the poorest of the poor as illustrated by the fact that they were coal miners. They lived in squalor as if they were still trying to survive the 1930s, while those in the Capitol were interested only in hedonism. They dressed well, ate grandly, and looked upon the remaining twelve colonies as mere entertainment.
Southerland’s character alone seems to know that in order for the Capitol to maintain its standard of superior living, the twelve colonies must be kept in their places and producing the things the Capitol needs (energy being the main one represented by coal miners).
In a post-apocalyptic North America, it is heartless corporations that come out on top while living in their luxuries on the backs of the majority 99%. Corporations lie, cheat, steal, and change the rules at random in order to maintain their level of power and status while not giving a rip about the lives of ordinary people like Katniss or Peeta. The Capitol manipulates the press, organizes The Hunger Games as required viewing, and offers each colony a small glimmer of hope. But, as Southerland states, a little hope can keep the masses in check. Too much hope is dangerous.
In the end, it isn’t the strongest or the biggest from each colony that come together for the game. It is the children. Reminiscent of Rome’s total debauchery (as indicated by the two television personalities’ emperor names), the Capitol has pitted child against child in a game to the death for the entertainment of its own people and the continuation of its own power.
I don’t have time to delve into the personality traits of the main characters, or the multitude of places where the plot takes great leaps of faith to get from point A to point B, or even those who see Peeta as a type of Christ offering his own life for the life of his love (is it a coincidence his name is Peter after all?). Perhaps that is fodder for another blog post when the second movie comes around.
Some have seen this heinous game of children killing children to be too over the top, too evil, to allow their own children to read the books or see the movie. I will have to gently disagree with that decision.
If one comes away from this movie (or the book) moved by the precarious life-and-death struggle of these children and the adult choices they must make so that others do not have to die (the games are a replacement for war as well as a penalty for the uprising nearly a century earlier), then perhaps he or she understands it is the very act of pitting child against child that makes the story powerful.
If, on the other hand, one comes away saying, “Oh, what a great movie! I can’t wait for the sequel!”, well, perhaps that one has already succumbed to the propaganda of the Capitol.
What were your thoughts about this movie?









