Interesting film that fails to engage

Rating: 6/10 (10 August 2012)

It could be argued that we are living in the last decades of Western Civilisation as we know it. The connotations of our popular culture has all the elements of distraction from what actually matters within our society. Reality television is now the most watched entertainment, with it's collection of delusional contestants vying for their 15 minutes of fame, along with the populous need to both humiliate and celebrate people of little worth. This format of mass-distraction is mirrored in the fall of the Roman Empire, which had its Gladiatorial Colosseum's as both a form of distraction and control. In the 21st century, television (along with other forms of media communication) is used to control and sedate the masses, and foment apathy in the population. It is also a form of contagion that infects those who believe they can also be rich and famous with little or no ability or talent. This seems to be what The Hunger Games is attempting to comment on, within the context of a distopian future.
Set after an uprising during a war, North America has been divided into 12 districts controlled by its centre, The Capitol. Each year one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 are selected by a lottery from each district to fight to the death in a televisual show. From district 12, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), volunteers herself for the event after her younger sister was selected. Along with male contestant, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), are transported to the Capitol, which resembles the Roman cities that the film is attempting to align itself with. After training and attempts to get sponsors, they are let out into a forest world to fight.
I really can't be bothered to explain any further the plotting or character narratives within this film, as you will more than likely have seen it before: The Hunger Games has similar themes, and has an incredibly similar storyline to both Battle Royale (2000) and The Running Man (1987). Whilst it's central character is played well by Lawrence (she has a slight presence on screen with her ordinary beauty), she has very little to do in a weak script, and obvious plotting. The films iconography is lifted wholesale from Roman history, and its depiction of a vapid elitist population fails to enlighten the initial premise (that admittedly could have been good). Within the first hour the film also manages to insult the spectator by repeating certain scenes of dialogue only 20 minutes after it was initially shown ("We are totally aware that that happened, cause not much has happened since, and it happened moments ago").
Writer Suzanne Collins has stated that the inspiration for the book came from channel hopping between reality TV and the Iraq war, but she fails to find a voice strong enough to contextualise all the information into a credible framework, and simply seems to use the idea to speak only to the idiots who watch the reality TV that she seems to want to criticise; in other words the idea has been produced in much more intelligent ways elsewhere, whilst The Hunger Games decreases its concepts to feed it to the masses. Back to the 2010's, it has been suggested that around 90% of teenagers desire fame. In this narrative world, this desire simply is not there. In conclusion, interesting idea which fails to interest - the film is too long, and it simply does not engage.
www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com