Some good, more bad

Rating: 3/10 (12 April 2012)

This story takes place in a post-apocalyptic North America where rich, elite, decadent power brokers, located in "the Capitol," control twelve distinct oppressed districts.
There is a glimmer of substance as social satire, with the controlling government using the obsessive power of television to hold the populace in abeyance by offering them an annual event called "The Hunger Games," where twenty-four teenagers are selected (two from each of the twelve districts) to be set loose in a large forested area to go after killing one another until a lone survivor wins the contest. There are TV cameras in every area of the forest so that the event, which is really but a variation on Roman gladiator confrontations, can be broadcast on national TV for viewers to witness the action. The emcee of the show (Stanley Tucci), encapsulates pretty much every disgusting quality in his delivery as any of the talk show or game show hosts that I have ever seen on TV. The irony is that the thing being satirized, the violence and inanity of much of what is offered on contemporary TV, is the very thing that this movie itself offers to its audience as a crowd pleaser--a game where teenagers try to kill each other. The fact that this movie is so popular only proves its satirical point.
The story is absurd and if an attempt at logical analysis is made, then a long list of plot holes can be compiled. What are the odds of two people who know each other being selected at random from the thousands in a single district? When the heroine is in ultimate distress, an unknown competitor comes out of nowhere to rescue her? The rules are changed in the middle of the game so that the two finalists, who have fallen for each other, can share the title? Then the rules are changed back? Then changed again? Is it reasonable to pit twelve year old girls against eighteen year old boys in this contest? Is there really delight to be had from seeing an eighteen year old boy kill a twelve year old girl? And so on. Perhaps it is best not to apply reasoning to this movie.
The main positive is the appearance of the promising young actress Jennifer Lawrence as the heroine. She plays the part of the tough minded and independent Katniss Everdeen to perfection. Her performance here is not dissimilar to her Oscar nominated performance in "Winter's Bone." I look forward to seeing more of her in better movies. Josh Hutcherson, as Lawrence's love interest, turns in a generic performance. Donald Sutherland is on hand as the president, I suppose to give a little gravitas to the proceedings. He offers a profundity from time to time such as, "A little hope is effective, a lot of hope is dangerous." Surely appearing in this has to be an embarrassment for him; I hope he was well paid.
There are some interesting visuals, but I don't think they make any advances in that area beyond what has been done in countless other recent films. In fact, the 1956 "Forbidden Planet" has more imaginative and enticing images.
The costuming is bizarre, ranging from 18th century French court to 1940s Hollywood. Wes Bentley, as the game-master, had such an intricately shaped beard that I hope his work was filmed in one day, since getting that thing right every day would be a pain. The government goons were dressed in accordance with commonly conceived stereotypes. This must have been a ripe plumb to land for costume designers, being called upon to implement such wild get-ups.
The one thing that drove me absolutely nuts, and almost made me sick, was the filming with a hand-held camera. The camera is in constant motion. I would frequently pray that the camera be held still for just a few seconds, but my prayers were not answered. I can maybe understand this technique where the attempt is to confuse and blur the action in some of the scenes of graphic violence, but the damn camera jerks even when there are just two people talking in close-up. I do not understand what the desired effect is in using this distracting technique. It is obviously willed, since it is not necessary in most scenes, and exaggerated in others.
In some ways this movie cheats the audience. Think seriously about this, the premise is grisly but the movie does not carry through on that. Most of the violence is done in rapid takes, blurred images, or off screen. Maybe this was done to preserve a PG rating, but if you are going to set up a horrifying theme, then it should not be covered up with a feel good rendering. The reaction to this movie is a sad commentary on our times. When Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery" appeared in 1948 (the "winner" is stoned to death), it created controversy and outrage. Now we have "The Hunger Games" where teenagers are selected by lottery to slaughter each other and there is only audience approval. People who are entertained by this are the same ones who would have been entertained by the gladiator contests in ancient Rome.