Hunger Games, the movie

Rating: 8/10 (28 April 2012)

This movie is science fiction set in a distant future in which part of North America is divided into 12 zones, with some zones wealthier and more advanced than others. Television still plays a huge role in this future society. Television producers are able to create elaborate fantasy worlds.
For historical reasons, each zone is required to select a young man and young woman to participate in a reality show that is essentially a mutual hunt to the death combined with an escape from deadly special effects. The story focuses on the experiences of one engaging and attractive young couple from a particularly poor district.
This interesting future world and the grand theatricality and drama of the "hunger games" are gradually revealed in a way that allowed me to get caught up in it. I enjoyed seeing how they imagined the future would look and how such a show would be mounted. The characters were extraordinarily attractive and the movie was visually appealing. The movie was fast paced and I was curious to see where it would lead.
The character development of the Katniss character was good and the role was believably and well played by Jennifer Lawrence. She was the focal point of the movie (perhaps at the expense of the other characters). I ending up caring about what happened to her and there were a few places where I was emotionally affected by her experiences.
Every movie has flaws though. Most of the characters were two-dimensional. Some aspects of this future society, including the technological capabilities of the show producers, bordered on the unbelievable.
After looking at the discussion boards, I've discovered that this movie is part of a teenage phenomenon. Many young people see themselves as cognoscenti because they've read the books. They are explaining the movie in light of the book. It seems many fans don't want this movie to be taken at face value -- they want viewers to read the book and they want the movie to be interpreted in that light.
Also, some young fans are apparently troubled by comparisons between this movie and earlier movies, between this movie and earlier cultural themes and concepts. Of course, they want the Hunger Games phenomenon (including the movie) to be seen as something fresh and new in our culture.
I think we have to remember to respect the fact that a movie is a separate work of art. Books and movies are different media. The book will reveal more detail, including the thoughts of the characters. A movie is much more of a visceral, visual experience. A movie may be loosely based on historical facts or a book, but it will not be the same. And nor should it be.
Hunger Games the book and Hunger Games the movie are two different things. They are approached differently. It's not really useful to explain the "real" story behind the movie. There is no real story. The movie is what it is. It stands on its own, separate from the historical events or book that gave rise to it. This doesn't effect the validity of the original book or historical events, of course. They can all be enjoyed, but in a different way.
Also, many books and movies reflect earlier books, movies and themes that have arisen in our culture. This is a good thing and enriches the experience. Every book and movie will have to rely on artistic elements that went before. Some fans don't want this movie compared to the "Truman Show", for example, which was a fantastic, original movie. The movie "In Time" also had a future world where people were forced to live in districts with disparate wealth levels.
The fans particularly don't want the Hunger Games compared to gladiatorial combat. But to me that's what this movie reminded me of, especially the chariot entrance into the stadium. It was essentially futuristic gladiatorial combat aimed at teenagers. Clearly this is what the author intended or the country wouldn't have been called "Panem".
It didn't escape my notice that there was not much difference between the 21st century moviegoers and the futuristic audience watching the Hunger Games live. Perhaps not surprisingly, the morality of of sadistic voyeurism was a theme not explored in this movie. This movie might have been improved by the realistic depiction of gore. The violence here, despite being the core of the movie really, was of the goreless Hollywood variety. True gore is too difficult for most people to watch. For me the unrealistic violence mitigated the horror of the situation and the underlying moral point.
Hunger Games seems to be aimed at a generation that has grown up watching survivor, reality and game shows where people get "voted off". "You are the weakest link -- Boom!"
I enjoyed the movie (but only for what it was) and would recommend it to anyone.