A Solid Adaptation of a Great Book

Rating: 7/10 (21 November 2014)

Any devoted fan of a book series would be delighted to hear that their favorite book was going to appear on the big screen. For me, however, The Hunger Games was different. As a novel, it dealt with intense political themes and was a very well-rounded story. Then it became a film. Like every adaptation of a book, The Hunger Games changed some things, and I knew this entering the theater. The book, to me, seemed too complex to fully develop in a two hour running time.
But then details started coming out, like the casting decisions, the crew, and their experience in film. This made me think that Lionsgate was really trying to make this a good film. Hiring actors such as Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland made me excited. I knew these names, and other people did too, making this movie more attractive to outsiders that were not already fans. But names don't make a movie. How would this adaptation of a book beloved by millions turn out?
The first key to nailing a book like this on-screen is the script, and The Hunger Games has a good one. The dialogue has an appropriate balance of plot exposition, comic relief, and serious emotion. This also makes the pacing of the story better. The film is not just one long crescendo; rather, it rises and falls in a similar way to the novel. There are also very few notable omissions from the story: those there, while some are considered important, do not change the characterization, the essential message of the film, or the end result. These aspects of The Hunger Games are due to Suzanne Collins, the author of the novels, participating in the screen writing process. When the author of your source material has a say, things suddenly go better in the script and story.
Thematically, The Hunger Games is intense but never seems to nail one specific message down. Some say it is a commentary on the class struggle. Others, an anti-authoritarian film. Still others claim that it is a feminist take on the sci-fi genre. It could very well be all of these at the same time. There is so much room in this film for good themes; however, I personally see it as a commentary (and sometimes satire) of our culture's glamorization of violence. The way the Games are televised and promoted in the Capitol show that they are immune to the effects of immense and immoral bloodshed. At the same time, we are also shown a former victor committing suicide after he wins. This juxtaposition shows us that what the cultural center believes is permissible is not always beneficial.
The visual aspect of The Hunger Games is a solid depiction of Panem, a nation with twelve districts and a central Capitol. When we are shown District 12, Katniss's home, it is portrayed as a poverty-stricken mining community. This aesthetic is done beautifully, with very rustic buildings, landscapes, and costuming. When we arrive in the Capitol, however, it is clear who is on what end of the socioeconomic scale. The extravagant buildings, clothing, and makeup both mesmerize and depress the viewer because, while they are visually impressive, they are also reminded of the depravity of the outer districts, bringing the class warfare discussion back into the ring.
The first less-than-stellar part of The Hunger Games is the acting. Granted, with names such as Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland, it can't be that bad. However, the biggest flaw in the acting is not the quality, as we see stellar performances from Harrelson, Sutherland, and Elizabeth Banks: it is the on-screen time these roles get. Harrelson's performance as Haymitch Abernathy, a drunken mentor to Katniss and Peeta, would be Oscar-worthy if he had more time to exploit his character. The major chunk of screen time is given to Josh Hutcherson and Jennifer Lawrence as Peeta and Katniss, respectively. They are both solid choices for their roles, but Lawrence is clearly the better talent, as Hutcherson seems uncomfortable for most of the film. Lawrence also has a command of the film and is not afraid to carry it on her back single-handedly. This unrelenting determination she has suits the role of Katniss well, and it is because of this that the film gets its tone largely right.
Speaking of the tone of The Hunger Games, this is one thing director Gary Ross gets right. His down-to-earth and simplistic style suits the nature of the novel. His use of traditional film over digital is also well-noted; however, it is his cinematography that is the most divisive part of this film. He employs a hand-held camera for most of his shots, and while this can work well for portions of the film where the perspective of the characters is needed and appreciated (i.e. Katniss boarding the train to the Capitol after the reaping), it doesn't always add up. Many times throughout the film, this hand-held camera work is trying to capture a running character with a running cameraman. This looks very shaky and can be almost nauseating, detracting a lot from the film. This shakiness permeates other sections of the film where it has no place whatsoever, tainting the beautiful scenes otherwise present.
Overall, I enjoyed The Hunger Games. Though it has its rough points (especially in the cinematography), it nails the tone, plot, and themes of the novel. The acting also keeps us invested in the characters and is solid in its own right, with the actors interpreting their characters well. This is a rare type of film: one that isn't necessarily the best but will appeal to all types of people. Action fans, dystopia fans, sci-fi fans, and some romance fans will be at least partially satisfied by The Hunger Games due to its broad narrative scope. Yes, its rough around the edges, but in the end you'll look past that to enjoy a good movie.