Jennifer Lawrence makes it worth seeing

Rating: 8/10 (3 September 2012)

In general I enjoyed "The Hunger Games," but as dystopian films of the future go, it is no better or worse than many. It's a genre that hasn't had a lot of success over the years. Of course the quintessential dystopian story is George Orwell's "1984," but the film versions haven't faired that well either. The problem with films like "Soylent Green," "The Handmaiden's Tale," "Brazil," "Logan's Run" and many others is that convincing world building with intelligently thought out societies and all the visual material that goes with it is very hard to do. They tend to go over the top, pounding our heads with the message about the dangerous direction our world is headed. As well, they mostly fail to make the characters believable, not only by the overdone dialog and over the top performances, but by ridiculous costume and makeup design. "The Hunger Games" completely falls down on those latter two categories. The makeup and garish costuming for the people of the totalitarian state of Panem is so caricatured and manicured it reeks of Hollywood production design. Wes Bently's beard is the worst offender.
On the other hand, "The Hunger Games" succeeds in some ways beyond the others because of one thing, Jennifer Lawrence. She's an interesting young actor. I've only seen her in a few films, but found her always believable. If you replace her in "The Hunger Games," with someone who was originally considered for the role of Katniss (Abigail Breslin, Saoirse Ronan, or Emma Roberts for example), it's difficult to say the film would work as well as it does. Not that those other actresses aren't talented, or couldn't do a good job in the role, it's just that Lawrence seems to be perfect casting and she runs with the film. She really anchors the film by underplaying. Also when her insecurities and unlikable characteristics surface, her movements and line readings come across as completely genuine.
The same can't be said about most of the other major players, particularly Wes Bently as Seneca, Elizabeth Banks as Effie, Stanley Tucci as Caesar, and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. Although Harrelson at least has a bit of a character arc, he and the others mostly play their characters in broad strokes, often the problem in these dystopian films. Donald Sutherland as the president fares a bit better, but his role is written that way. Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, the boy from Katniss' district 12, unfortunately doesn't succeed in making us deeply care for him or make us buy Katniss' affection for him. It's difficult to say what it is about him, because his performance isn't bad at all. Perhaps he was miscast. He just lacks something that would make me warm to him. His scenes with Lawrence seem to lack the needed chemistry to ignite the on screen romance.
What did work far better, however, was Katniss' relationship with Rue, played by Amandla Stenberg. Rue's demise was the only one to elicit emotion in me. Although Rue is still not much developed as a character, she's a nice surrogate little sister for Katniss. Script-wise this works because we already understand Katniss has special warm feelings for Primrose, her younger sister (Willow Shields), having taken her place as her district's female tribute for the games. Stenberg is so remarkably cute that we can't help but fall for her. Her demise is sad indeed, and given weight by the well of emotion from Lawrence.
The rest of the tributes are undeveloped, just bodies to get knocked off one by one. This is a film that could have used more time to develop them. That would have upped the stakes if we understood them better. I've never read the book, but I would imagine they are developed further in it. The script was very manipulative in how the announcements kept changing the game rules right up to the last minute.
What I found a bit disturbing was the idea that Katniss just follows the rules of a dictatorial regime and wins, with only one moment of rebellion when she and Peeta consider a double suicide instead of one of them having to kill the other. The revolt in district 11 at the death of Rue seemed to be quickly vanquished. It lasted maybe 35 seconds on screen. The idea of Katniss and Peeta returning to their district as heroes because of appearing and surviving a game show seems to me to be the ultimate in giving oneself over to the regime. It sets up the sequel, probably with Primrose, but is that reason enough to end the film this way? The ending seemed to glorify the games, which essentially, are just a futuristic variation on TV's "Survivor."
The visuals for the cities and trains were wonderful, but the dog creatures seemed wasted. We couldn't see them well enough to get an idea of how vicious and nasty they were. Then, after chewing up one guy they run off, likely programed to do so. That brings me to the idea of the strategically positioned help modules and tools (very much like "Survivor"), such as the mini parachute with medicine and the packets of items each district needed, or hindering the tributes by starting forest fires, or adding dogs. This made the controllers of the game a bit like the Greek Gods, helping or adding roadblocks along the way. I kind of liked this, but it seemed a bit contrived the way they used it.
I suppose I had a number of negative things to say about "The Hunger Games," but much of it is offset by Jennifer Lawrence. The film is very much worth seeing for her. I'd watch it again just to study her performance. I also liked the music by James Newton Howard. It really did add a glimmer of hope to a troubling world vision.