Racing through the novel at top speed

Rating: 7/10 (23 November 2013)

This film being released only two days ago, I haven't been able to read any reviews yet, so these first thoughts about my vision of it can be considered as absolutely virginal, so to speak First of all, "Catching Fire" being a literary adaptation, the audience should be divided into two groups, the "virginal ones" who haven't even touched the novel and the so-called experienced readers. I count myself to the latter group, having read the book two years ago and even re-read the summaries of each chapter that I had written at that time as a sort of preparation for the movie session. It goes without saying that I also read the first part of the trilogy (twice) and seen the first movie (four times).
Profiting from all this expertise I was able to find my way through the new film easily. I got involved, or even "caught fire", right from the beginning, when, in a hunting episode, an appalling visualization of one of Katniss's nightmares was set on screen: when targeting a prey, she suddenly sees a tribute victim that she had killed in the past Games instead of the animal and gets a nervous breakdown.
As the traumatizing process of the protagonist was a big concern of the novel, this can be considered a good start of the movie. But later on the film does not really dwell on that, because there simply is not enough time. I can recall only one scene, when, being on the train, Katniss wakes up in the middle of a dream and shouts for help and is then comforted by Peeta, who crawls into her bed.
Then there is a quick cut, and we move on to the next scene. Almost all important elements of the novel are at least mentioned, but not given the due time to be fully developed. As an example, let's just take Katniss's "torn-between-two-lovers-conflict", which is sufficiently explored in the novel by the means of introspection but which for the "virginal" group of movie spectators must feel like pretty much unexplainable.
The same happens to the characters. They are mostly present in the movie, though maybe at a low scale. Important new protagonists like Finnick and Johanna Mason are introduced in short key scenes which correspond exactly to the words of the novel. You get a good impression of Johanna's rebellious character when you see her undress in the elevator. But then there is not much room for further development, and minor characters like Wiress or Mags do not even get that kind of exposition and sadly do not leave a great deal of mental imprint in the end.
The problem is that the movie has hardly got more than two hours at its disposal in order to tell the whole story. It should have run at a slower pace, allowing itself to create more atmosphere. The first part of the trilogy, directed by Gary Ross in 2011, was better at this, for instance when it depicted the mood of decadence that was reigning in the Capitol in a way that even the Suzanne Collins novel was unable to perform.
Fortunately, the "Mockingbird" dish will be served in two mouthfuls. I can only hope that this decision was not motivated by economical reasons but by the intention to pay true cinematographic respect to an epic masterpiece.