The Hunger Games - Why don't I get it?

[aTOMiC]

For you Hunger Games fans out there I want to apologize in advance. I bear no ill will toward you and I certainly don't want to offend anyone however I don't get The Hunger Games films. I also must state that I didn't read the books which might have had a bearing on my view. However I don't get why the movies are attended with such fervor. Of course I didn't get the Twilight series either which might answer my own question for me.

I have to confess to have intentionally avoided watching the first film for quite a while. Even after it appeared on Netflix I still wasn't able to pull the trigger and it had mainly to do with what I had read and what I had seen in regard to the film's marketing. Based on what information I had The Hunger Games appeared to be a film based on rather weather worn dystopian future sci fi tropes which I've always found difficult to accept. (Another recent film I had difficulty with a similar plot device was The Purge) I assumed that THG would probably have a lot in common with many stories I had seen and read before and a particular episode of Sliders came to mind as well. The trailer's for the film also seemed to feature sub par special effects, annoyingly over the top costumes and an ensemble of teen actors to sprinkle around the heroine. It was for these reasons I was hesitant to watch the film however at the suggestion of my wife and others I finally agreed.

After watching THG my first reaction was one of shock and dismay. Virtually every preconception and instinct I had about the film was true. To be fair there were entertaining moments (mostly in the second half) and Jenifer Lawrence' performance was above average as always however I was left with the impression that (unlike the Harry Potter films) the film makers were unconcerned about drawing in a new audience and more focused on preaching to the converted. There is even an admittedly underdeveloped love triangle which I guess I should be used to by now with these types of films. I know now that THG and THG: Catching Fire are wildly successful box office draws and I can't quite understand it but you never really know how the general public will react to a film and I can confirm that not everyone is an enthusiastic fan though I am apparently in the micro minority.

I don't know how the book handled explaining the story's central theme but the film spent no screen time establishing or justifying its premise. There is barely any observable threat to the central characters to be seen before hand and the film only bothers to use brief bits of exposition to reinforce its premise.

I don't get the Hunger Games films but maybe I wasn't among those who were supposed to.

[I'm Murrin]

I enjoyed the films myself. The second one not so much as the first - the actual games part of Catching Fire was too outlandish and their attempt to make a mystery out of what is going on was just on the edge of being outright confusing for the viewer; they didn't handle that well. But I enjoyed it still.

I have not read the books. I've heard they're not particularly well written.

[lorin]

I read the first book and saw the movie at the recommendation of a friends teenage daughter. Like Ender's Game, this is a book aimed at a teen audience, closer to 14 and 15. And the most important thing to a teen is angst, fighting and/or hotties. Any other theme or story line is superfluous.

I disliked both books and both movies. I think that is why the Harry Potter books were so unusual. It pushed the boundaries of what to expect from a teen fantasy/scifi book and its young readers.

I know I am irritating some Orson Scott Card fans around here.

[Cail]

Haven't read the books. My daughter (18 years old) did and completely enjoyed both movies (though the first more than the second).

While I though the first film was decent, it does plow some familiar fields, most notably The Running Man (which is weird, but that's me).

I'll probably watch the second one on Netflix, but I'm in no great rush.

[Akasri]

I wasn't all that enthused by the first movie either... I figured it was because I hadn't read the books. Maybe it's my age. I am 40 years past the target audience for this LOL

[wayfriend]

I thought the first movie was entertaining (as a non-reader). You just have to go into it knowing it's not breaking any new territory, it's just the same things dressed up for an audience who thinks it's all new. But movies that follow well known tropes can be entertaining if they do it well.

[ussusimiel]

My reaction was much the same as yours, Tom, although I'd have to say that the movie itself was relatively well-made and well-acted. (The blatant rip-off of the Japanese movie 'Battle Royale' (1999) didn't help and I felt that the ending was a bit of a let-down.)

I'm not a Harry Potter fan, so I have no direct line into any of the teen stuff that's been moving truckloads of books etc. over the last decade or more. However, I am told (by reliable sources) that as well as tagging the usual teenage concerns (as lorin points out): angst + fighting + hotties, some of them (e.g. Twilight) plug into pressures that contemporary teens are subject too as a result of the world we now inhabit. A common theme is the increased alienation from our animal bodies (and sexuality) through the relentless commodification of the body and all its desires. All the vampire/werewolf related books and series are tapping into these unconscious pressures, so I'm told.

u.

[Vraith]

it does plow some familiar fields, most notably The Running Man (which is weird, but that's me).

I agree...though I hadn't thought of that particular story and film, I should have. Good call. [Especially since, which you can't "know" not having read HG book, but could probably guess, similar kinds of changes were made to both in the process of translating from story to film].


But uss...I've heard what you mention, and I'm not sure I buy it...

Well, I do, in part. I point at body/self-alienation as a factor in many modern trends/patterns/behaviors. Yet, the separation from our animal selves isn't, in any way, "new." It's been around for a very long time..and has in fact been a conscious, intentional power structure/form wielded over people in many times and places.

The question is: is the capitalist/commodification different, in either effect on the people or affect of the people, compared to [just one example] the Victorian repression/suppression? [think Dracula for Twilight]

I haven't looked at all deeply at the comparisons/contrasts...but my impression is the differences are only corset deep.

The madness is the same, only the methods have changed.

More on topic: the HG story form is at least as old...has at least as many, probably more, antecedents.

[ussusimiel]

But uss...I've heard what you mention, and I'm not sure I buy it...

Well, I do, in part. I point at body/self-alienation as a factor in many modern trends/patterns/behaviors. Yet, the separation from our animal selves isn't, in any way, "new." It's been around for a very long time..and has in fact been a conscious, intentional power structure/form wielded over people in many times and places.

The question is: is the capitalist/commodification different, in either effect on the people or affect of the people, compared to [just one example] the Victorian repression/suppression? [think Dracula for Twilight]

I haven't looked at all deeply at the comparisons/contrasts...but my impression is the differences are only corset deep.

The madness is the same, only the methods have changed.

The madness is the similar, the response to the control of sexuality and the body (where's rus when we need him? ) but, IMO, the methods are of a different level of intensity. The commodification of the body and its desires is of a different order now than ever before.

As usual, whatever is repressed returns. The body (and sex and love) return with a ferocity that is reflected in the violence of the Twilight series. In the Victorian era female sexuality was repressed, plain and simple. Now, while female sexuality remains at the centre of the maelstrom it is no longer the whole story. The intensity of the repression of the human body has led to the emergence (in fiction) of a savage animality that, of course, seems to threaten the whole structure designed to keep it in check.

I'm not suggesting that the current generation is going to storm L'Oreal factories and toss Guccitov cocktails into the White House, but at some level, no matter how unconscious, there is an awareness that something is out of kilter.

u.

[JazFusion]

I've never read the books, nor did I particularly enjoy the first movie. It was not a particularly well done trope, and was directed specifically at adolescent audiences. So the half movie wasn't an interest to me from the start.

I liked the themes it presented: mob mentality, dystopian government, revolution, etc. But I felt other books touched on these subjects much more clearly, and without the muddled love triangle: specifically, Lord of the Flies, 1984, etc.

[Orlion]

I enjoyed the second movie, haven't seen the first or read the books.

But it was enjoyment in the "mindless, munch on nachos and popcorn" variety, and as far as such enjoyment goes it was better than Freebirds. I have no intention of seeing the first movie or reading the books.

My main criticisms? How cartoonishly Orwellian the government was... I mean, they were about as subtle as a metal mallet to the face.

The good thing? The depiction of aristocratic waste while everyone else "straves". That's really the only insightful thing I can thing of.

Really, one might not "get it" because there is not much "to get"... I mean, the inspiration was allegedly American Idol and the Iraq War... what can we really expect?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I find Jennifer Lawrence difficult to ignore for a number of reasons.

[dANdeLION]

I ignored these films, mostly because of Atomic's initial post; we pretty much have the same tastes in movies. Well, I got $50 in Fandango gift cards for Christmas, so I took my two youngest kids to Star Star Wars and Spectre; and let them pick the 3rd movie, which was Mockingjay 2. We went yesterday. I watched the other 3 movies Saturday, so I wouldn't be confused, and to my surprise, I really liked it. One thing that stood out for me was Katniss's nightmares; a much more realistic consequence of having to kill other people in order to survive than, say Star Wars' endless "Wa-hoo!s"

Oh, and I watched 3 of the Harry Potter movies and didn't like any of them.

[peter]

Yeah - but they got Jennifer Lawrence in'em [know what I'm sayin']!

[wayfriend]

Yeah, but they also got Natalie Dormer, which balances the equation.

[peter]

Not sure what equation it is you're balancing there WF, but the figures do present points of interest.......

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Looking back at this thread it's interesting how meh I now feel about all things jlaw. Also, I haven't seen Mockingjay 1 or 2 yet, though the wife wants me to watch the final one with her. I'll have to buckle down and watch part 1 as prep. BTW Joy was a thoroughgoing turd of a movie.

[sgt.null]

the books were a quick, enjoyable read.

have not seen any of the films yet.

did see and enjoy Battle Royale.

[peter]

Long time ago Sarge, but yes - I seem to remember it as being good, if harder than the H G films. Based on a manga book IIRC.

[peter]

Saw the final episode of this series last night and sorry to say found it a bit of a damp squib. The story was tied up, the loose-ends pulled back in - but thats about it. I've [semi] enjoyed the earlier films ..... but for the first time I found myself wishing that this one would end - I just got bored with it. I'm guessing it went down well with the 'teen market' [it's intended audience after all], but for me it had out-stayed it's welcome.