The Film Thugs Movie Show

The Hunger Games

"The movie was good... but the book was so much better."

You. Don't. Say?

I use to say this. I did. It's not something I proud of, but it's the truth. There isn't anything harmful or wrong about this statement, it's just, if we're being honest, a non statement. Non statements are things you normally hear during political campaigns. Things like, "every American should have the opportunity to make their lives better." Wow, bold stance. Do you also think all babies should eat? They are safe statements because nobody can, or for that matter does, disagree with them.

There are statements like this about movies too. "Daniel Day-Lewis was really good in that!" You know, as opposed to all the times he sucked. "Michael Bay has a really strong visual style, but his stories are weak." Thank you for clearing that up. "Sean Connery uses the same accent in every role!" Yeah, and when you are Sean Connery, you can do the same.

But to me the most annoying is "The book was so much better." Why do I consider this to be a non statement? Well, let's look at "L.A. Confidential," a very good book and a very good movie that are very different from one another.

The book is 496 pages, spans several years, and has around 100 characters in it.

The movie runs 138 minutes (for those who don't know that means the screenplay was around 138 pages long), spanned around a year, and had significantly fewer characters in it.

So, for an exceptional adaptation you had to lose 358 pages, 9 years, and 60-70 characters. The page count alone should invalidate comparison. How can you hope to compare a story to a version of itself that is 72% shorter? Is it even possible? Add to that the necessity of losing 70% of the characters, and 80% of the time that passed and you begin to see the impossibility of adaptation. Then take into account the loss of narration due to the visual nature of film storytelling and the whole affair begins to look hopeless.

Yes some are good, some are even better than the book (it does happen), but it is a rare thing.

So, I propose looking at the films as films, not as extensions of the books. I will go more into this at another time, the only reason I mention it is because I am reviewing "Hunger Games and I've hear a lot of people say this about the movie and book, so I felt the need to address it.

The only thing I've hear more of than "The book was better..." is, "I liked it better when it was called 'Battle Royale,'" First off, good for you! I am impressed by your worldliness. Tell me more of your adventures in international cinema!!!

Yes, there is a basic similarity between the two, but it's just that... basic. Saying that "Hunger Games" is the same as "Battle Royale," is like saying that "The Godfather" and "Goodfellas" are the same movie because they both involve the mafia, or that "A Beautiful Mind" and "Good Will Hunting," are the same because they both involve math. Hell, it's more accurate to call "Die Hard" and "Home Alone" the same movie because they both involve wise cracking loners separated from their families on Christmas eve who have to go against a group of thieves who disguise themselves using only his intelligence in gorilla style warfare. Both include humorous airport scenes, broken glass, jumping out of windows, unlikely sidekicks with personal problems who save the day at the last minute, useless cops, and eventual familial reconcilliation.

If you criticize "Hunger Games" as a "Battle Royale" rip off, then you have to criticize "Battle Royale" for ripping off "The Running Man," "The Long Walk," "The Most Dangerous Game," "The Condemned," "The Man With The Golden Gun," or "Series 7: The Contenders." The only thing that makes these two more similar is the use of kids and the laziness and lack of research on behalf of the person making the comment.

"Battle Royale" is good. But let's not make it more than it is.

"The Hunger Games" is a different animal. It's set in a dystopian future. America was destroyed by an unmentioned apocalyptic event and a country called Panem rose from the ashes. Panem consists of The Capital, where the very wealthy live in absolute luxury, and the 12 districts, where people live near starvation and work to provide the capital with all the material trappings that give them that luxury. As "penance" for a past revolution each year the districts are required to offer one male and one female between the ages if 12 and 18 as tribute to participate in "The Hunger Games," a fight to the death tournament with only one survivor. Win, and your family is given a new life of wealth and comfort and your district is showered with gifts and food for the next year. Each district is required to watch. For the districts it is a cruel exercise in domination, being forced to watch their children murder each other. In the Capital it is a giddily anticipated entertainment, like the olympics.

We follow Katniss Everdeen, a young woman from District 12 (the mining district) who enters the game as a volunteer to take the place of her 12 year old sister who was drawn at random. Her life is a struggle to support her family in a world that seems bent on consuming them. We follow her to the capital and through the pageantry that surrounds this blood sport, and ultimately into the game itself.

The book itself is pretty streamlined story telling. There are parts that were excised for the sake of pacing and length, but they were parts that could be excised without damaging the narrative as a whole. The character of Katniss is strengthen somewhat in the movie. In the book she seemed less sure of herself at first and more vulnerable, whereas in the movie she seemed much more in control and confident. It's a subtle change, but I think it benefits the character immensely.

Normally, when I see a movie after reading the book I am a bit let down. I go in knowing that it won't be as good, but usually I end up pissed off because they leave out things that I think are important or put in things that don't make sense or rush things too much trying to put in as much as possible. That didn't happen here. Yes it is streamlined, but it's not hatched together. The things that are left out are minor and the film moves at a good enough clip and includes enough of the important that what is left out goes largely unnoticed. It's not the book and wasn't meant to be, what it is, though, is a well crafted story that works in the world of the source material while not attempting to alter it.

This is a very good movie. It's brutal and touching in equal parts, visceral and heartbreaking, and makes some fairly strong social commentary without beating you over the head with it. (Yeah, watching lonely people fighting for attention and affection on national television may not be as savage as kids killing each other, but we still take voyeuristic pleasure in the pain of another human being.)

The casting is absolutely perfect and the performances were a bit surprising.

Jennifer Lawrence kills it as Katniss. She is compelling as a young woman doing what needs to be done to protect and provide for her family in a desolate mining town (hmmm... Jennifer Lawrence as the oldest child forced to act as parent to a poor family in a mining town? This sounds familiar for some reason.). This is a difficult role and she nails it.

The other performances I was concerned about were Hamich, Cinna, and Rue.

Hamich- One of the best characters in the story. He is a former Hunger Games champion from District 12 who is charged with training and mentoring Katniss and Peeta (the male tribute). Whatever he experienced in the games has broken him and he spends most of his time drunk. This character could have been played as a caricature of the shell-shocked alcoholic war vet and played for laughs, but he wasn't. Harrelson showed an incredible amount of restraint and subtlety in creating a man who is doing what he needs to in order to get through the day.

Cinna- As Katniss's stylist he is the human face of The Capital. Where as everyone else there is a grotesque caricature of privileged excess and vanity Cinna is an actual human who seems to really care about Katniss as a person, not just as a source of entertainment. Lenny Kravits seemed like an odd choice, but he was absolutely perfect.

Rue- They could not have found a more adorable, less threatening actress to play Rue if they had tried. Amandla Stenberg is heartbreaking as a completely innocent child who you instinctively want to protect in the most brutal environment possible. She is heartbreaking and wonderful.

While the acting is superb there is a fair amount of praise for the direction. The visuals are evocative and add to the story. The editing style and visual effects are... well affective. There is some solid visual story telling here and it offsets and aids the narrative.

There is one thing I find maddening about this movie though. Earlier this year a documentary called "Bully" was released. It was made with the intention of shedding light on the problem of bullying in America and around the world. It was made to let kids who bully know that it's not acceptable and to let the victims know that they are not alone and that it does get better. I don't know if I would call it an important film, but I do think that it is an important issue and anything that can be done to shed light and help end it is a good thing (I say this as someone who was bullied at one point in my life). That film received an R rating because the word "fuck" was used a few times. "The Hunger Games," where brutal child on child murder is shown was given a PG-13 rating without even needing an appeal.

But I digress...

The Hunger Games is a solid adaptation that works for both fans of the books and the uninitiated. It's a visually striking, well acted production of a solid script. Forget the comparisons and check it you. You'll most likely enjoy it.

Until next time, may the odds be ever in your favor.