The Odds Are Ever In Its Favor

Why do the most powerful themes always resonate from the most impossible choices?  I'm not just talking about sacrifice; but sacrifice laced with love, honor, ethical and moral aptitude, and the will to survive.  I believe "The Hunger Games" conveys every possible moral dilemma that can weigh on the human condition, and then some.  It is also a motion picture of exquisite detail punctuated by beats of unbearable tension.  How some of these characters don't die from tension-induced cardiac arrest, I'm not sure.

Gary Ross has directed exactly two feature films before "The Hunger Games."  Whatever you do, don't disregard this movie based on his relatively short resume.  I would wager that few directors would have been able to understand this world as Ross seems to.  Consider his "Pleasantville," about a brother and sister transported into the surreal world of a 1950's sitcom.  No explanation is ever given for this miraculous event, but none is needed.  Gary Ross goes full-stop into the fantasy realm and allows his characters to transform, along with the entire world around them.  For something like "The Hunger Games," his previous film is a good one to have on his track record because whatever explanation is needed for the audience (mostly for those who have not read the novels, like myself) comes through the vibrant detail and by watching how the characters perceive this world.  After a helpful set of opening titles explaining in broad strokes what the ground rules are for this distopian existence, the characters immediately serve as the reference point for our understanding.

In a future America, society has rebuilt itself from ashes after war ravaged, well...everything, I guess.  At some point, a rebellion took place and as punishment, the country was divided into twelve districts, all in various states of wealth, poverty and privilege.  Each year, a male and female between the ages of 12 and 18 are chosen from each district to compete in the cruelest reality television show imaginable.  24 "tributes" are put into a wildlife preserve style arena and must fight, kill, or survive until only one is left.  This is dubbed "The Hunger Games" because I suppose that sounds better than "poignant satire of the kind of crap we watch on t.v. already."  It is explained that this began as punishment for the rebellion, but has now evolved into a "unifying" event that is symbolic of the hope and triumph that came out of the war.  Watching the scenes of Game Master Seneca (Wes Bentley) explain this is strangely reminiscent of current political PR hogwash.  The games are monitered, and sometimes omnisciently controlled by "the Captiol," which itself is controlled by President Snow (Donald Sutherland, unfortunately phoning in).

That's another thing; just over a week ago, in my review of "John Carter," I lamented all the names I couldn't pronounce from that film.  I spoke too soon.  Here there are people like Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), whose name sounds like an adjective.  She volunteers to be the female tribute from district 12 (the poorest) because her younger sister, Primrose (Willow Shields), was chosen from the lottery.  In these districts, to buy simple amenities like food and wares, one must submit their name to the lottery.  In any given year, this could mean they might have their name submitted many times, such as Katniss' friend Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth), who has 42 entries this year.  He gets a free pass, however, because Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) is chosen as the male tribute from the 12th district.  Peeta and Katniss have no doubt met before, in a misunderstanding neither of them has ever spoken of.  Yet here they are, on a train traveling 200 mph toward the Capitol and escorted by chaperone Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks, unrecognizeable).  Anyone else think her name conjurs images of a vulgar garage sale item?  Katniss and Peeta also meet Haymitch Abernathy, a former champion of the Hunger Games who will serve as their trainer and mentor.  As played by Woody Harrelson, Haymitch is one of the two characters I was interested in most.  He advises the new tributes well, but seems to regard them each as a tragedy doomed to fail.  Oh he may have his hopes for who might come out of the arena alive, but he also seems to convey that no matter what the outcome, there is no real "winner."  That's the tragedy.

All 24 tributes are groomed, pampered, catered to and trained for battle in a series of sequences that prove to be the film's most intriguing.  Stanley Tucci plays a vivacious talk show host named Caesar Flickerman and it is through him that much of the exposition exists in the form of commentary, keeping the audience up to par on who is dead, etc.  During his interviews of the tributes, we realize that Caesar is exactly the kind of man to thrive in this society because self-interest is a constant motivation, whether by choice or desperation.  Flickerman's wardrobe and hair might suggest a bit of both.  If anything, I'd say "The Hunger Games" is a sure-fire nominee for best hair and make-up design, and perhaps art direction as well.  The costumes, hair colors, props and lunacy of luxury that exists in the captiol is strangley similar to the style of "A Clockwork Orange."  The style actually figures prominently into the plot, because the tributes must get the audience to like them if they want to earn sponsors, who may send in valuable tools or weapons to their favorite competitor.   Another person of interest is Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), who helps assist Katniss with being herself and the two form a touching and believable relationship.  It's a shame when he is side-lined in the movie's last act.

In time, all of the tributes are released into the arena.  I suppose I will spare the details of what happens to save the, er, pleasures of watching it unfold for the audience.  Needless to say it lives up to its premise and tributes start getting sliced, diced and variously killed in increasingly brutal fashion.  Some of the deaths are more poignant than others because of the ages of certain characters and also because of the relationships that inevitably have time to form.  This is where the most cruel moral dilemmas come into play.  What can motivate a person when their only two choices are to either be killed, or to kill everyone else, including those they may love?  How do they have conversations when the pink elephant in the room is that they'd both rather keep their lives?  Do they shamefully feel deep down that they'd prefer the other be killed or rather sacrifice their own life to save another?  It is in these questions that "The Hunger Games" is the most effective.  The tension comes from the fragile emotions just under the surface that could burst at any moment and destroy someone's entire  existence; not just literally.  The action and physical fights that occur are just the vehicle for the real fight for survival, which is the endless mental torment perpetuated by these circumstances.  If such a society did ever exist, how could anyone live with themselves?

Despite its great strengths, "The Hunger Games" could use more room to breathe, even at 142 minutes.  There are characters that seem to be forgotten and awkward moments of random commentary that are surely for the viewers' benefit rather that the in-film television program, which itself is never really fleshed out all that well.  There is also a crucial moment late in the third act where two tributes' actions defy everything they've demonstrated up to that point, and it serves as a deus ex machina for Katniss, allowing her to get out of a situation that she wouldn't otherwise be able to reasonably get out of.  It's a moment that belongs in a lesser movie, and because Katniss is such a compelling heroine, she deserves more.  A director's cut for the blu-ray might be in order to see how much further this world can go.  Although, with two sequels that are certain to follow, I'm sure many of these issues resolve themselves.

"The Hunger Games" may look on the surface like yet another franchise based off some wildly popular series of fiction novels (it is) but it is perhaps the most culturally relevant example yet.  "Harry Potter" is certainly timeless in its own way, and the battle of good vs. evil has always been compelling.  What "The Hunger Games" provides transcends the simple concept of good vs. evil because it exists in a time when good and evil are defined by no clear terms; the lines are blurred.  For this reason, it is also relevant to a much wider and diverse audience, unlike another popular fantasy series that restricts itself by limiting its ideas to the 'impossible' fantasies of a young woman's mind.  The scary thing is, I'm not convinced a society like the one in "The Hunger Games" is impossible.  Society has long been at the crux of distasteful entertainment and should we ever find ourselves existing in Panem, it would not surprise me what we find ourselves capable of doing; whether by choice or desperation.

**I saw "The Hunger Games" at a midnight showing at the Grand Meridian Cinemas.  Their new digital projection and sorround sound is astonishing.  It rivals the over-priced AMC experience and is an impressive experience for any local resident.  Save your money and go with the high def picture provided at the Grand Meridian.  This movie is well worth full admission.

A Tale of Two Planets

Now here is a movie with cowboys and aliens that mostly works.  After only one viewing of "John Carter," I'll be darned if I could follow exactly what is happening every step of the way, but it's so visually stunning that it hardly matters.  This is perhaps the movie that "Prince of Persia" should have been.  While it may not succeed at telling a completely coherent story for its entire two hour, twelve minute run time, it provides an experience that is far and away more vibrant than any of those "Star Wars" prequels.  Director Andrew Stanton is a veteran of Disney and Pixar and with his first live action motion picture, we sense a familiar visual flare, and it is because of this that "John Carter" does so much so well.

Did you catch all the comparisons to other films in the first paragraph?  At first glance, "John Carter" would appear to be inspired by the design and feel of those features, but when you consider that it is based off a series of novels from the beginning of the last century, perhaps it is the other way around.  Not being familiar with the source material by Edgar Rice Burroughs, I can't say how faithful this Disney adventure is to his novels, but if it comes close, then I envy that man's imagination.  Granted, I'm not sure I could tell you precisely what this film is about, but it sure has a good time getting where it's going.  As far as I could surmise, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a confederate soldier searching for a cave of gold marked by a spider symbol.  We follow John as he rebels his way toward his goal, only to be captured by some fellow confederates (I think).  We are treated to a pretty darned funny series of escapes attempts, that climaxes with a traditional chase on horse back.  These early passages rival much of what we'd find in a traditional western and also set a specific pace for what's to come. 

Wouldn't you know it, John stumbles upon his cave quite by accident, and before long is whisked away across space and time to "Barsoom" (Mars).  Here he discovers the pleasures of a less-restrictive gravity, as he jumps leaps and bounds above what any other life form on this planet is capable of.  This ability assists him when he gets into trouble with a race of green, husked creatures called the "Tharks."  One of the leader Tharks, Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe) is captivated by John Carter, and subsequently dubs him "Virginia" afer mistakenly assuming that John's state of origin is his namesake.  Pretty soon, John Carter of Earth discovers that the Tharks share Barsoom with many other races of Martians, some of them more human than others.  The various races also seem to be at war with one another and I am afraid I must concede my plot description with that.

To attempt a plot synopsis of "John Carter" would confound my mind.  There are so many characters whose names I can't pronounce and so many threads of plot that I found many of the goings on hard to follow.  However, know this: there is eventually a prominant Martian Princess who inspires John Carter's, uh...talents and recruits him to fight a war that, by all rights, galactic or otherwise, is not his to fight.  That he will do it anyway is a given of stories like this.  Among the proceedings are multiple captures and escapes from each of the Martian races, some intriguing creatures and a whole lot of shooting and sword play.  I realize that these faint descriptions may imply that I didn't enjoy the film, but by golly, I did.  While it may be a mixed bag as far as plot and character development, the sheer scope and stunning visuals are so deceptively distracting that it elevates the film to a great entertainment.  If you need a comparison, look at the merciless creative theft commited by "Avatar" and how even that film was lifted solely by its marvelous visuals.

If anything, I think what Andrew Stanton proves with "John Carter" is that he is a competent live action filmmaker.  He may have a hard time juggling so many characters and plot politics, but that may also be a reflection of the source material.  Again, never having read the novels, I can't say.  Thing is, I'm not sure "John Carter" could be any longer or shorter than it is.  If it went longer, the audience might lose patience and if it went shorter, the movie would be a mess.  Early reactions were mixed and if you scrutinize it enough, it wouldn't be hard to see why.  I just found the bombastic nature to be so enthralling that I was engaged for the entire movie.  Even with all the familiar elements we've seen in other motion pictures, here I found them to be superior, especially considering they come from such an old source of inspiration.

There is plenty to take away from "John Carter" if you go in with the proper mindset.  It is certainly better than its lackluster marketing campaign made it look and if you're willing to give it shot, it may just exceed your expectations.  There is a lot of creative talent apparent on the screen and it would be a shame if it went unappreciated.  I can tell you it is certainly more friendly to family values when compared to something like "Immortals" or "300."  Disney does not have the best track record when it comes to their live action entertainments, but "John Carter" is a step in the right direction even if it falls just short.  Perhaps the early scene showing John trying to gain his footing for those miraculous jumps is somewhat symbolic of what Disney is experiencing trying to sell this movie.  Once he's able to get the hang of it, though, it's pretty awesome to behold.  And those Tharks, they just keep asking for it.