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.
No comments:
Post a Comment