Suzanne Collin’s “The Hunger Games”, both the book series and the film adaptations, have become a massive cultural touchstone, but what separates this phenomenon from other young-adult fiction successes is the fact that the protagonist is a strong and empowered female and the story surrounding her is considerably bleak and brutal, considering the readership. Science fiction of this dystopian type isn’t anything new or particularly original but it is certainly new to see a movie about institutionalized murder, genocide, government oppression, and fascistic propaganda presented in such a tween-friendly, mall-theater way . Unfortunately this unique quality is both the most interesting and the most problematic thing about this franchise.
Though this
sequel, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”, does manage to address the suggested
violence in a more meaningful way than its flaccid and poorly photographed
predecessor, the limitations behind its marketing goals still hobbles the
thematic reality behind the tale. More problematic, in order to maintain its
soft-PG-13 rating, these films can never clearly decide when violence is ugly,
when violence is justified, and when violence is just a plot device… And not to
sound like a finger-wagging grown-up, but it disturbs me to know that the children
watching these movies, who are being guided through the heroes journey in the
safest narrative ways possible, will be subconsciously rooting for which kids
they want to live and which kids they hope will die, not realizing that the story
is about the pointlessness of all
violence and the perversity of power.
Picking
right up where the last one left off, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and
Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are touring the twelve impoverished districts
as the newly promoted winners of the annual Hunger Games; you know, that most dangerous game where twenty four
teenage contestants are forced to kill each other on camera until one survivor comes out on top as the lord of the flies.
After pretending
to be lovers, in order to cheat their way into having a duel sponsorship by
their evil government, President Snow (Donald Southerland) puts them back in
the arena along with a selection of other past game winners, in order to
destabilize their subversive victory and to reinstall fear within the viewing
community.
Director
Frances Lawrence takes over this franchise with a sharp sense of where to
augment or enhance the aesthetic example set by Gary Ross’s previous film. The
camera work is much more confident, the sense of danger and urgency is increased,
and the films political subtext about wealth disparity and revolution is
treated more directly instead of incidentally. These attributes alone makes this
sequel much better than the lackluster original from two years back.
Yet, as
a story, this film suffers greatly from middle-movie-syndrome. The plot begins
at an awkward jumping on point and ends without any resolution or pay off. What
we get instead is an overlong first and second act and a short battle before a
twist is revealed and whole thing cuts off at an unsatisfying moment. I
understand that there will be upcoming installments where these plot-points
will eventually get ironed out but this isn’t a television show and films
shouldn’t exist only to be transitional pieces.
So, like the first film, I suppose “Catching Fire” is
a mixed bag. As a work of cinematic art, it’s more successful in some ways, but
as a piece of storytelling it’s not as rewarding. Lawrence and the rest of the
cast are serviceable—if not somewhat dampened by the overall joylessness of
this mythology—and newcomers like Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the shady game
technician and Jena Malone as a disgruntled ex-player are welcomed additions.
Nevertheless, I can’t help but focus on what these films are never allowed to
be and how that diminishes the overall power of its purpose. Grade: C+
Originally published in the Idaho State Journal/Dec-2013
No comments:
Post a Comment