Minor series spoilers.
I’ve just returned from seeing the much-touted cinematic adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games, which was highly influenced by Suzanne Collins herself in her roles as co-screenwriter and co-producer (I applaud her victory on that count). You might remember that I wasn’t a huge fan of the book itself. I suppose it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, then, that I wasn’t head-over-heels for the film either.
The film cleared up Katniss’ gender easily (reading the book, her first person voice was masculine enough to greatly confuse me, really, till I turned to the back and saw that she was given the feminine pronoun), and I enjoyed its insight into life outside the arena, in the Game room, President Snow’s garden, Districts 12 and 11…. These insights deepen the plot by showing the causes and effects of Katniss’ actions in the arena, about which Katniss might speculate in the book but of which she knows nothing for certain. As someone who I think ships the (I believe, but remember I haven’t read the second or third books yet) star-crossed pairing of Katniss/Gale, the scenes of Gale’s reactions to Katniss and Peeta’s budding though potentially pretended relationship were particularly heart-rending.
Almost all around, this is a well-acted film. The characters were easy to feel for (or hate as appropriate), and little interaction was required to express their feelings for one another. Especially skilled were Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, Liam Hemsworth as Gale, and Amandla Stenberg as Rue.
What this movie failed to express—or failed to express as clearly as the book does was Katniss’ and Peeta’s reactions to being pawns in the Hunger Games. The focus seemed to be on the excitement and peril of the Games and less on the problem with the government that the Games exposes. This, I think, is mostly the fault of the medium. Katniss’ voice is a close one in the novel. Her inner monologue is absent from the movie. Peeta’s anti-government feelings, though, might have been played up more on film.
Much, really, overall might have been better explained, such as mockingjays’ and tracker jackers’ historical importance and the symbolism of three upheld fingers.
I’d be interested to hear opinions from those who haven’t read the books. Was the story clear? What did you or didn’t you understand?
I can see though where fans of the books would come away quite satisfied. The movie’s plot adheres quite closely to the book’s (so far as I recall), so fans of the series will grumble about errors more quietly than, say, Tolkienites or Potter-heads tended to after seeing their films.
I almost think though, for all this and all my previous grumbles, that I prefer the book to the movie because it more strongly comes across as a political struggle, and I enjoy a strong focus on politics in my plots.
It maybe should be mentioned that, while I haven’t read Catching Fire or Mockingjay, I’ve read a few spoilers. I’m not actually sure that I felt that The Hunger Games book did emphasize political struggle as strongly as I’d have liked; I think I’ve imposed a stronger emphasis on those stirrings of political dissent post-spoiler than I originally read in Katniss’ grumbles.
My film rating?
The Hunger Games. Dir. Gary Ross. Lionsgate. 2012.
This review is not endorsed by Lionsgate, Gary Ross, anyone in the cast, or anyone involved in making this film, nor Suzanne Collins or Scholastic. It is an independent, honest review by a viewer.