**** (out of 5)
I will admit that I completely bought into the hype for The Hunger Games. When the third book in the series was released, my wife was working at a children's bookstore, and needless to say they were mobbed. She had read The Hunger Games at one point, and mentioned to me that it's something she thought I would like, but I didn't get around to it until the trailers started appearing for the film. It looked interesting enough, so I picked up the first book, and proceeded to read all three over one three week period. They flow very, very well that way. The initial previews set the right tone, and had me looking forward to the adaptation for months.
The quick version: In a dystopian North America, the citizens of Panem are divided into two classes: the well-to-do Capitol residents and the less fortunate residents of 12 outlying districts. 74 years ago, the districts rebelled against the government, only to be defeated. A condition of the treaty was that every year, each district must offer up one teenage boy and one teenage girl for gladiatorial combat as a reminder of the Capitol's dominance, with only one of the 24 participants surviving. The Hunger Games follows Katniss Everdeen, the female "tribute" from District 12, who has had only one winner in history. It follows her from the day of her "reaping" into the arena where she must find a way to outlast the other 23 participants in order to get back to her family and life in District 12.
If you've read the books, you'll be pretty pleased, I think. The film hits the highlights really well. The production design stays very true to what Suzanne Collins described in all areas - District 12, the Capitol and the Arena. While everyone's imagination will fill in details in a slightly different way, this is absolutely in line with how I pictured the world. Most of the major events from the book are present, though the significance of some have been adjusted one way or another.
The film's biggest strength is its star - Jennifer Lawrence plays Katniss with all the intensity and ferocity needed to appropriately set the stakes. She's more than capable of carrying the film on her shoulders, which is good, since she's in 90% of the scenes. She strikes a nice balance of determination and desperation when in the arena, and seems to carry the weight of at least her world very believably, mostly revolving around her younger sister back in the district. Lawrence is capable physically, too, and shows Katniss as resourceful - she looks right at home in the various deep-woods environments - and dangerous - she sells her archery skills really well throughout the film, and she seems like a legitimate threat to win from the beginning.
Having Collins as one of the writers probably paid off in deciding what scenes were necessary, and what could be cut without hurting the overall film. It also allowed her to add some context with scenes that weren't possible given the first-person narrative in the book. We see glimpses of the Gamemaker's control room, a la The Truman Show, that further the reality show, blood-for-entertainment feel for the event. It also gives some depth to Gamemaker Seneca Crane - mentioned in the book, but not seen. It would be easy to dismiss the character in charge of constructing booby-trapped arenas in which children fight to the death as evil, but Wes Bentley plays Crane as a dedicated TV producer, determined to give his audience the best show possible. Certainly out of touch, but that can be said of everyone in the Capitol. It's a job for Crane, one he takes pride in and seems to be quite good at. He becomes a part of the system he inherited and thrived in, but is not the ultimate sadistic villain he could easily degrade into.
The downside to the perspective change is that The Hunger Games stumbles a bit when trying to establish the level of emotional impact of the books. All of our information about other characters comes directly from Katniss in the book, and without that intimate assist, we're left without a ton of direction as to why we ought to care for much of the supporting cast. Because of that, relationships feel a bit shallow, and some of the dramatic emotional scenes end up a little unearned and hollow. Once again, this is something that fans of the books won't have an issue with (myself included), because we'll be able to fill in those details. Fortunately, the world is built well enough that even without the distinct personal connection, heavy events maintain some weight simply because of the situation these kids are thrust into - you can feel the emotional impact of a character's death as a victim of this brutal system, even if the emotional tie to Katniss doesn't play as clearly as it ought to.
If director Gary Ross in on board for the sequels, I do hope the studios insist on some more steadycam involvement. Handheld shaky cams certainly have their place, and can be used to establish a level of frantic activity that is appropriate for parts of the story, but it's overused here. Too often it becomes unclear who is doing what to whom - likely intentional at times to maintain their PG13 rating, but while I appreciate that, I would still like to be able to follow the action. Other than needing a more steady hand (literally), Ross does a fine job of translating to screen, and allows Lawrence to take the lead and be the heart of the film, as she should be.
Probably more than the book, this is very clearly part one of a trilogy. Efforts were made to build some tension between the districts and the Capitol that will pay off in Catching Fire and Mockingjay, and the film actually did a better job of identifying the ultimate antagonist than the book - I'm very much looking forward to that character getting more screen time and more impact as the films continue. Ultimately, The Hunger Games didn't really have a prayer of living up to the hype that was built around it, but this is certainly a well-made, entertaining first step that not only made me want to reread all three books, but also left some anticipation for the second film, currently slated for November 2013. Do yourself a favor and read the book before heading to the theater, but if you don't get around to it, you'll still find a good adventure with an intriguing setup that will probably drive you back to the book to fill in the little details once the credits roll.
If director Gary Ross in on board for the sequels, I do hope the studios insist on some more steadycam involvement. Handheld shaky cams certainly have their place, and can be used to establish a level of frantic activity that is appropriate for parts of the story, but it's overused here. Too often it becomes unclear who is doing what to whom - likely intentional at times to maintain their PG13 rating, but while I appreciate that, I would still like to be able to follow the action. Other than needing a more steady hand (literally), Ross does a fine job of translating to screen, and allows Lawrence to take the lead and be the heart of the film, as she should be.
Probably more than the book, this is very clearly part one of a trilogy. Efforts were made to build some tension between the districts and the Capitol that will pay off in Catching Fire and Mockingjay, and the film actually did a better job of identifying the ultimate antagonist than the book - I'm very much looking forward to that character getting more screen time and more impact as the films continue. Ultimately, The Hunger Games didn't really have a prayer of living up to the hype that was built around it, but this is certainly a well-made, entertaining first step that not only made me want to reread all three books, but also left some anticipation for the second film, currently slated for November 2013. Do yourself a favor and read the book before heading to the theater, but if you don't get around to it, you'll still find a good adventure with an intriguing setup that will probably drive you back to the book to fill in the little details once the credits roll.
No comments:
Post a Comment