Critic David Thomson begins his review with a catchy
sentence "the film shows precious little hunger and no sense of
game". I disagree, even though I have only seen the first movie from The
Hunger Games trilogy Hunger Games is precisely the opposite. To begin Hunger
Games is a great movie inspired off the Hunger Games series written by Suzanne
Collins. This movie is a great representation of a possible post-apocalyptic
world. The lower/middle class has to fight to survive in a world run by upper
class members. Thomson argues, "There is no sign of how the end came and
no trace of toxic aftermath". This is may be true but the author and
director left that open for its readers/viewers to wonder and create their own
possibilities. With movies dealing with post-apocalyptic visions it allows for
the creator to think outside of the box. The Hunger Games sets the scene with
starting in a rural area where the lower class has nothing but bread water and
hope while the upper class has advanced technology, big homes, and lots of
money. Every year this upper class gives teens from the twelve districts a
chance to fight, survive, and win.
Fast forwarding Katniss does the typical heroism move by
volunteering to take her sister's place. When a movie begins this way you know
that the favors are going to work for them. But according to Thomson,
"Even now, I can see that the plot motif, of teenagers in a contest where
they must kill one another, might threaten sentimental ideas of what children
are or ought to be”. The plot does the opposite, it strives to inspire teens to
fight for their loved ones and defend their home. If the world came to such
drastic measures Hunger Games shows teens should do all they can to stand up,
rebel, and defy labels set by the upper class. Hunger Games is inspiration not
destruction. Thomson even compares Lawrence’s lack of adapting to the role
because of her characters in previous movies. Jennifer Lawrence played Katniss
very well; she was the typical movie character: a fighter who falls in love
with her competition in a place where only one can survive. But Thomson has a
different idea on Lawrence’s acting ability, “The film should have suspense,
fear, and desperation, all focuses on Katniss, but Lawrence seems reserved and
biding her time”.
Towards the middle of the movie when Katniss and Peta are
entering the place to fight of course Katniss is to herself because she is
there for her district and family. In her mind the motive is to return home for
her mom and sister. But as the movie progresses we see that changed a bit as
she gets aliases and new friends. To cause a rebellion in all the other
districts to fight against the upper class is her new motive towards the end. To
further continue the discussion of characters Thomson mentions he thinks Woody
Harrelson and Donald Sutherland had pointless roles. I disagree because these
actors Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, and Stanley Tucci helped make the
movie. Each actor created a character that influenced Katniss and her
willingness to rebel. With Woody Harrelson being her and Peta’s mentor he helped
supply Katniss with aid during the competition. Donald Sutherland is the seer
of the Hunger Games and serves as the antagonist to Katniss. Without those two
characters the movie would fall flat. I do agree that Stanley Tucci gives the
movie some comedic relief as a host of a TV show. But each character helps
makes Hunger Games a great movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment