The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)


I will admit that I have not read these books.  Despite the fact that the romantic subplot was obviously aimed toward teenage girls, the world building that Suzanne Collins did is quite admirable.  Sure, there are a lot of questions, but these are questions that no one that lives in the society of Panem would be able to answer anyway.  It is a world that is alien but, at the same time, still has much of the familiar, and at the heart of everything is a good story that can be appreciated no matter the age of the reader.

The Hunger Games, as a movie, took me some time to warm up to, especially since Gary Ross's direction seemed in some ways more akin to an indie film.  I appreciate it more because of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, which is a superior film, but also owes a debt to the casting and style of the first even if the tone is completely different.  The first is largely establishing the world, and the Hunger Games themselves.  Though a significant part of the film, the event that gives the books and movies their name seems secondary to establishing the characters and the motivations that they have going forward.  The games also take up a good portion of this as well, but again in a much less crucial manner than one would think.  The first spent a lot of time showing us District 12 and the Capitol, while this shows us even more about Panem and is the payoff of the events we saw before. 

One year after Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutchinson) are declared the victors of the 74th Annual Hunger Games they are tasked with keeping up appearances as a loving couple, although Katniss secretly still carries a torch for Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth).  Having moved from their home to the relative comfort of District 12's Victor's Square, they are preparing for a tour of the districts of Panem.  Unfortunately, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has still not forgiven them, as many of the districts have seen their victory as an act of defiance against Snow's rule. 

Civil unrest follows the tour, leading Snow to look at options of removing Katniss without making her a martyr.  With the help of his new games master, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), he decides to make the 75th edition of the games special.  Following the tradition of a Quarter Quell, he announces that a male and female will be chosen from the living victors in each district, knowing that Katniss will be chosen, and hoping that she will die in the arena.  However, other forces seem to be at work while she trains and while she fights, as she finds herself more and more a reluctant sign of hope for Panem. 

While I didn't love The Hunger Games on first viewing the world intrigued me.  This time around Francis Lawrence directs, and it does surprise me that this works as well as it does, particularly since Lawrence's directing history is largely made up movies that I either never cared for or never thought it was worth my time to watch, as well as a bunch of bad pop videos.  Since he is a capable and workmanlike director, much of the credit for the success of Catching Fire goes to Samuel Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, who adapted the story for the screen.  Lawrence wisely seems to just keep out of the way so the events can play out. 

In truth, the way the movie was written and paced is what got my attention the first time around, and even more on a second viewing.  It feels like quite a lot of the book is there, with even characters as Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) getting somewhat of a story arc.  Gale actually serves a purpose this time around other than looking hunky and forlorn and, while the romantic subplots are still the weakest part of the story, Katniss's growing affection for Peeta feels organic rather than forced.  Another thing I do admire is the way many of the events mirror those from The Hunger Games, but with a completely different tone, often recalling Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will.  There is less spectacle and more edge, revealing more than ever how Panem's entire existence barely hangs on oppression and fear.  

Catching Fire is not only a great companion peace to the first Hunger Games, but when watched together they set up for something grand, and for the hope that for once Hollywood will do a book series some justice.  Unfortunately, the trend forever has been to milk every movie for every dollar it can produce.  Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was split into two movies, The Hobbit was inexplicably stretched to three, and Mockingjay, the third and concluding book in the the Hunger Games series, was divided into two.  Despite the fact it was still the same director and largely the same cast - The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part I had to work around Philip Seymour Hoffman's sudden death - the momentum built for the first two movies slowly came to a grinding halt. 

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
Time: 146 minutes
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson, Woody Harrelson, Liam Hemsworth, Donald Sutherland
Director: Francis Lawrence



 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Lawnmower Man (1992)

Image
Virtual reality has been one of the most hyped, and one of the most disappointing, promises of technology.  While it promotes immersion into a cybernetic world what it really provides are video games with 20-year-old graphics and the occasional bruise when one accidentally hits a closet door.  In the case of The Lawnmower Man  what it is promising is that something with graphics just a little bit better than Dire Straits's "Money for Nothing" video will somehow change the world and alter humanity. It was laughable then and it is laughable now.  The only person not laughing was Stephen King, who demanded that his name be removed from all future advertising for the movie because he never wrote this.  The story, of which a short film was made in the 1980s, involves a man unwittingly hiring a Greek god to mow his lawn and, after said god creates a spectacle, paying for the landscaping with his life.  It's only a few pages and, in my opinion, it is one of King's...
Read more

Things (1989)

Image
Most of the time when I hear a movie is the worst ever I know that is hyperbole. There are few candidates and I would even say the famous book chronicling the worst movies ever made got it wrong.  Plan 9 from Outer Space is laughably incompetent, but enjoyable.  The worst kind of films are the ones where no joy can be found in the watching experience, for reasons ranging from unlikeable characters to just sheer boredom.  A truly horrible movie is something like  Things.   This is a 1989 direct-to-video horror film from Canada, filmed on 8mm and dubbed once it was completed and the makers realized most of the sound was unusable.  Director Andrew Jordan and writer Barry J. Gillis managed to grab porn star Amber Lynn for an hour to shoot her as a news reporter just so they could put her face on the video box.  Most of the music was done by Gillis, and some of it by a local band called Familiar Strangers.  It was filmed in large part in Andrew Norman'...
Read more

The Omen (1976)

Image
A movie does not have to be high art to strike a chord with the public.  The Omen was an attempt by writer David Seltzer to make some money and get a nice trip to the UK.  It just so happened that because of The Exorcist the public was hungry for more movies involving demons and such, and adding a veneer of Catholicism didn't hurt either.  The Vatican's secrets are most likely of more interest to scholars than anyone else, but a religion doesn't hang on over the centuries without creating a bit of mystery.  In this case, Seltzer settled on the Revelation of St. John, the low-fantasy portion of the Bible and, instead of an hilariously named (albeit historically correct) demon named Pazuzu, with The Omen we get the son of Satan himself.  When Robert Thorne (Gregory Peck) is informed that his child has died he visits a priest at the hospital in Rome where his wife is coalescing.  He is given an offer too good to be true: a foundling, whose mother died in...
Read more