Originally posted on AD Forums on March 26, 2012. Spoilers are marked in bold.
The phrase 'YA lit' didn't used to give people pause, but thanks to the omnipresence of what is possibly the most offensive book marketed to teenage girls ever, Twilight, in addition to a multitude of terrible movies marketed from teen-aimed literature both new (Eragon) and old (The Legend of the Seeker), the critical eye turned towards the latest YA adaptation to hit theaters, The Hunger Games, seems ravenous. I did not expect a masterpiece going into theaters. (Before you think I'm dropping into the realm of hyperbole later on, the movie isn't a masterpiece.) Me and my best friend had heard good things going in, which made us a little more excited than we normally would've been, but at the same time, we were cautious. (We were also more than a little disturbed that we were among the oldest non-parents in the theater. We couldn't quite figure out what the eight-year-olds were doing in our auditorium, but such is life.)
Overall, though, our caution was rewarded well. The Hunger Games was not the most brilliant movie, nor is it the best adaptation of a book, but it was a solid film that captured, if not the hefty emotional moments of the series, its tone and relentless fear excellently. The movie hews close to the book, and its added scenes, oddly, are more resonant in places than scenes lifted directly from Collins' work - we'll get into that.
Basically, the plot trajectory for the movie is summarized in its opening placards: The Hunger Games involve sacrificing 24 children of the 12 Districts, one boy and one girl, to a seemingly ruthless Capitol, which pits them against each other in a battle to the death. As soon as you see Katniss Everdeen on screen, it's made fairly obvious that she will be this year's Tribute from District 12, though she volunteers herself to save her fragile sister Primrose. With her fellow Tribute Peeta, she finds herself embroiled in a dangerous power struggle that she's only vaguely aware of as the ruthlessness of the other teens around her is made known.
As far as the movie goes, a lot of the troubles that one might have in adapting a book aren't evident. The script is tight, the only problems with it being either problems that the book itself had (keeping up the relentless pace of the novel tends to give emotional moments the shaft) or issues that arise from toning down the levels of gore and violence in the novel (SPOILER Rue's death suffers greatly in this aspect, as her killing in the book is incredibly animalistic; in a similar sense, Peeta's leg not festering towards the end of the Games leaves a lack of drama towards the end of the film END SPOILER). One nice device the film uses is making Caesar and his on-air partner expository characters for the audience; showing bits and pieces of what the Capitol viewing audience would see, and treating us like a Capitol audience, isn't the most creative filmic idea, but definitely gets the point across. The film adds sequences beyond this, and, without fail, they add to the story rather than detract from it. SPOILER Seneca Crane's death has been mentioned as an eerie one, and I wholly agree with that reading END SPOILER, but the rebellion in District 11 had a far more emotional tenor to it than the scene directly leading to said rebellion, SPOILER young Rue's death END SPOILER. Going back to 'things the book did that the movie shouldn't have done', Gale. Gale is such a nonentity in the first book, and barely there in the second, SPOILER that his status as a member of the 'love triangle' is almost laughable. END SPOILER The movie does nothing to rectify this, assuming that the marketers for the movie want to play up that aspect of the film. Gale's just there.
One aspect of the book the film really does get right is the frenetic tone. There is a lot of running, a lot of fear, a lot of tension. This mood works in the film's favor many times, only backfiring during one key sequence, and the sense of constantly being watched and tracked comes across very well.
Acting-wise, Jennifer Lawrence is best in show, but no one really drops the ball as far as acting goes. (We only saw Liam Hemsworth for about three seconds, so I can't really pass judgment on him beyond 'what the hell was that reaction face? And why are they watching the Games at work?') Josh Hutcherson is given the difficult task of being simultaneously dreamy and a two-faced ass, something he pulls off rather well. Towards the end, the script does move him into faceless prettyboy territory, sadly, but right about until the rule change, Hutcherson really conveys an uneasy personality blend. Elizabeth Banks is a particular stand-out of the supporting cast, though I appreciated the work of all of them. (It's a shame Bentley is likely to not be in the next film, that's all I'm saying.) And can I mention the boy who played Cato, Alexander Ludwig? Christ, that kid was scary as shit. He nailed that role. His last scene was probably the best, acting-wise, in the whole movie. Congratulations, Mr. Ludwig, I cannot wait to see more from you in the future.
Now for the bad. The special effects are... well, in some cases, really great. The control room looks brilliant. I'm sure that's where all the money went. However, what is arguably the most important scene in the film - the two District 12 champions on fire during the parade - looks absolutely terrible. As others have mentioned, hopefully the amount of money this film made will lead to a bigger effects budget, but I cannot fathom why the SFX money was not poured into that pivotal scene. The Games themselves, and the fallen images, have a nice broken-television feel to them, very artificial, though. There was one scene with a pan-up to something that looked obviously CGI but I honestly can't remember where that scene was, so I can't really comment on it.
There are also some scenes that fall emotionally flat. Lawrence's reactions and obvious awkwardness at the interview really stand out to me as a stumbling block - yes, the book stated she was awkward throughout the interview, but awkwardly charming, not awkwardly awkward. The potential awe one might have from her television debut is definitely muted by hewing too close to the book's definitions. SPOILER Rue's death, however, is the biggest problem. This moment is supposed to be one of the driving forces in Katniss making sure Peeta doesn't die in the Games, one of the reasons she heads off to find him, in her emotionally distraught state. Rue is supposed to be a stand-in for her sister as well - and we get none of that from the movie's fast pacing. It's hard to grasp why Katniss is openly sobbing in the woods in the film, where, in the book, the grisly nature of her death combined with her status as Primrose 2.0 make it obvious why Katniss is reeling. Thankfully, the film segways into a much more powerful segment about Rue's district in full-on rebellion after seeing the kindness Katniss affords them, which does provide some of the emotional heft missing from the earlier sequence. END SPOILER
People have mentioned the jittery camera, and honestly, my only problem with the camera was when the shots changed every two seconds for the early sequences of the movie. It was more frustrating than sickening, however, and that problem seemed to end the minute the Tributes got to the Capitol.
Since people are already talking Oscar chances, I think I can safely say Art Direction is a huge possibility, as is Costuming (depending on how AMPAS reads the Capitol clothing - yes, they are supposed to look inhumanly ridiculous in the book too). Sound Design and Sound Editing should be locks for nominations. If Actress turns out to be a pretty empty field, Lawrence might push through, but that would take a lot of other films outright bombing to happen. Picture will not happen.
All in all, this is a perfectly solid adaptation of the book, and stands well as a movie, despite having some obvious flaws. I'm probably going to see it again, for what its worth. Its flaws are not enough to mute its overall good quality.
****/*****
No comments:
Post a Comment