April 28th 2012

  Buy Issue 2874

Articles from this issue:

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Same-sex marriage: attack on religious freedom and parents' rights

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Can the Greens survive Brown's departure?

NATIONAL AFFAIRS: Craig Thomson affair discredits Labor government

EDITORIAL: Fretilin defeated in East Timor's presidential poll


CLIMATE CHANGE: Bureau's flawed forecasts undermine climate credibility

ENERGY: Government suppresses warning of energy crisis

SCHOOLS: Rediscovering the lost tools of learning

ILLICIT DRUGS: Drugs war needs a new approach

FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Extent of China's leadership crisis becoming evident

UNITED NATIONS: Indispensable role of pro-life NGOs at UN forums

SOCIETY: Married parents the key to college success

HISTORY: Richard Dawkins: "Hitler was a Catholic"

ART & CIVILISATION: War on art: some thoughts on Damien Hirst

OPINION: Australia's shrinking food and manufacturing sectors


CINEMA: Gruesome possibilities for reality TV

BOOK REVIEW War in the classroom

BOOK REVIEW Was the White Star Line's CEO a coward?

Books promotion page

Gruesome possibilities for reality TV

News Weekly, April 28, 2012

The Hunger Games (rated M), starring Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson. Reviewed by Symeon Thompson. 

The latest addition to the survivalist-dystopian canon is The Hunger Games, a fantastical film about kids killing kids as an exercise in social control and shot in a hybrid docudrama-gamer style.

It has much to recommend it, has stirred up a goodly storm in conservative cultural circles, but ultimately lacks the intellectual nutrition to take it from teen drama to grand social commentary.

Panem is a world of rigid class distinctions. The rich and powerful live in the Capitol in a state of outrageously conspicuous consumption. The poor and powerless are constrained in 12 districts depending upon their primary industry.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) in The Hunger Games.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson)

in The Hunger Games

To “celebrate” the crushing of a rebellion by the districts, the Capitol introduced the Hunger Games, in which two “tributes”, a girl and a boy between the ages of 12 and 18, are selected from each district to fight to the death in a purpose-built high-tech arena for the televised amusement of the rich and as an exercise in control over the poor.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a tough and principled young woman skilled with bow and arrow, volunteers to take the place of her sister Primrose (Willow Shields) as tribute and joins Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the super-strong baker’s son, to represent District Twelve.

They are mentored by the outrageous Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), the wily and alcoholic Haymitch Abernathy (brilliantly played by Woody Harrelson) and the arch and cynical Cinna (a fine and sophisticated performance by Lenny Kravitz) in how to play the game and survive.

The cast is outstanding. Stanley Tucci plays the menacingly camp talk-show host, Caesar Flickerman, who MCs the games with wicked aplomb. Wes Bentley is marvellously Mephistophelean as the game-maker, Seneca Crane; and topping them all is the dignified and ruthless President Coriolanus Snow, superbly portrayed by the very able Donald Sutherland.

Criticisms have been levelled at Suzanne Collins’s The Hunger Games books, most notably by the Good Reading Guide, that they are a celebration of violence and consequentialism and should be treated with extreme caution.

These critiques, which may be valid for the books, are not valid for this cinema adaptation. The film’s audience is not encouraged to revel in the killing, nor are the heroine’s actions depicted as anything but ones of last resort. The gore in the film is suggested more than it is depicted, and when depicted it is done in such a way that it emphasises its horrific nature.

Others have criticised the story for its very premise of teenagers fighting to the death, which is all well and good, but leads to long debates over aesthetics and what can be depicted in art and what can not — debates that require more space than is possible in this review. Suffice to say, and in an effort not to be flippant, the depiction of horrible things has always been a mainstay of art, and has been accepted as such.

Having said that, the intended audience for The Hunger Games renders many aspects of the story problematic. The themes can easily be seen as unsuitable for younger audiences and this leads to either the lessening of their intensity, or the possibility that it will be seen by those who lack the formation necessary to appreciate it. Both seem to play out within the movie and they lead to a story that is unable to go as far as it arguably should.

The cinematography keenly aids this process. The movie is shot by a constantly moving shakey-cam obsessed with close-ups. The close-ups force the focus on the personal and the intimate, while the third-person shakey-cam emphasises the resonances with both reality TV and the gamer culture that is common to today’s youth, but allows for little in the way of detached reflection and analysis.

The story resonates with grand over-arching themes of human sacrifice, the potential for evil in all of us, and state control, but these are lost in a narrative that is so intently aimed at youth it only draws the slightest of parallels with Ancient Rome, let alone anything else relevant to these concerns.

Ultimately this leaves The Hunger Games emaciated, and eviscerated of rich meaning and commentary. This is dystopia-lite, and it pales in comparison with the likes of Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (brilliantly filmed in 1984 with Richard Burton and John Hurt), or Huxley’s Brave New World.

It is similarly lacking when compared with such survivalist classics, and explorations of the potential for evil, as William Golding’s Lord of the Flies (chillingly adapted by the great Peter Brook in 1963, and again in a 1990 colour version), or Richard Connell’s The Most Dangerous Game (made into a superb and still arresting film in 1932).

The Hunger Games is not a bad film, nor a corrupting one, but it is one hungry for more meat to dress its skeletal frame.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am