Saturday, March 24, 2012

Games On

From the box office figures being reported, it seems that almost everyone is going to see The Hunger Games this weekend. Well... count me in with the everyone. After having read the book, there was no way I was going to skip on the film.

I can't imagine a film version of The Hunger Games being much better than this. This is not to say that they rendered the novel perfectly. The movie is a significantly different experience in several ways:

There are several missing elements from the book. Some are wisely removed (like the awkwardly described man/animal monster hybrids that attack at the climax of the novel; they're just panther-like creatures in the film). Others are sorely missed (such as the background information Katniss learns about District 11 that explains why its residents are moved to rebellion by her relationship with Rue). But more than anything, I'm impressed with how the movie managed to take a very violent concept, render it on film without truly compromising the sense of horror or violence, and yet tastefully retain a PG-13 rating.

The biggest difference between novel and film has to do with emphasis on character. The Hunger Games, the book, is a first-person story narrated entirely by Katniss. As such, you get a deep insight into her thought processes, and learn that what she does doesn't always match what she thinks. These subtleties are utterly lost in the film; a film-goer will never understand the degree to which she is playing for the cameras, and will take her behavior more at face value. A significant loss.

But in exchange, many of the other characters come off more fully defined, as you get to see them for yourself and not through the lens of Katniss' narrative. Her sister in particular, Prim, is a much better character in the film (even without any more time devoted to her), because you see the personification of how young and helpless she is, and can more fully understand Katniss stepping in for her. This in turn also strengthens Katniss' bond with Rue, who is much more understandable as a ringer for Prim on screen.

Other characters also pop thanks to the talents of the actors playing them. Woody Harrelson is a marvelous Haymitch (even though he looks nothing like what I pictured reading the book). Elizabeth Banks as Effie perfectly captures the intersection of "so annoying you want to kill her" and "thinks she's being genuine and doesn't realize how annoying she is." Lenny Kravitz is a wonderfully sympathetic Cinna. Stanley Tucci and Donald Sutherland are perfectly oily as Cesar Flickerman and President Snow.

The Hunger Games was so not a "Team Him" vs. "Team Other Him" story to me, but in this age where love triangles push paper (or celluloid), the casting of the two love interests is key. To that end, I think the deck is stacked against poor Gale. Granted, Liam Hemsworth doesn't have much to do as Gale in this movie, but Josh Hutcherson is a perfect and compelling Peeta. And then, anchoring the film, is the talented Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. She received an Oscar nomination for her film Winter's Bone. Though I quite disliked that film, she is just as dedicated to her considerably more mainstream performance here. Even without the benefit of the book's inner monologue to make Katniss a more likeable character, she makes you enjoy the character in the movie very much.

The production values of the film are top notch -- the environments believable, the visual effects carefully deployed without often going over the top. And while I do miss some of the subtleties of the book narrative, well... like I said in the beginning, this is probably as good a movie version of this story as you could get. I rate it an A-.

3 comments:

Jared said...

I enjoyed the movie, but I felt like it was rushed. I thought the cave sequence was the first time the movie slowed down enough to catch a breath.

Perhaps that's because I read the book series and I usually don't before a movie like this. Was that the way readers felt about Lord of The Rings?

Was I thinking too much about the book or was it a lot crammed into 2 hours and 20 minutes?

Anonymous said...

So I'm just reading the books now... is this just book one or did they try to cram all three books into one movie? I only ask because something you said in your review didn't seem familiar to me from the first book.

DrHeimlich said...

The film covers only the first movie, but injects a handful of scenes from perspectives Katniss could never have shared as the book's narrator. The one in particular I suspect you're thinking of clearly seems like a piece dropped in to set up the next movie.