What is to be expected from the first scenes of the Hunger Games? After a year of marketing, it can be expected to dive right into special effects and action sequences. Instead, it begins on a simpler note. Without any fanfare, the necessary backstory is given followed by an unimpressive title card written in plain text. Within the first five minutes, this movie wanted to be different and focus on the story. Does it succeed in bringing the Suzanne Collins novel to life, or is it just another blockbuster?
From the start, there is one thing going for it. The choice to cast Jennifer Lawrence as the lead Katniss Everdeen is just smart. Having proven herself to be a strong female lead in Winter’s Bone, it seemed right to cast her as a young girl forced to survive in a savage game. While it may be problematic for the literary fans to see her go from a petite 16-year-old to a 21-year-old, it can be forgiven when Lawrence is called upon to act. She maintains the strength and courage needed to create a trust with her throughout the story. Her character is able to show some vulnerability without it dismantling her credibility. She makes the movie work.
The decision to also take the book’s inner monologue and change it to exterior narration was also smart. The movie only provides the information needed for the audience to understand an upcoming conflict. It trusts you to follow along as it unravels at its own pace. While it works to keep it from becoming convoluted, it also causes the third act to drag. Along with an unconvincing romance between Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), this becomes problematic when the story asks to care about their survival.
Director Gary Ross feels a little distracted at times. While the first act manages to be tight, it’s the second where things begin to go wrong. The build-up to the titular games is at best intriguing, but seems to be too bloated. It tries to present commentary on a satirized social class system, yet it feels like there’s little to be said. Even with an enthusiastic performance by Stanley Tucci as the lead commentator, the analysis seems very one note. Tucci does his best, but without any good jokes, his role is more perceived as shallow.
While it may be a way to get around the violent nature, the choice to use shaky cameras fails to capture the implied madness. It creates brief glimpses of brutal murders without bringing attention to them. While the book wasn’t so much about murder as it was about surviving, this may be one of the more disappointing angles. It didn’t need to be graphic, but by hiding it inside shaky camera work just makes it seem worse. The story wants the victims’ deaths to have momentum, but it never reaches that zenith.
The rest of the cast seems competent and contribute their part to the story without fuss. They each have their own quirks, but because they are secondary, they feel underused. This movie belongs to Lawrence, who manages to carry the film through even the most contrived moments. She is the most human and interesting and creates the sole reason to not write off this movie.
This is not to say that it’s a bad adaptation. The book also has a lot of weak moments and features a lot of monotony in the middle. It’s mostly in Collins’ ability to build a world of interesting ideas and a thrilling lead that keeps it afloat. The difference is that at times the movie feels a little too flashy and colorful in comparison to the rawness of the book. While they managed to fix a lot of the narrative problems for the big screen, it would be hard to make a concise product. It succeeds in being true to the overall story, yet that doesn’t mean it was the best concept overall.
The Hunger Games works as a film because of Jennifer Lawrence. She keeps it moving and gives a reason to care about the outcomes. It’s most likely director Gary Ross who can be seen as the biggest detriment by adding camera techniques that come across as distracting. While it features a more competent and strong willed cast of characters than typical blockbusters, it’s not enough to keep things focused. As an adaptation, it is coherent despite flawed source material. There is some joy to be had, but not without a few pacing issues. While the social commentary never shines through and at times seems contradictive to the budget, it’s nice to see some ambition. Maybe with a few edits and a shorter runtime, this could have been something better.
Comments
Post a Comment