Number Rolled: 69
Movie Name/Year: The
Hunger Games (2012)
Genre: Sci-Fi
& Fantasy
Length: 142
minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: Gary
Ross
Writer: Gary
Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray
Actors: Stanley
Tucci, Wes Bentley, Jennifer Lawrence, Willow Shields, Liam Hemsworth,
Elizabeth Banks, Sandra Ellis Lafferty, Paula Malcomson, Josh Hutcherson, Woody
Harrelson, Toby Jones, Lenny Kravitz, Amandla Stenberg, Dayo Okeniyi, Leven
Rambin, Jack Quaid, Donald Sutherland, Alexander Ludwig, Isabelle Fuhrman,
Jacqueline Emerson
SPOILER ALERT
Katniss Everdeen lives in District 12, the coal mining
district of Panem. Choked by oppression, her district goes hungry around her. In
order to cope, she hunts with her friend Gale Hawthorne, takes up the role of
protector for her little sister and does anything else in her power to aid her
family. Then comes the day where the tributes for the 74th annual Hunger Games
are to be chosen. Two children from each of the 12 districts (one boy and one
girl) are chosen to a pool of 24 that fight to the death. When her sisters’
name comes up in the lottery, she volunteers to take her place alongside the other
tribute from District 12, Peeta Mellark.
Let me first say, before we even get into the review, I’m
going to request that if you don’t know this movie was based off a book that
you return to your home under a rock and read the books before coming out
again. This review will still be here when you’re done.
I will admit that this is not the first time I’ve see the movie.
Or the second. Or the fifth. In fact, I’ve read the books twice now and have seen
this movie roughly nine times. I will also admit that I saw the movie before I
read the book. To some that may seem unforgivable but, regardless, this movie
started an intense love affair between me and the story. I’ve been connected to
stories in books and movies before, but my love for the Hunger Games just seems
to be on a different scale. All the tumblr pages I follow, the forums I
participate in and all the shipping… this movie was what started that for me.
I love the movie. I love the books more, sure, but I love this movie. It’s no surprise to me
that it did well with the critics and audience alike. It remained as true to
the books as possible – which made the fan-base happy – and added in all the
blockbuster effects – which made the critics happy. Casting was amazing. The settings
were spectacular. There’s nothing I find abhorrent about this movie.
This leads us to another argument, though. Movies based off
books have rotten reputations. I understand the aggravation that comes from fan-bases.
I do. I was a huge Harry Potter fan before the movies came out and the third
movie made me so furious that I still get huffy when people mention it.
However, we can’t expect the movie to make NO cuts. It’s
impossible. We’d be sitting through five hour movies. Granted, where the Hunger
Games is concerned, I might actually sit through a five hour movie. That being
said, most people wouldn’t and the movie business is just that, a business.
Movie makers need to consider what’s going to get the most people into the
seats. GOOD movie makers consider how they can do this without sacrificing the
soul of the story.
For example, in Percy Jackson and the Lightening Thief you
have a great story about Greek mythology bleeding into our modern world through
Demi-gods and a kind of religious evolution. The movie keeps the base storyline
(the starting and stopping points) the same, but completely changes the rest of
the story. To readers, this is unacceptable. Hell, to fan-base reader of Rick
Riordan’s Percy Jackson series, the fact that Annabeth didn’t have blonde hair
in the first movie is unacceptable. Fan-bases are an unforgiving lot.
In the Hunger Games, though, there’s very little that had to
actually be changed. The most that really had to be cut was aesthetic. This
fan-base got very lucky because the books have a lot to do with the inner turmoil
of Katniss, which can easily be expressed through facial expressions or body
language in mere seconds. Of the things that must be changed, I have seen only
six heavily argued in other reviews, so those will be the ones I address.
After this point, there are spoilers for the books and
movie ahead. Read at your own risk.
The mockingjay pin is the first aspect often argued. In the
books, the mockingjay pin is given to Katniss by her friend Madge, the mayor’s daughter.
In the movie the pin is given to her for free by a merchant at the hob where
she drops off some berries. I go back and forth with myself on the severity of
this cut. For the most part, Madge is a relatively unnecessary character. Most
of what she does in the books can be done by other characters without losing
the meaning. There is really only one part of the story that makes me question
her being cut. In the second book, after Gale is nearly whipped to death, Madge
drops off a box of painkillers to Katniss. In doing so, she risks her own life
and the health of her mother. The important aspect is that this is the first
part of the story where Katniss truly feels jealous, where Gale is concerned,
when it is suggested that Madge took the chance because of something she might
have had with Gale. It accurately notes the confusion Katniss feels where Gale
and Peeta are concerned. I know this is going to be a very different scene in
the second movie because that character was written out. However, I’m not
willing to say that it won’t be for the best. There are plenty of other scenes
that depict Katniss being torn between the two and I’m not sold on this one
character making a difference in that.
Moving on, I’ve seen people argue, more than once, that the
hearing loss Katniss suffered in the book, after blowing up the food that
belonged to the careers, wasn’t acknowledged. In fact, it was absolutely
alluded to. After the explosion, there’s nearly thirty seconds of actual
ringing where we can hear only what Katniss hears. What exactly did you want to
happen? To hear that ringing for the rest of the movie? Besides, the capital
fixes her ear and it becomes a non-issue in the rest of the story.
The Avox girl is the next big issue people have. In the
books, the avox girl and her lover are caught in the woods and apprehended
while Gale and Katniss hide (in a kind of flashback). When Katniss gets to her
room in the Capital, she recognizes the red haired girl as the one from that
past scene. Avox’s have their tongues cut out for breaking the law and the
imagery is in the book to push forth the depravity of the Capital and those in
rule. For the book, it’s necessary. Everything that happens in books, happens
in our minds. The Capital is depicted as a Hollywood on Acid kind of place and
Suzanne Collins needed that horrible reminder to her readers that this world is
severe and dark. In the movie, we have pictures that show us how exaggerated
and ridiculous the Capital is next to the starving Districts. We don’t need the
Avox as reminders and so they are a forgivable cut.
Peeta’s leg. Oh god. I can’t properly express how nervous
this cut makes me for the last three movies. Yes, three more. The last book is being
split into two. Go ahead, roll your eyes, I did, too. Anyway, at the end of the
book, Peeta is bleeding to death and it forces the decision to each eat the
berries to be quick. Otherwise, he would have died anyway and Katniss would
have gone home alone. When they are taken out of the arena, Peeta’s leg is then
amputated and replaced with an artificial one. In the movie, Peeta ends the Hunger
Games standing on his own. I have seriously considered the implications of this
cut. In the next two books it, of course, comes into play that Peeta has an
artificial leg. However, if I really think about it, a lot of what happens
because of his leg can be explained by clumsiness. I haven’t yet fully decided
if this cut if forgivable or not. The next movie will help me make that
decision.
The betrayal of Peeta’s love. Anyone who didn’t see in the movie
that Katniss’ heart was not fully there for Peeta, wasn’t watching close
enough. In the books, most of that betrayal happens internally. The movie
showed it in the same way it showed everything else that happened internally
with Katniss, through body language and facial expressions. None more obvious
than the very end where Katniss looks at Gale in the crowd and Peeta’s
heartbroken face searches hers before he takes her hand to remind her that they
are on camera. Re-watch the movie. The betrayal wasn’t even remotely cut.
Finally, the actual hunger. Whenever I see this argued on a
review, it legitimately hurts my head. The scenes depicted in the beginning of
the movie, in the district, showed intense hunger. Yes, you may argue that
Katniss and Gale and Peeta look healthy, and they do. However, even in the books,
these people are healthier than most of the rest of the district. Peeta has
access to bread because of his work at the bakery. Katniss and Gale hunt
regularly, an activity that’s beyond the capability of the majority of the rest
of the district. An activity that is severely against the law, at that. Of
course these people look healthier than the rest of them. They have access to
food. I’m not wasting any more time on this part of the argument.
So there you have it. There are more differences between the
book and the movie, but most of them aren’t argued nearly as heavily. I find
them not worth the time it would take to argue, anyway. At that point, it’s
just nitpicking.
In the meantime, very few series ever get the point across
so significantly as the first movie/book of The Hunger Games trilogy: this is
only the beginning. I’m looking forward to the next one, coming out 11-22-13.
Overall Opinion – 5/5
