Monday, April 16, 2012

The Taste of Hunger

Today, gentle readers, I shall review the Hunger Games Movie, and to some extent compare it to the book. My review shall, as promised contain my characteristic extreme hyperbole and wildly innapropriate language. There may be spoilers. One big one I will mark off if you want to skip it, but just remember I warned you.

Synopsis: After a devastating civil war, the winners horded technology for themselves and enslaved the losers. Every year, each of twelve districts must send two teenagers, a boy and a girl to fight to the death on television as a symbol of their servitude to the capital and to discourage rebellion. Katniss Everdeen, a hunter, finds herself in the games and neck deep in everything from danger to love.

And now, a small sampling of my observation.

1) The acting is absolutely atrocious. Peeta was only believable when he was being funny. Dude just couldn't do drama. Gale looked like a big dumbass, Primrose was only there to shriek, although she did that fairly well, the mother is the mother from Caprica so I know she plays a fine ultra-depressed histrionic woman in mourning. Taking away the histrionics and giving her only two lines made her as dull as everyone else. Cinna wasn't charming or comforting enough, his staff was nowehere to be seen, nor was the tragic, tongueless would be-escapee. But the worst by far was Katniss herself, which is a pretty unforgivable crime since she's 90% of the story. In the book, she was stony faced, but you got to see her thought process a bit more. Anger and confusion over Peeta's actions, for instance. Her strong desire to protect her sister back home and how that transferred itself in game to the youngest contestant of the year. When you get down to it, the best acting came from three comparitively minor characters- Haymitch, Katniss' "mentor", Ceasar, the TV host, and President Snow who made an excellent "I'm so much better than you I don't have to make threats or be cruel or crude in any way" sort of menacing villain. But not only are they minor, if Woody Harrelson, who played Haymitch is some of the best acting you've got, I think you're generally in trouble.

2) In order to fit the entire book into a movie, they had to speed through a lot of things. Early on, they did it to get to the games faster, but even once you're into the exciting bits with young children murdering each other, the movie still moves like lightning. When I edit manuscripts, cutting the fat is one of my biggest concerns. This movie didn' just cut the fat, it cut the muscle too and leaves us with only the bones of the book. It might have been saved, except that, as in the book, the viewer must turn to Katniss for context. Without being able to devote lengthy sections to her history or thought process, it came down to the visuals. And...yeah, no. She just had that stony face.

3) As a result, certain things were lost. Other things had to be crammed into the script in a different and somewhat awkward way. The Tracker Jackers for instance. In the book, the explanation is there to be somewhat revealing about the war that had ultimately resulted in the subservience of the twelve districts. In the movie, it randomly cuts from the action to the TV announcer explaining that they're poison bees. Because, you know. When Katniss starts hallucinating and collapses amidst strange visions that were painfully overdone, we wouldn't have figured it out. So it was kind of a waste. Why even bother? Another example that stands out was the need to actually explain what the Hunger Games ARE. Which they do *TWICE* in th first few minutes. Once in writing, and then again in a movie-within-the-movie. When you're pressed for time, why would you repeat information?

4) Speaking of which, that movie opened with a one word sentence. "War." Being a veteran many times over of the wastes, I immediately whispered "War never changes." to myself. I was very disapointed that this movie-within being used to set the stage couldn't make itself half as memorable as the opening sequence to a bug-riddled 15 year old PC game.

5) In addition to the editing of the writing, the camera work and visual editing were terrible. Very clearly they were trying to make the whole experience as disorienting as possible. The thing is, they went overboard when it actually made sense, and tended to wreck the audio in those occassions (as with Katniss appearing on stage and getting vertigo, or the ringing of her ears after a bomb explosion). The near constant shaky camera work and awkward cuts were needlessly disorienting, especially at the beggining when we needed to get ourselves settled in. They also don't make sense thematically since that was daily life for Katniss. Makes me feel really bad for the folks who did the sets, lighting, props, and to a lesser extent, the costumes. Theirs was the best work in the movie, and piss poor editing stole the spotlight.

6)BIG HUGE HONKING SPOLERS IN THIS NOTE. SKIP PAST THE ASTERISKS IF YOU HAVE NEITHER READ THE BOOK NOR SEEN THE MOVIE. That said, I'll keep this brief. It shall, I imagine, provide me the perfect opportunity to provide the wildly innapropriate language I promised. Deep breath. Okay. So. Those brainless goddamn mother fucking douchebags took out the bread. What did I tell you movie? Huh? What did I say about the bread? Did I say "take it out" or "I'll never forgive you if you take it out? When I read the book, everyone was telling me it was the greatest thing ever. I said "No, it isn't." I started reading and said "It is good. Not the greatest thing ever. Am I the only one who has ever read a good book before?" But there was one scene that I felt I understood why everyone loved the book so much. REMINDER: SPOILERS. Katniss makes an alliance with a little girl her sister's age named Rue. They mount a sucessful sneak attack on (the supplies) of a larger coalition of "tributes" but during their retreat, Rue is captured and killed. Katniss, distraught because (in the book anyway) she felt a desire to protect this girl and wanted Rue to win if she did not, sings the girl a lullaby in her final moments and then buries her in flowers. At which point in the book, the citizens of District 11, a poor agriculturaldstrict, scraped together the enormous sums of money it took to send her something in the game. A mere bit of bread, but symbolizing not only their thanks and respect to Katniss for retaining her decency and humanity amidst the games, but a small act of defiance on their part. Doing something unexpected, forging closer relations between the districts. It was all they could do in the book. It was beautiful in its simplicity. The details were just right. In the movie, they decided nobody understood the bread thing and replaced it with a sudden cutaway to rioting in District 11. First of all, the bread's not hard to understand, so fuck you guys. Secondly, RIOTING IS NOT A SMALL ACT OF DEFIANCE. So the scene's focus and importance shift dramatically. Which, as the best scene in the book was the last thing the movie neded to wreck. Katniss and Rue's acting were terrible, making it hard to feel anything. The soundtrack etc. were just starting to get to me when the scene suddenly changed and all the emotion was lost forever. Just very poorly done. Apparently though, I'm the only one who cares. Everyday I have this conversation. Every day I say "Can you believe they cut the bread out?" Most people don't know what I mean. The rest think I'm talking about Peeta throwing bread to Katniss when they were children and proceed to say "nuh uh, it was in there." Clearly, I stand alone. In defense of bread.
******************************************************
I had a few other things to say, but this is running pretty long and most of them were along the same lines like "Why focus so much on the game maker? In the end, I liked the way they brought the poison berries back for him, but it wasn't enough of a payout to justify shoe horning new material into a story already pressed for time." Besides, the movie made eighty jillion dollars. So I'm sure my criticism matters.

Dear Sirs:

You may be rich and successful while I am starving in the streets, but you're all fools for taking out the bread. I hate you. I hate you! I HATE YOU!

Love,
Robin

Conclusion: It's a pretty faithful adaptation but dumb changes, poor acting and disorienting camera work suck the emotion right out of it. Worth watching, but I wouldn't call it an instant classic. Or even good.

Oh, and on a side note: If you want to see Woody Harrelson being a decent actor in a dystopian where people have actual emotions and the sets are crazy awesome, check out Bunraku, whose opening you'll note is strangely similar to those of the Fallout games (except with paper puppets because Bunraku is a term referring to a type of Japanese puppet theater). Interestingly, Ron Perlman (who appeared in a get your G.E.D. ad before the Hunger Games played at my local theater) who did the voice overs for the Fallout openings I linked above is the villain in Bunraku. Everything is so interconnected. Just bear in mind that Ron Perlman is not Ron Perelman, the man who nearly bankrupted Marvel in the mid 90s. Totally different people.

Giant, bizarre side not now safely stowed to the side, lemme just say: Join me Wednesday for "More Movie Observations" or "Why I Shouldn't be Allowed to Watch Children's Movies."

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.