Hunger Games 15 Rated Version

[Dinah Lianes]

Thisis a hot topic among parents of the upper elementary set - and it's gotten even hotter since the movie version of Hunger Games came out. For me the decision wasn't hard: I have read the book and when my almost-ten-year old daughter asked if she could read it, I said yes enthusiastically.

The Hunger Games is a trilogy by Suzanne Collins about a 16-year-old girl named Katniss who lives in a futuristic dystopia. Katniss volunteers to take her sister's place in an annual battle in which 24 teens fight to the death on live television. The book is rated by Scholastic as grade 5.3 and for ages 11-13.

Parents' concerns about The Hunger Games center around violence. The book has a lot of it, and it is graphic at times. Much of the plot focuses on "the games" in which children kill children. The violence itself, however, is not gratuitous and it is not celebrated. Quite the opposite. The violence is deconstructed, analyzed, and mourned by the lead characters. The book has a powerful anti-violence and anti-war message. And unlike cartoons and video games, the violence in Hunger Games has emotional and physical consequences.

To say that this book is about violence or children killing children is to miss the point entirely. The themes are loyalty, humanity, social equality, sacrifice, oppression, and the complexity of moral choices. It also carries political messages about authority, control, and rebellion. The book indicts reality television and spends a good deal of time eviscerating the genre. I have no doubt the trilogy is destined to be a classic along the lines of The Giver and Animal Farm.

My daughter is now on the third book and we talk about it most evenings, sorting out interesting vocabulary (repentance, treason, and uprising, to name a few), discussing the important themes and characters in the book, and going over the thoughtful prose she's written about it for school. Having discussions about fairness, injustice, and loyalty are much more organic through the lens of this book than just sitting around the dinner table discussing them, which kids often see as a "lecture." We know that she understands the book because of what she says and asks. She's at an age when children are grappling with issues of fairness and injustice - especially against themselves as children - an issue the book handles well. It is well-written and has a strong female protagonist, which is rare in literature for her age group.

Despite this, many parents and teachers are having angst about the book. In fact, my daughter's school came close to banning it (which would have been ironic, since the book is partly about censorship and suppressing information). Her teacher approved her reading it during independent reading time. But then a few parents complained about this: they didn't want their child to read it, but now their child was being tempted by others in the class who were. It was an interesting process to work this out in discussion with the principal and teacher. In the end, they decided to let my daughter (and two other students in the same position) read the book in school.

Usually parents have the best intentions when they tell their child they can't read a book. They want to protect their child from difficult and emotional topics they don't think the child can handle. But in general, I don't think banning is a good idea. Saying no to a child who wants to read a particular book conveys a negative message about their choices, interests, and needs. I think most kids - at least once they get to my daughter's age - are pretty good at figuring out, both intellectually and emotionally, what they can handle. If they start the book and don't understand it or it they feel uncomfortable, they'll put it down.

What's more, if we parents say no to a book, it's a good bet that our kids will find a way to read it secretly. Then we've put them in a position to lie and be secretive, and we've lost the opportunity to discuss something important to them. I'm embarrassed to admit that when I was 12, I read Helter Skelter, and more than once! Now, as a parent, I shudder at the thought, but for some reason I needed to read that book and I imagine that if my parents had forbade me, I would have read it anyway in secret. And that would have closed communication.

It's important for us as parents to think through a decision to allow or forbid our child to read a particular book. Here are some questions parents might ask themselves if their child wants to read The Hunger Games or another difficult book:

If you find you're still nervous about allowing your child to read the book, but he or she still really wants to read it and has good reasons for doing so, try having a discussion about it, as you would with any problem or conflict. Ask them to articulate why they want to read it. Honestly share your concerns about the book. See if you can work something out. You can read it first and then see if that allays your fears. Or, you can read it together. Perhaps you can let your child read a few chapters and then reassess the situation. Let your child know that you respect her or his interests and choices and that you want to work something out.

Recently, I made the mistake of joking on Twitter about the possibility of a Team Peeta vs. Team Gale dynamic, referring to the two young men who hold special places in the heart of Katniss Everdeen, the 16-year-old heroine of "The Hunger Games."

Some people played along but many were appalled at the very idea of something as cliched and flimsy as a love triangle defining the young woman they've come to admire so fiercely from Suzanne Collins' best-selling trio of novels, the first adaptation of which makes its way to the screen this weekend amid great fervor and expectation.

Those same fans should be thoroughly satisfied with the faithfulness of Gary Ross' film, with its propulsive nature and vivid imagery: a mix of decadent costumes and architecture and harsh, unforgiving exteriors. At its center is Jennifer Lawrence, an ideal choice to play this strong, independent young woman. Those who saw her Oscar-nominated performance in 2010's "Winter's Bone" already were aware of her startling screen presence - her natural beauty, instincts and maturity beyond her years. And yet there's a youthful energy and even a vulnerability that make her relatable to the core, target audience of female fans. Lawrence is endlessly watchable, and she better be, since she's in nearly every single shot of Ross' film.

And speaking of Ross, he may seem an unlikely choice to direct a movie about a futuristic, fascist world in which teenagers must fight each other to the death in an exploitative display of national loyalty and pride. He is, after all, the man behind such clever, charming and uplifting films as "Dave," "Pleasantville" and "Seabiscuit." But those movies, while based on high-concept premises, ultimately had pointed things to say about politics and society. The methodology of "The Hunger Games" may be more complicated but its darkly satirical message is unmistakable.

The script adheres rather closely to Collins' novel - no surprise there since she co-wrote it with Ross and Billy Ray - although it does truncate some of the subplots that give the book its greatest emotional heft as well as soften the brutal violence of the games themselves, ostensibly in the name of securing a PG-13 rating. Still, the makers of "The Hunger Games" have managed the difficult feat of crafting a film that feels both epic and intimate at once.

A post-apocalyptic version of North America has been divided into 12 districts. Every year, a teenage boy and girl from each are selected randomly at the "Reaping" and sent to the opulent, art deco Capitol, where they're made over, trained and primed to fight each other until one is left standing in the sprawling arena. Gamesmakers manipulate their surroundings, "Truman Show"-style; Wes Bentley, sporting fiendish facial hair, functions as a sadistic version of Christof in a control room on high.

Every minute of competition is breathlessly broadcast to the nation, with viewers rooting for and betting on their favorites; having a sympathetic back story is crucial, and similarities to reality shows like "Survivor" or even "American Idol" are clearly intended. Even the program's host (Stanley Tucci in an upswept blue `do) has a huge personality but isn't so outlandish that you couldn't image him as the face of some top-rated primetime game show.

Katniss lives with her widowed mother and beloved younger sister, Prim, in the distant District 12, known for its poverty and mining - a place visually reminiscent of the Ozarks of "Winter's Bone." An expert hunter with a bow and arrow, she spends her days seeking food for her family in the forest with her best friend, the hunky Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Some of the strongest moments in "The Hunger Games" are not the big action sequences, where the effects tend to look a bit cheesy, but rather the quieter exchanges like the ones Lawrence and Hemsworth effortlessly share.

But when Prim's name is called at the Reaping, Katniss springs into action to volunteer instead. This is one of those scenes in which you don't need to have read the book to feel emotionally engaged; the drama and the tears feel real, and they're not overplayed. Katniss' male counterpart is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the baker's sweet but bland son. Together they're to receive mentoring from the frequently inebriated Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), the last winner from District 12; the character's rough edges have been buffed significantly and it's not an improvement. Elizabeth Banks is nearly unrecognizable as Effie, their garish, perky escort. They also undergo mandated makeovers from their stylist, Cinna (Lenny Kravitz in an inspired bit of casting - he and Lawrence have a lovely rapport together).

There's never any question as to whether Katniss will win - there are two more books waiting to be made into movies after this one - so the challenge comes from maintaining a sense of tension and immersion in this dystopian world as competitors drop off one by one, which Ross and Co. achieve. "The Hunger Games" runs nearly two and a half hours in length but is the rare film that never drags and doesn't overstay its welcome. It could keep running as long as Katniss does, and we'd want to be right there every heart-pounding step of the way.

3a8082e126