Hunger Games Movies 1

[Basa Benejan]

Thats my opinion having just taken my 11 year old son to see it. And if I am to read the blogosphere, it is a controversial opinion to hold. Some, including here at Forbes, see it as potentially causing reduced civility amongst kids. Others see it as pure escapism for teens with little teach them or improve their understanding of the world. I have read the first book and now seen the movie and I disagree.

Just in case you missed it, The Hunger Games involves a future society where, as a result of the outcome of an earlier suppressed rebellion, each year, each of 12 ruled districts offers up two 12-18 year olds as tribute to basically play a game of Survivor. The twist is that there is no tribal council or votes but instead the kids just kill each other until one is left standing. To be sure, this is not the sort of movie that we have come to associate as kid friendly these days. But to hold that view is to opt for a sheltered view of what our kids should be exposed to.

My son is actually quite a sensitive soul. When trailers for horror movies come on, he covers his ears and shields his eyes. So I was somewhat surprised when I learned that last year he had read The Hunger Games and enjoyed it. Why I asked? He said, "it made you think."

And it is from that perspective that I approached the book and then the movie. Right from the start the movie opens, not with the game, but with its anticipation. All of the kids are put in the position of facing uncertainty as to whether they would be offered as tribute for the game. It taxes them so much so that the lead character proclaims she will never have children in that world. It is this feature more than the game itself that teaches kids, especially amongst the more privileged in our society -- of which my son is one -- to think about the uncertainty that many less well off both here and throughout the world live. It may not be The Hunger Games that taxes them but the fear of becoming ill without adequate health insurance or of losing one's home to a financial crisis. Studies show that this has great harmful implications for the welfare of adults. Think about what it does to children. The Hunger Games forces the reader to experience that fact of many people's lives even if dressed up in a fictional world.

The game itself brings forward another thought: what would you do? The disturbing thing about The Hunger Games but also its most plausible aspect is how easily most of the tributes buy into the game and are comfortable with killing others to save their own lives. To be sure, not all of them are alike but there is little thought in the moment given to the notion of combat or murder. How often in discussing the news or past historical wars have your children asked you how people come to kill one another? The Hunger Games paints a picture of how the situation rather than the person can matter. This is what social psychologists have taught us (think of the famous Milgram or Stanford prison experiments). Here, it is presented in fictional form and it is powerful. To us, it provoked a discussion of precisely that and made our children step back and think about how the situation can define their actions and the actions of others. This is not an easy subject to broach but The Hunger Games gives us the context.

Finally, there is the question of plausibility. In The Hunger Games, most players are coerced but some volunteer. Interestingly, they are from the apparently richer districts even though there is a prize of incredible riches for the victor. That provokes thoughts about whether people would volunteer for this sort of game in today's world. This is also the context upon which you can broach the subject of Kony2012 with your kids. The most salient part of that movement is the notion of stolen children who are made to fight (think abou that people who believe The Hunger Games is far removed from reality). But there have also been times in history where kids fought without coercion. In many respects, this is all about the plausibility of the economics of the movie. The point is that the very subject of how far removed the movie is from reality is one that the movie can stimulate.

In my mind, the controversy surrounding The Hunger Games reflects a steady move towards a more sheltered existence for our children. I will freely admit that I might have hesitated about taking my son to see the movie had he not already discovered the book. And he saw it and enjoyed it and was not traumatised by the experience. The situation that took the choice out of our hands allowed him to broaden his own horizons without the cost of parental deliberation.

And what age is appropriate? That depends on the kid. Given knowledge my son's reaction, I would not hesitate in letting him see the movie had he been a year or two younger. Beyond that, the benefits I have suggested above in terms of a broader discussion of the world would probably be lost. But truth be told, apart from all the killing, the kids in this movie or the book are far less mean or cruel than children in the school playground. It is easy to get distract by adult classifications of trauma that may loom less large than those children actually experience.

The movie portrays a world in which there is a stark contrast between those in power and those without it. District 12, whence Katniss Everdeen hails, is a bleak place. The imagery seen on screen evokes mental images of the Great Depression and the photography from that era. There are sad faces looking out the windows, people marching to the coal mines, and children playing with sticks in the mud because they have nothing else with which to play.

That contrasts starkly with the decadence of the Capitol. At the Capitol, the people spend their time on frivolity. They decorate themselves as much as they decorate the places around them. Their showers cover them with the scent of the day; they can bring up whatever pleasant imagery they would like on their screens; their food is the best; they do whatever they want.

The Hunger Games, I think, provide a stunning critique of our society. We live in the Capitol; we exist in a society which relativizes morality for its own convenience. And when we are presented with it in our face, when the imagery of a film like The Hunger Games shows us the very kind of decadence and futility which we so often celebrate, we are repulsed. The wrongness of the situation comes to the forefront and we must act.

This is not a film for children. It is rated PG-13 and I think could very easily have been R. Children are killing each other. The film is, however, I think appropriate for teenagers, and parents who keep in mind some of the talking points listed above could utilize the film as a way to discuss some of the very real world issues it hints at.

An irony: the message of the trilogy [and the movie itself] is against this sort of violence, yet people behind me in the theater cheered at the death of one of the children they saw as evil, reflecting the Capitol audiences. Which is simply a reminder that film is an entirely different medium than print, impacting the senses more than than our intelligence.

This is the best response that I have seen as well. So many reviews are black and white and this challenges Christians to engage the books in a way that might awaken us to the realities of our own culture. We live in such an entitled, pleasure seeking culture!!

I have written a post about Christians interacting with the culture via movies, some of it in response to the comments in here. I would appreciate it if readers would check it out. See Engaging Culture.

These books (and movies) try to lift up the dignity and virtuousness of the common person. These books (and movies) try to help us open our eyes to the suffering of those (of equal value to God) around us in our communities, countries, and globally.

Really, keep in mind that maybe the book could be a really incredible experience to be read. But as I said: to be read. Trying to copy and paste the narrative mechanisms to another kind of art is very tempting but it could be a disaster, too.

Talking about the subject in question, The Hunger Games, it's very easy to read because Katniss explains everything (one of the reasons, but let's stay only with this for now). That's because the reader simply watches Panem through Katniss' eyes, and lacks the need to construct explanations. In the case of a movie, the images explain themselves.

Could you imagine two hours of movie with Katniss saying things like "I'm hurt", "now I'm hungry", "now I'm falling in love with Peeta... or maybe not" and the sequence of images showing the exact same thing? Boring.

The reason is way more psychological: Collins and the director (Gary Ross) have two different ways to telling the same story, and really that's it. Two different POVs, two different narrative tools, two different minds, two different ways to show us the same thing....

A great example would be Lynch's Dune, which sought to pile on as much exposition as possible through the use of copious inner monologues in the form of voice overs. Personally I don't have a problem with the film, but many viewers found this confusing and stilted.

Because narration breaks the illusion of suspension of disbelief and immersion. Hunger Games director Gary Ross was directly asked and directly answered on why it lacks any narration, from Katniss or otherwise:

Screenrant: This was a tough nut to crack, obviously. The book is so Katniss-centric and relies on her particular understanding of how to play this game. Was there ever a point that you thought about voiceover narration to give us a sense of her internal dialouge?

Mr. Bobweave heaved himself out of the chair. As his feet spread under his apple-like frame and his arthritic knees popped and cracked in objection, he pounded the floor with his cane while cursing that dreadful girl who was late again with his coffee.

As Catija points in a comment, "show, don't tell" is a fundamental of all types of writing and is not specific to screenwriting. However I think it especially applies to movies, since narration (whether as a voice over, or exposition by an actor) usually interrupts and slows down the pace of a film.

3a8082e126