Movie review: 'The Hunger Games' smolders but fails to ignite the screen

Do you remember that spectacular torch lighting ceremony during the 1992 Olympics in Barcelona, when an archer shot a flaming arrow to light the cauldron at the top edge of the stadium? It's one of the most memorable moments in the history of the Olympics—simple, but brimming with showmanship.

 

But what if the archer missed the cauldron? Well, that's what “The Hunger Games” was like for me. It's an adequate adaptation—lauded by fans for its faithfulness to the book, and praised by critics for its efficient narrative, thrilling pace, and strong performances—but it felt deprived of the fire that made the book a success. 

 

“The Hunger Games” is Hollywood's latest attempt to launch the next hot film franchise, banking on a captive audience composed mostly of fans of Suzanne Collins' bestselling dystopian trilogy for young adults.  

 

Set in the country of Panem, whose 12 districts are ruled by a dictatorial Capitol, “The Hunger Games” tells the story of Katniss Everdeen who volunteers to take the place of her younger sister as one of 24 contestants in the annual Hunger Games, an extreme version of “Survivor” where everyone's mantra is Outwit, Outplay, and Outlive. 

 

Extreme fidelity

 

Collins wrote for TV shows before publishing “The Hunger Games”, and her screenwriting sensibilities influenced Katniss' first-person account of her experience in the Arena, resulting in a very vivid and visceral narrative that lends itself well to a visual medium.  

 

The world, the action, and the underlying themes on media and entertainment feel like they were all meant to be filmed, so it was easy enough to get the movie right if you stuck close enough to the book. And that's an advantage, considering there are some rather obsessive fans who would've cried foul with every deviation.  

 

While faithfulness to the source material is always a plus, I also want the filmmaker's creativity and vision to be evident. I don't mind missing a few scenes or seeing an unusual treatment as long as the basic plot and themes, the emotions that were evoked by the book, and the main characters stay true.

 

To his credit, Gary Ross' adaptation of “The Hunger Games” is probably as faithful as you can get without resorting to a word-for-word translation. He managed to put in the most essential scenes and the most important characters and locations. Ross also managed to show us more of Panem and what goes on behind the scenes of the Games, which people who have read the book only ever got hints of. But it was Katniss' emotions, the danger and life-changing effect of the Games, the political machinations, and the budding romance between Katniss and fellow District 12 tribute Peeta that really made the book sizzle.  

 

While all the important scenes were present, the film felt a lot like it was just trying to get through a checklist of milestones. It never lingered on anything long enough for us to see the details of the world and to truly let emotions sink in, and it left a lot of blanks that only people who read the book could fill in.

 

The deadliest game? 

 

With a PG-13 rating that needed to be satisfied, the filmmakers tried to depict the violence of the Games in the most stylistic way they could manage. And their efforts were not bad at all, even if it was unsatisfying to not see all the action. They couldn't very well explicitly show the kids killing one another; I get it.  

 

But I didn't feel that Katniss and Peeta were really ever thirsty or hungry or in danger of dying of their wounds. It was easy to feel the urgency and the menace while reading the book because it was being told as Katniss experiences it, but those emotions are difficult to successfully convey onscreen if our heroes look like they just took a walk through the forest.   

 

It’s not easy to be afraid for the characters, who we are led to believe will go through harrowing experiences inside the Arena as they play the deadliest competition in the world, because what we are shown rarely lives up to those expectations. And it’s not impossible—there is a way to convey that danger and still get the rating—just think “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”.

 

Manufactured romance

 

I have to admit that when I read the book, I found the romance between Katniss and Peeta sweet and thrilling. I liked how Collins wrote it: Katniss believes that Peeta's genuine feelings are just all part of his strategy in the Games, eventually falls for him without realizing it, tries to make herself believe otherwise, and manages to use their allegedly manufactured romance to stay alive.  

 

A lot of Katniss' insecurities and ambivalence was lost in the onscreen translation, though. We see Katniss responding to Peeta without being shown where her own feelings were coming from. In the end, when Katniss tells Peeta that she just wants to forget everything, it's cold, inconsistent with the character we've come to know in the film, and, if I didn’t know about the sequel, an unsatisfying ending to a relationship that plays a vital part in the story.

 

It also didn't help that Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson just doesn't have the kind of undeniable chemistry that would've made me forget all the lost subtext. There wasn't much of a spark there to light a decent fire in the cave to keep the two of them warm.

 

Despite that, though, Lawrence and the other actors turn in commendable performances. Ultimately, the story really is all about Katniss, and Lawrence’s compelling presence onscreen carries the film.  

 

Her portrayal is more confident and lacks Katniss’ vulnerability in the book, but it fits the tone of the film and how the other actors have interpreted their respective characters. If Lawrence hadn't lived up to expectations, the movie wouldn't have worked the way it did despite its shortcomings.

 

Missed opportunities

 

And yes, the movie does work, to a certain extent. The writers managed to adequately condense the story, though they lost a lot of the wonderful subtext. They kept the plot moving forward and the action scenes tight, but they didn't linger on anything long enough for the viewers to take things in. There were a lot of wonderful elements, but they didn't come together well enough to elevate the film. The filmmakers were faithful to the book, but they missed the opportunity to innovate and tell the story in a way that will deliver more of an emotional and intellectual impact. The movie works, but notice all of the "buts."  

 

At this point in its infancy, the filmmakers don’t seem to want to take risks that might jeopardize such a big franchise, and I don’t blame them. But, oh, what a film we would have seen had they hit the mark and set the screen on fire. –KG, GMA News

 

Photos courtesy of Lionsgate Films