"The Hunger Games"
Being well outside the target demographic, I was
unfamiliar with Suzanne Collins’ “The Hunger Games” novels about a
dystopian future society in which young people representing their various
districts are forced to fight to the death on live TV, in order to distract the
oppressed masses. My expectations of Gary Ross’ film, initially fairly low
because of lazy “Twilight” comparisons in the media, had been raised by
a series of adulatory reviews. And it is a perfectly decent film – it’s nicely
shot, in a jittery, verité style, and the contrast between the worlds of
dustbowl poverty and Regency-style opulence is cleverly evoked. The
performances are good, too - Jennifer Lawrence is an appealingly
tough/vulnerable heroine, Woody Harrelson (with a lovely head of hair) and
Lenny Kravitz impress as her advisors, and it’s good to see Wes Bentley again.
“Battle Royale” is an obvious inspiration, but “The Hunger Games”
goes for tension rather than insane violence, and manipulative sentimentality
over dark humour, which is understandable given its mass-market aspirations.
Some of the story-telling seems confused, though (e.g. the electronic animals
that are somehow able to tear people apart; and are TV cameras omnipresent or not?); its take on
the shallowness of the mass media is itself somewhat shallow; and it sets up
its status as the first episode of a series in a painfully obvious manner, with
one apparently major character having little to do other than stare moodily
into the middle distance at odd intervals. It’s perfectly serviceable, then,
but its huge success seems unfair when more inventive films aimed at a similar
audience (e.g. Edgar Wright’s “Scott Pilgrim vs The World”) have failed
at the box office.