The Hunger Games (2012)
What do you know, I’ve never seen these movies. Or read the books they are based on, for the record. So, for no particular reason, I decided I’d spend the dog days of summer catching up on them
So, Hunger Games is set in the authoritarian futuristic nation of Panem. Each year the government of Panem chooses a pair of youths from each of their 12 provinces to compete in a heavily publicized gladiatorial battle for… reasons. I mean, I get how it's meant to be entertainment for the ruling class in the capital but the movie claims it's also meant to intimidate the people in the provinces, but then the movie goes on to practically show first hand that if anything, it has the opposite effect. Anyway, the movie follows protagonist Katniss and love interest Peeta as they're chosen and participate in the games.
Hunger Games is weird in that it lacks just about everything you’d think would lead to a popular movie franchise which is why I assume that it's the source material that was doing the heavy lifting here. What makes Hunger Games interesting, if not very good, is that to a large part, it feels like a B-Movie.The first half, certainly, does a believable impression of a science-fiction blockbuster with fancy sets and fancy costumes and fancy setpieces. And then it just kinda turns into people running through the woods while being filmed with a handheld camera. For context, perhaps, I should point out that this was directed by Gary Ross. Ross’ credits include, overall, not very much and basically no action movies at all.nAnd this was most definitely not filmed with an action movie sensibility in mind to the point that its utter ambivalence towards framing and choreography starts to feel almost like some kind of statement. I wouldn't exactly call it grit, it's too shy around actual explicit violence for that, but an odd naturalism that feels very much at odds with what high budget studio action movies would look like in the coming decade.
Aside from that, what adds to the vaguely B-Movie feel is how weirdly little characterization anyone gets. The first half introduces some characters who have not a lot going for them but you can at least nail down what their character archetype is. But as soon as the actual game starts practically every participant who isn't Katniss and her male counterpart Peeta becomes defined not by any clear characterization but by their role of either supporting or antagonizing them with practically no effort spent on characterizing them aside from that at all. Which, having seen as many book adaptations that I have, makes me assume all their actual characterization must have been in the novel.
And, y’know, in addition to that is the fact that Katniss doesn't have very much going for herself, either. It's interesting because she has, actually, become a sort of archetype. The young woman with a bow and more often than not a ponytail has become the most recognizable current template of a female action hero. Lara Croft in the newer Tomb Raider games, both Ellie Williams and Abbie Anderson in The Last of Us, Alloy from Horizon Zero Dawn, Kassandra from Assassin's Creed Odyssey, she represents a generalized image of a tough but emotionally vulnerable survivor but there is so little actual specificity to her. Apart from surviving the movie by 40% skill and 60% plot armour (her most impressive feat of archery being something she does before the actual competition even starts) and her relationship to Peeta (the ambiguity to which extent it's based on actual attraction and to which just a sense of obligation being just about the only interesting bit of characterization we get to see) she's practically a void, with all the interiority she had, if any, left in the book.
Maybe this is a wonky complaint in general, seeing how flimsy the overall premise is, but it's just generally a bizarre decision to have a premise like that and focus so entirely on a single character rather than an ensemble cast. The general appeal of death games is to see a cast of colourful personalities compete against each other. Squid Game, Danganronpa, Blood Drive (why yea, I do know I’m the only person who remembers, much less cares about this show, why do you ask?), they all hinge on their strong supporting casts while in Hunger Games most other competitors live and die unceremoniously with barely so much as a crumb of characterization given to them.
This has the skeleton of an appealing, if by no means especially impressive, set up and I have to assume that all the actual meat must have been left in the book. Because, certainly, I get the appeal of the concept but with the absolute lack of compelling characterization, meaningful worldbuilding or compellingly staged action it feels like an advertisement of the book more than it feels like a worthwhile translation to the screen. The only really interesting part about it is how practically its entire second half feels like it might have very well been filmed in a forest a couple of miles down the road from the directors house because god knows it never at a moment resembles an actual high budget action movie once they leave the capital. I genuinely get how this ever managed to pass for a theatrical blockbuster unless it was by the popularity of the books alone. There is something mildly interesting to its visual naturalism and usage of what looks like mostly unaltered wilderness sets but... let me be honest, simply assessing it as a high budget action movie with no knowledge of its source material or continuations, this is a long way from actually good.
letterboxd.com
