I believe what Bob is saying is that the visual shorthand used in The Hunger Games to denote who's good and who's bad is what is coded male and female. The rich people aren't simply wealthy, they demonstrate their place in society through dressing lavishly and preening endlessly. These would normally be considered feminine traits. It isn't that all the rich wear tons of makeup and do all the preening either, because there is a rich good guy, and while he's still dressed well, he's not wearing the makeup or engaging in the same pageantry as the other rich. If they had done him up to be both preening, vain, lavishly dressed and makeup wearing, AND still had him as a good guy, then the film would not have this problem.Ronack said:The thing about The Hunger Games is that it isn't coded Male and Female, but rather Rich and Poor. It's a commentary on our modern society. Just look at what the Rich are wearing, ffs. Those looks are straight from some designers runway. Butt ugly and expensive as fuck, but the rich still buy it because rich. Whilst the poor need to work their ass off to survive, having to fight against the system by the rich in the meantime.
Now I get that this was probably not at all intentional, and Bob seems to imply that as well, it's just that this is so ingrained into our ways of thinking that we fall back into this visual shorthand without even thinking about it. Preening, makeup wearing vanity (supposedly feminine traits)? Must be a bad guy.
EDIT: I want to add that I have not seen the Hunger Games movies, I am basing my explanation off of the information provided by Bob. If there is more to this visual shorthand than what Bob has said, then I could be wholly mistaken.