The Unsung Heroes of The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games was just released on DVD, and after purchasing it and watching it with a few friends (one who had read the books but never seen the movie), I thought a little bit more about some of the tributes than I had previously. There are a couple of tributes who, in the games, are glossed over and not really talked about. However, they each played a very vital role in the outcome of the games. The Tributes I’m talking about are so overlooked, one of them never is even given a name, only a nickname: Foxface, from District 5, and Thresh, the male tribute from District 11.

Before I get into any further details: I am warning you now. THIS POST WILL CONTAIN PLOT SPOILERS FOR THE HUNGER GAMES MOVIE AS WELL AS BOOK. 

There. Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way. I’m going to assume that if you’re still reading you either are familiar enough with the series to not have pesky spoilers bother you, or you just don’t care how the plot falls out. 

We first get a description of the female tribute from District 5 in the books as a “fox-faced girl.”Right from the beginning she is set up as a sly, elusive and tricky tribute. We see this as well throughout the games, whenever Katniss encounters her. She’s smart, clever, and difficult to catch, preferring to stay out of combat, winning by surviving the longest, rather than by killing everyone else. She’s fast too, and has excellent timing-getting in and out of the cornucopia at the feast before anyone else shows up to try and challenge her. Her death is completely accidental, and actually served, in a way, to help keep Peeta alive. If she hadn’t stolen and eaten those berries, he would have had no way of knowing that they were poisonous, and he would have died from them as well.

In the end, had she lived, I still don’t think she would have won (assuming this was a universe that wasn’t set up for Katniss to win), because she would have eventually been forced into a direct confrontation. We don’t necessarily know anything about her fighting skills, but the descriptions given of her seem to indicate that she would not have done as well as many of the other tributes in close fighting. And certainly Katniss probably could have taken her down with an arrow. 

Thresh, on the other hand, probably could have stood a decent chance of winning. And I would have wanted him to win, if Katniss and Peeta hadn’t. He’s a very large guy, very imposing, scored a 10 from the Gamemakers, and, most importantly, he refused to join the Careers group during the training. So, he’s a big threat, and prefers to be solitary. Other than that, we don’t know all that much about him. We only see him at one point during the games-at the feast, when he saves Katniss from Clove, killing her in the process, and sparing Katniss’ life because of what she did for Rue. If you ask me, that moment right there sealed Katniss’ victory in the games. We don’t know if Thresh fell to Cato’s hands or to the hands of the muttations at the end, but he made it to the top 4, and he probably could have won, if things had fallen out a little differently.

The reason I call Thresh and Foxface the ‘Unsung Heroes’ of the Hunger Games, though, is not because of the respective roles they played in keeping Katniss and Peeta alive, but rather the fact that, to me, they represent the small bits of humanity still left in the arena. Thresh, rather than kill someone he knows will have to die anyway in order for him to win, chooses instead to give Katniss a one-time pass, essentially to even a score. She took care of Rue, the little 12 year old girl from his district, so he took care of her, the only way he could-by leaving her alive, for just a little longer. Foxface is the prime example of survival instincts in action. She plays to her strengths: she’s sneaky, so she skirts around edges, picking at leftovers, stealing, never directly facing anyone. She’s playing the games her way, not the brutal, bloodthirsty way the Capitol wants.

Thoughts? Comments? I’d love to hear them.

Until next time,
Angel out! 

In Defense of Movie/TV Adaptations

The book is better than the movie. That’s a phrase we all know and love to use. And, usually, in a lot of ways, it is the case. However, to dismiss the movie or tv show as a poor adaptation of the book downplays the merits the movie has on its own standing. And that’s not entirely fair to do. This week, I’m going to talk a little bit about why we should all try to judge movie adaptations of books on their own merits.



We’re all used to discussing the movie or tv versions of a beloved series in terms of the books themselves. Often times, fans of a series are completely and utterly disappointed when a movie or tv version comes out, for a variety of different reasons. Different scenes get cut out, casting decisions are made that the fans don’t agree with, and so on and so forth.

A fair amount of people have readily dismissed a movie adaptation of a book they love because it was too far from the books. For example, the movie version of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, was, at least according to almost all of my friends in high school, the worst of the Harry Potter movies. So many people disliked it. It also happened to be the movie that took the most liberties from the books.

I personally, really liked Order of the Phoenix, both as a movie and as a book. The creative liberties taken in the screenplay, to me, worked really well in the movie.

It is a universal truth that movie or tv adaptations of books are always going to be different than the original books. They have to be. There are all kinds of possibilities allowed for in the books that don’t always translate well to the screen. Things sometimes have to get changed or altered slightly, to make the transition from a written universe to a filmed one.

Take for example, the recent Hunger Games movie. The book is entirely from Katniss’ perspective. You’re in her head the entire time. The movie, however, goes back and forth from Katniss to the Gamemakers, to the people back in District 12. And I honestly think that adds an element to the movie that the books are incapable of having. Seeing multiple perspectives, if done properly, has the opportunity to do a lot for establishing the universe.

Another example of increasing perspective, perhaps in a less popular way (at least, less popular with die hard fans of the book series) would be the TV show “True Blood.” The TV show is able to shift the focus from being purely on Sookie all the time, to being able to show multiple perspectives. A TV show would get really boring, really quickly if it only focused on the same character for the entirety of the series.

Sometimes, filmmakers will change and twist certain plot elements, blend certain characters together, or leave out certain things. The filmmakers of Golden Compass left off the ending of the movie, with the hope of getting enough interest for sequels of the movies (well, we all know how that worked out…). This can be incredibly frustrating to fans, as we expect things to be a certain way. But more often than not, the plot elements that get changed are done so to make things easier on the film, or to fit the filmmaker’s plans for the film. A good example of this would be Peter Jackson’s decisions to leave out Tom Bombadil from the Lord of the Rings movies.

What’s most important when judging a movie version of a book, is to judge it as that–a movie. If you go into the movie expecting it to not be a carbon copy of the book, you’ll be much happier. The Lord of the Rings movies are still incredibly enjoyable, even if they don’t have every single detail from the books. They’re good movies. And that’s really all that should matter.

One should not dismiss or write off a movie adaptation as terrible just because it’s not an exact copy of the book. Instead, evaluate it as a movie. If changes were made, do they make sense with the rest of the film? A movie adaptation can still be enjoyable even if it isn’t the best adaptation in the world. Remember that you have your mental version of the universe in question, and the filmmakers have theirs as well. And it’s perfectly acceptable, and in most cases normal, for their interpretations to not match up with yours.

My boyfriend probably said it best, “Lord of the Rings is J.R.R. Tolkien’s masterpiece. The Lord of the Rings movies are Peter Jackson’s.”

Mega Hunger Games Review

When a movie adaptation of one of the biggest young adult series in history brings in the third biggest opening weekend of all time, you just know the movie is too big for just one reviewer. As such, several of us here at the Red Shirt Crew would like to give you our thoughts on the movie that has taken over the popular culture: The Hunger Games.

Grey Anderson


Setting aside the very fine action elements of this movie, I’d like to focus for a moment on something that was likely overlooked by many viewers but that stood above the plot and the action for me: The look and feel of the world. It is rare to see Hollywood put the effort into making a world come alive, and even less common than that to see them achieve a consistency and a beauty in the world on the level that The Hunger Games managed to pull off. 


Read more here.

Libby

I was just the slightest bit skeptical coming into “The Hunger Games” last Thursday night. I’d read the books, and although I liked them very much, I was doubtful about the filmmakers’ ability to create a successful adaptation, particularly in light of the nonsensical “Peeta vs. Gale” obsession. “The Hunger Games” books were never Harry Potter to me — I’ve always thought the writing left something to be desired — but the plots are genius, the characters are real, and the story is something from which we can all learn. (More on that later.) Perhaps most importantly, Katniss is one of a regrettably tiny company of strong female YA film leads, and so I really wanted the movie to get her right. I wasn’t disappointed.

From the very beginning, when a moronically-grinning Caesar Flickerman avers that the games “bring us together”, I was hooked. The sudden flash to Katniss’ home in District 12 (a brilliantly done set reminiscent of the Great Depression), sparked a feeling of tenseness that stayed with me throughout the rest of the film. The lead-up to Prim’s Reaping was painful for me; I think I had clenched my arms together and kept hoping, hoping, hoping even though I knew what was going to happen. An excellent decision on the movie-makers’ part was the way the camera trembled at particularly terrifying moments — I shake when I’m nervous, so it really brought Katniss’ plight home to me.

I could go on about the set forever, but I’ll just say that the Capitol and the Arena were done exactly the way the book described — with a few things added. The originality in some of the Capitol people’s appearances astounded me. And it was flashy, but it wasn’t obnoxious — it didn’t beg for attention, but it did supplement the story in all the right ways. The score also succeeded in this manner — I always think it’s tragic when a movie score draws attention away from events, and unlike the Harry Potter franchise, “The Hunger Games” didn’t do that once. (However, if you’re into that kind of thing, the tracks “Horn of Plenty”, “Searching for Peeta”, and “Rue’s Farewell” are particularly good. “Healing Katniss” is achingly lovely and my personal favorite.)

The two crowning glories of the film were Jennifer Lawrence’s performance as Katniss and the way a shocking young adult book became a tragic, mature, sweeping war film. These two achievements are wound up in each other — Katniss makes the story, and the story blends into Katniss. It’s beautiful to watch.

My favorite scene was the one featuring Katniss in the launch room just before entering the arena, when a perfectly-cast Lenny Kravitz as Cinna speaks to her for perhaps the last time. Lawrence literally shakes, and Kravitz shows painful awareness of the likely outcome. It’s acting genius, and touched me in a way I don’t think any film ever has before — I will admit I cried. Other perfect scenes are Katniss’ first silver parachute, President Snow and his roses, Peeta’s interactions with Haymitch, and the heartbreaking death of Rue.

Reading The Hunger Games, we all knew that it was about the death of children, and that it was horrible. But the film hit the mark in an entirely new way, and when it had finished, I didn’t speak to anyone for a while. Katniss and Peeta were depicted with such grim yet beautiful clarity that I needed to mourn before I could appreciate. And that is the mark of a truly good film.

Twenty Joe Woods Under the Sea

Alright. So I haven’t seen this movie. To be honest, I don’t really have that much of a desire to—I read the first book, but it doesn’t really seem to me like something I’d want to pay eight dollars to go see in theaters. I’ll wait until it’s at the Byrd.

Those of you who have seen/read the first book, however, should be intimately familiar with a character dear to many hearts: Rue. Without giving too much away, she’s from the only district poorer than the main character’s (or, at least, I think) and she plays a very integral role to the book. She’s arguably the second most important female character, and a real character of empowerment for the fans. I’m sure this character’s journey is well portrayed in the film, and this part of the book alone is worth seeing in some manner, be it reading or watching it.

I’m sure most of you, however, have heard of a group of individuals on social networks being, for some reason, outraged over the fact that Rue is black.

Really? Why would this be a problem for anyone? Firstly, Collins says directly in the book:

“…And most hauntingly, a twelve-year-old girl from District 11. She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that’s she’s very like Prim in size and demeanor…”

Yet apparently this was enough to surprise some individuals in a time where race issues are coming more and more to light. Thus I propose that racism, as a form of ignorance, is directly correlated with poor reading comprehension.

Doc Watson

I want to like this movie. I really do. There’s a solid plot, the characters interact well, and the general design of the movie sets itself up for success. Then why do I feel so…underwhelmed?

Here’s my prognosis. I feel the film suffers from three major flaws: one is poor marketing, one is poor composition, and one is a poor narrative choice. As a disclaimer, I have not read the book.

1) The film relies too much on the following of its readership.
2) The director uses nausea-inducing shaky-cam that detracts from the story at hand.
3) The American empire is far too generic and unremarkable.

Generally speaking, the hype of The Hunger Games outright refuses you even the slightest granule of information regarding the premise of the movie. The whole time of the growing readership and initial hype for the movie, people kept insisting that I read the book, giving generic praise of its quality in both recommendations and in trailers. When I asked what it was about or what made it so good, I generally got a reply like “You just have to read it to get it. Did I mention it’s really good?” What’s so hard to get about kids fighting each other in a game show to survive? Seems pretty straightforward to me. I mean, this isn’t exactly Charles Dickens; this is a popular teen novel.

Parts of the movie were literally unwatchable due to crappy camera-work. I can honestly say this is the first time anything has ever made me motion-sick. Several tense, dramatic, and moving moments were completely shattered by the fact that you can’t tell what’s going on at all. You want us to see this movie, right Gary Ross? Then let us.

Lastly, the totalitarian state was frustratingly droll. I don’t know if this was a flaw of the books or the movie, but there was absolutely nothing that made them unique; they were just another bland Orwellian regime. You could have replaced the oppressors with knights, elves, Nazis, or even aliens without changing the narrative at all. Make your regime stand out from the masses. Do something new instead of using dead tropes like generic police brutality, bad-guy uniformity, and a growing divide between the second and third estates to make your regime evil. Take a risk and surprise us!

All things considered, if you’re looking at killing some time at the movies this weekend, you can do a lot worse than The Hunger Games. It’s a solid story with decent casting, acting, and writing. I just wish they did a little bit more to really make this film shine.