Capitalism - Feudalism without the Kings

 Tax the Rich

 

 

Movie Monday

 

Once and a while, once in a very infrequent while, my movie package has a preview weekend and this last weekend gave me a freebie for EPIX; not a great channel though various of their selections do look interesting. If you subscribe to HBO, Verizon bundles EPIX and the Hallmark channel (not the Hallmark movie channel but the Hallmark "mystery" channel - Murder, She Wrote, Perry Mason - go figure.) with it. 

 

Last weekend, the freebie was just EPIX, not HBO. But I did get to see The Hunger Games. The girl had seen it at an AMC movie house  but she sat and watched it with me again. Which was a big help since she had also read the books so I could be that annoying person who always asks: What's that? Why is that happening? What does that mean?

 

The Hunger Games is another teen trilogy a la the Twilight saga which is being made into four movies also. But here the comparison ends. The Hunger Games is also another one of those dystopian novels (as opposed to utopian where the future is all good) a la The Handmaid's Tale. With The Handmaid's Tale, (Atwood's future where women have been reduced to roles only envisioned in a religious fundamentalist's wet dream), you can pick it up to today, almost 30 years after it was first published, and still say: Given the election of enough religious fundamentalists in the US this could still happen. However, based on our recent history, The Hunger Games is only America's future in the metaphoric sense.

 

The premise of THG is that the central government (of the US?) has faced and defeated a revolt. Now, all the rebel areas are separated into 12 districts and are kept poor, hungry and under the tight control of the central government.

 

In a reverse on the Minotaur myth, where a powerful half man, half bull creature demanded the rich Greeks sacrifice a number of their young to him yearly, in The Hunger Games, the central government located in a rich, opulent city, which is only called Capitol, yearly demands that two children from each poor district be delivered for a televised fight to the death as a punishment and a reminder to the districts of their rebellion,. The reward of this highly watched, deadly reality show is that the victor will spend the rest of his/her life in luxury.

 

As President Snow says about the best way to control people:  Hope, it is the only thing stronger than fear. A little hope is effective, a lot of hope is dangerous.

 

This first movie takes you from the poverty of the districts to the wealthy arrogance of the Capitol where all the children combatants are groomed for battle and exposed to undreamed of luxuries. Surprisingly, but I think effectively, the director chose to spend the most time in these pre-battle times. The actual hunger games seem to take no more than a quarter of the movie's time.

Let me get a few quibbles out the way here. First, the shaky, hand-held camera shots. Yes, it does give a realism to the games but they edge pretty close into the home-made realm here. This movie had a $88 M budget; it's not like me in the backyard trying to get some steady shots. Not a deal breaker, but an annoying feature. Another such feature is the robustness of Jennifer Lawrence. Again, not a deal breaker but, and I never thought I would say this, they needed the physique of Keira Knightly here. No way did Lawrence, as shown here, ever experience a hungry day.

But these are quibbles and let me just look at this movie as a message movie. For, unlike the artificial love angst which propelled the Twilight saga into movie history (really bad books made into really bad movies and everyone made uber millions), The Hunger Games has multiple messages for teens, for their parents, for society in general. If this movie is discussed after viewing, there is so much to glean from it. There is much really good stuff which the director, Gary Ross, through his actors, just lays out before his audience. The Hunger Games may be one of the best stealth polemics out there right now.

 

Just two examples from early in the movie: Katniss, the female combatant/heroine from District 12, lacks social skills but is a fast learner. Her mentor, Haymitch Abernathy, (another brilliant character turn by Woody Harrelson) tells her she must attract sponsors (people watching the games from the Capitol, who, if they like you, will pay for needed supplies.)

Each combatant is given a solo turn to impress these sponsors with their skills. With minimal dialogue, Ross presents Katniss' turn and we watch her in this short scene, flub her opportunity, size up the sponsors' insouciance, and then "think out of the box" to salvage what looks like her missed opportunity.

 

The second scene occurs right after the one above when Effie Trinket, a much more conventional mentor for the District 12 combatants, berates Katriss for her behavior before the sponsors, decreeing that this could have consequences: They could take it out on you. To which Haymarket says: What more can they do to her?

 

Small moments, fleeting by, but powerful. Ross pushes a lot of buttons on very important political and social memes but never with a hammer.

 

Again, it's not a perfect movie but it is so refreshing to have a book series which can produce a thinking/theme movie for teens without the theme being: Should I/shouldn't I have sex? and without the final scene being the clinch. (In an oblique way, Ross even delves into the why of romantic relationships.)

 

I'd like to say: Watch this movie but I think I'm the one who's late to the dance here since The Hanger Games has already grossed $480+ M (this time it's a block buster which grossed more in the US than abroad.) Let me say then: Watch it again. Talk it over with your kids; you can even research it on the web for talking points. I'm sure there's something written out there on THG themes. Definitely this is one of those few block-buster hits which deserve more than one look.

 

See you next week.