The Hunger Games

[Hildegarda]

Currently The Hunger Games is rated PG. And from some of the things you all have described I'd give this movie at least a 14-A or 18A rating (depending on how much gore we're talking here) But the idea of children killing children is disturbing on its own merit let alone being shown to kids below the age of 13!

Hunger Games is rated PG-13. But you are right that the ratings can be skewed and hard to interpret. Buffy the Vampire Slayer is rated G. I went to the Hollywood's "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" which was rated R. I didn't expect to see full-front nudity and a graphic depiction of twisted and violent rape. Even though I read the book and knew what was coming, I choose that moment to leave the theater to run an errand and didn't regret it. It really should have been X-rated, but then, who would go see it?

There are sites now on the internet that provide a more detailed parent guides to each movie. They analyze each movie on a number of criteria and go through exactly what you are going to see. Here is an example from IMBD: _http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/parentalguide. The ratings are a guideline only. Between the ratings, the guides and user reviews, I feel there is enough information available to make a responsible choice, knowing your child, whether to let them see this or that movie. And, the more the concerns are discussed, the better, because more people will be aware that they have to pay attention.

I took my 12 y.o. to see the movie. She has a thicker skin than I do when it comes to visual intensity, but has a healthy prudish attitude to what should or shouldn't be shown. She has read the book. She said that she expected the violent scenes to be worse than they were. I felt the same way. The big reason is the camera work. All the fight scenes were filmed with a jerky, hand-held-camera style, with quick cuts between frames. So the viewer can barely register what's happening: there is a lunge of one figure onto another, a swish of a weapon, and then blood on the grass, that's it. There was a lot less gore and blood than in V for Vendetta, and no depiction of sexual threat of any kind.

Some people weren't happy with this for the opposite reason: they felt that the gory scenes were too non-descript and clean, and THAT, they felt, was desensitizing children to violence. Instead, they felt, the scenes should have been more detailed and real, and the movie rated not shown to children at all. It is hard to please everyone. Again, I am just glad I found those parent guides, and will always look them up for now on.

 

[ocean59]

I saw it, didn't really care for it, and found it hard to sit through the whole thing.

There was certainly some potential for this movie to really shine (I have not read the books), and while it may have provided a crack in the darkness here, or a fresh parallel perspective on the existing pathology there, overall I was very disappointed.

My main disappointment concerns the ending, and so I will post it in white as it is a pretty huge spoiler.

***HUGE SPOILER - entire movie ending and key plot twists revealed/critiqued***

In the end, the two surviving 'contestants' (the rules were modified mid-game to allow 2 winners) are told that the rules have changed again, mid-game, and now they must again fight to the death instead of both winning and getting married as a couple made by the game itself (which they now believe).

Finally, for the first time in the entire movie, the two remaining characters begin to question the sanity of the system. They decide, rather quickly, that pulling a Romeo and Juliet would be the best way to go - the Game depends on always having a Winner - and so for once they would have no winner, which could potentially break the entire system and way of governing (which everyone in the movie already seems to be unhappy with). Of course, the control system can't let that happen (suicide), so they quickly intervene, undo the rule change, and allow them both to win.

Since they both received their personal and selfish desire to be with each other (itself not even quite genuine if you consider the intentionally implanted circumstances that led them together in the first place), they feel no further obligation to mankind, and set off to live life happily ever after. I mean they immediately stop questioning and return to the obdeient servitude of slavery that is reinforced throughout the entire movie as 'just the way it is - period.'

They return home, and are thrown a parade, made into heroes, and they state the only thing to possibly do now is to 'try to forget it all ever happened' and then the credits roll.

All I have to say is - this movie might have been worth the time of day if they went ahead and killed themselves. I'm no fan of matyrdom in general - but this was a once in a lifetime opportunity that could have potentially benefitted the entire planet. Riots had already broken out and the population was at the tipping point of demanding change - but instead the control system won, life returns to 'normal,' the riots are replaced with celebrations, and on it goes. All this pathological behavior of authoritarian obedience as the only possible viewpoint was portrayed as normal and healthy throughout the film, despite ample opportunity to spin it differently.

In the end, while it 'feels like revolution' just a little, I think the movie is really just a tool to instill subtle fear and programming reinforcements in the minds of the youth to insure that such a revolution never happens. Overall, I found it preposterous and absurd (and angering!).


***END spoiler. :)

Also, the jerky camera style is used excessively throughout the film. Very strange sound effects present in the background as well (seems like there was often this sound of 'crickets' throughout, even in scenes where such noise would not be possible).

The positive notes: Depicts the Holloywoodization and Celebritization process quite well. But does nothing to question that whole madeness, either, again reinforcing the narrow concept everpresent throughout that any of this should ever be considered normal.

Very single-minded one-track film IMO. It could have really been a powerful tool used to wake people up just a little. Instead, it seems to be doing nothing of the sort.

 

[Hildegarda]

Jason, it is possible that the ending was setting up for a sequel. The revolution does happen eventually in the 2nd and 3rd book.

 

[ocean59]

Ah yes, I was starting to wonder last night if my having not read the books was part of it - that is good to know, there may be some hope for it yet. On its own I still really don't know though.

 

[herrnimrod]

I've often wondered why they tell us what they're going to do before they do it. Is it to make us believe in a reality, thereby propelling the manifestation? Or is it to get some sort of consent?

 

[dugdeep]

Ah yes, I was starting to wonder last night if my having not read the books was part of it - that is good to know, there may be some hope for it yet. On its own I still really don't know though.

I get the impression that the movie is, in some ways at least, not a faithful representation of the books. It seems that those who are unfamiliar with the books are seeing the film as much more negative than those who have read them (at least those I've spoken to). Maybe the first book did a better job of setting up the sequels than the first movie does. I don't remember a "happily ever after" ending to the first installment at all, but maybe that's because one is more in the head of the main character in the book and knows her thoughts.

 

[Tigersoap]

I get the impression that the movie is, in some ways at least, not a faithful representation of the books. It seems that those who are unfamiliar with the books are seeing the film as much more negative than those who have read them (at least those I've spoken to). Maybe the first book did a better job of setting up the sequels than the first movie does. I don't remember a "happily ever after" ending to the first installment at all, but maybe that's because one is more in the head of the main character in the book and knows her thoughts.

Seems like it.
I wonder if it's not to bring up the suprise of what's really going on in the next movies or if it's a way for Hollywood to erase all form of dissent which is present in the books and turn it into something more consensual or warlike ?

I guess it also depends on how you "read" the book and make connections with what you know about the world.
Because I have the impression that you can turn the story to fit certain ideas which would benefit the PTB osit.

Suzanne Collins wrote the screenplay with the director so I can't help but wonder about it. Just a thought.

 

[herrnimrod]

Collins? Is she a bloodline member?

 

[Beau]

Collins? Is she a bloodline member?

Not sure what this question means (what bloodline?), but Suzanne Collins is the author of the book that the movie is based on, FWIW.

 

[Tigersoap]

Re: 404 13/4

Hi Heimdallr,

I think herrnimrod's post is about this :

I have noticed that no one has researched the name of the author who wrote the series, "Suzanne Collins." Does the name Collins ring any bells?
Collins (_http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bloodlines/collins.htm

 

[Renaissance]

Re: 404 13/4

Hi Heimdallr,

I think herrnimrod's post is about this :

I have noticed that no one has researched the name of the author who wrote the series, "Suzanne Collins." Does the name Collins ring any bells?
Collins (_http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bloodlines/collins.htm

herrnimrod, you might find Political Ponerology interesting and of particular use. It explains the actual mechanisms of control and influence and goes much further than the 'bloodline' stuff.

 

[herrnimrod]

Yes, I've been reading the first chapter today. Thank you for the reference.

The question was really if she was part of the Collins family. Not of any real importance I guess since this obviously is elite sponsored conditioning, but nevertheless curios to see these family members continuing to pop up everywhere.

 

[Jedi Zippy]

[...]
It's about staying human in an inhuman game or world.
[...]

This is very important for us all to remember... No matter what.

I totally agree.

I believe we are gradually and not so slowly moving the limits in reality-tv: we're not yet getting the participants in these tv-shows killed, but we are already at the level of starving them and submit them to all kind of gruesome tests (Robinson), and in less obvious torture-shows we already put kids in the game (Junior Chef). Wait and see were it goes...and remember: it's all Free Will.

As for the movie, indeed it will be fully appreciated when having read the books beforehand. I found it one of the better book-to-movie-translations I have ever seen. Also, I found it one of the best and most eye-opening youth novel series in recent years. Though the movie on itself may seem shallow, the story is most definitely not. Nor is the depiction of our society. Don't underestimate your kids, watch it with them and discuss it!
And if the movie may help some kids find their way to the library, blessed be :)

 

[Minas Tirith]

Re: 404 13/4

Hi,

it was my thread that disappeared in the crash. Thanks for bringing it up again.
Did not have the time today to read through all the posts, but will def. tomorrow.

"Suzanne Collins." Does the name Collins ring any bells?
Collins (_http://www.thewatcherfiles.com/bloodlines/collins.html

I read on Wikipedia that her father was an Airforce pilot, hmmmm...

 

[Minas Tirith]

I wanted to find out more about the last part of the trilogy and the final rebellion some of you mentioned. This brought me back to the Wikipedia article and I found the following:

Inspiration and origins

Collins says that the inspiration to write The Hunger Games came from channel surfing on television. On one channel she observed people competing on a reality show and on another she saw footage of the invasion of Iraq. The two "began to blur in this very unsettling way" and the idea for the book was formed.[6] The Greek myth of Theseus served as basis for the story, with Collins describing Katniss as a futuristic Theseus, and that Roman gladiatorial games formed the framework. The sense of loss that Collins developed through her father's service in the Vietnam War also affected the story, whose heroine lost her father at age eleven, five years before the story begins.[7] Collins stated that the deaths of the young characters and other "dark passages" were the hardest parts of the book to write, but she had accepted she would be writing such scenes.[8] She considered the moments where Katniss reflects on happier moments in her past to be the more enjoyable passages to write.[8]

There are a couple of interesting points being made here, but I particularly wondered about Collins' statement that she had "accepted" to write the dark passages. Who had asked her? Sounds almost like she was working on a contract-basis.


***SPOILER ALERT (please highlight with mouse)

Here is a short synopsis of the third book:

Mockingjay, the third and final book, centers around Katniss and the districts' rebellion against the Capitol. Katniss, now a refugee in District 13 and quite damaged from her experiences, is used by the rebels as a propaganda tool to unite the districts in the uprising against the Capitol and President Snow. Peeta and the others who were captured by the Capitol are rescued. Finally, a group including Katniss, Gale, and a still somewhat unstable Peeta go renegade in the Capitol on a mission to assassinate President Snow. Before Katniss can complete her objective, Prim is killed in a bombing targeting rebel rescuers. Later, a captive Snow tells Katniss that Coin, the president of District 13, was behind the bombing. Katniss, Peeta, and Haymitch eventually return to a ruined District 12. Katniss slowly begins to recover from her many mental scars. Katniss' mother and Gale both take jobs in different districts. Katniss eventually comes to genuinely love Peeta, marries him, and after many years of misgivings they have children.

So in the end, Capitol and rebels are equally bad guys, the rebels' leader, Coin, even more corruptibly so (see quote below), leaving the young protagonists (and the people who followed and believed in the rebellion probably) as the only purely positive forces.

President Alma Coin — The President of District 13 and the leader of the rebellion. Described as having eyes "the color of slush you wish would melt away", "gray hair that falls in an unbroken sheet to her shoulders" that is "uniform...without a flaw, a wisp, even a split end." She runs 13 similarly, with no flaws or imperfections. Though she and Katniss are on the same side, Katniss greatly dislikes her because of her ruthlessness and her hunger for power. Despite her affiliation with the rebellion, she is even more ruthless than Snow since she, unlike him, is willing to break her word. Her desire for power is such that she kills a crowd of Capitol children and her own medics — with Primrose Everdeen amongst them — to undermine President Snow. After the war is over and the capital now under Coin's reign, She calls a clandestine meeting of the seven remaining tributes, ordering them to vote whether or not to continue the hunger games, Using the children of the capitol as tributes, most likely with those related to the families that held the most power which would include President Snow's granddaughter. The matter is quickly approved with Katniss being the deciding vote. However after Snow had revealed the truth to Katniss, having remembered that she and Snow had agreed not to lie to each other, realizes that Coin is just as evil as Snow. Katniss then murders Coin (partly to avenge Prim Everdeen's death) at the execution of President Snow. Later Katniss is told that Commander Paylor of District 8 has been elected to Office.

Even though the rebellion seemed to have been successful in the end, it sounds a bit like: Any leader is corrupt, the rebel even more so and the ones you thought to be the really bad guys from the beginning have at least the decency not to lie.

END OF SPOILER
Please correct me if I didn't get it right, I haven't read the books...

I recently had the thought, that every single Hollywood movie since the beginning of time shows good guys fighting against bad guys. Good guys win. Problem is: You do not have a chance to win if you would really fight, right?
And haven't the Cass. said more than once that the work does not consist in fighting STS forces directly, but trying to maintain your own frequency aligned to STO?
Are these movies programming us to think that we would have a chance if we would fight?

EmmeYa