The Hunger Games

I've been reading this thread and a few other critiques of this movie just to gauge whether it would be something that I would want to watch and would want my daughter who is 11 to see since a lot of her friends are talking about it. From what I've read, it seems completely inappropriate for her. I read this article on Vigilant Citizen:

http://vigilantcitizen.com/moviesandtv/the-hunger-games-a-glimpse-at-the-new-world-order/

I found the article very interesting and agreed with underhanded way that the movie seemed to present the horror of children killing children all the while glorifying it and marketing it to children! Disgusting really....I work at an international school and this book series were hugely popular about 2 years ago with the high school students -even teachers were ready the series in the staff room. This movie seems to be all about distraction and conditioning while cleverly hidden within an engaging story. The fact that teenagers in the movie theaters have been reported cheering for one contestants to kill the other just shows how well are children are being conditioned to violence. I won't be rushing with the masses to see this one any time soon...
 
Never saw it, it's just unattractive. Also some say is the american Battle Royal version, but based on some books.
 
Tigersoap said:
I think there was a post about it before the whole site went down.

I am reading the books right now and I don't agree with the comments (edit: yes I do agree about the game part, who would not ? )
Actually I think it's a very modern metaphor about the times we're living in :

A rigid control system with a few masters and priviledged ones on top that send his children to die for the amusement of a few while everybody else (living in fenced districts) is suffering from hunger, forced to watch the games, forced to work in various industries while fearing to be punished or killed at the slightest offense.

The reality TV aspect is just one part of the story.

I like the main character who is a young girl who is very resourceful and despite what she goes through she tries to think about others despite being thrown into an unjust and despicable game.

Yes they are death and violence but it's only a reflection of the violence that "the Capitol" inflicts upon everyone.
While giving heroes to the masses, like modern day gladiators, they can get away with oppression on a large scale, which kills many more people and suffocate any personal freedoms.

I am half-way the second book and the story develops to promises of uprising against the whole system which I think happens in the third book.

I am not saying that the story is perfect and of course it is targeted at a younger audience but I hope some young readers will transpose the story to what's going on around them and find the courage to stand up against it.

From what I've read from the movie and books, I agree a lot with you sir. I don't really think that just because it has violence, we have to feel repulsion for it, and just because of it qualify the movie as "bad." I see it too as fictional example of how much our society can be perverted, and manipulated if we don't do something about. Much of what you've said I've been reading it on youtube comments on the trailers and other pages.

Some people recommend me to read the books to understand better the movie, but nah is to much for a movie.
 
Rx said:
This movie seems to be all about distraction and conditioning while cleverly hidden within an engaging story. The fact that teenagers in the movie theaters have been reported cheering for one contestants to kill the other just shows how well are children are being conditioned to violence. I won't be rushing with the masses to see this one any time soon...

Thanks for posting the article Rx.

I am not buying it any more that movies of this kind are "attempting to warn an apathetic youth [or anybody else] of the danger of allowing the current system to devolve into a totalitarian nightmare". They are too cleverly made with so-called "rebellions" that in the end show not more that everybody is corrupt - even the leaders of that rebellion.

EmmeYa
 
Saw this last week.
I wouldnt like to say whether it would have a positive or negative effect on children. Id say that theres far too much "everyone for themsleves" programming around already, so it would just strengthen those thought process's in my opinion.
 
EmmeYa said:
Rx said:
This movie seems to be all about distraction and conditioning while cleverly hidden within an engaging story. The fact that teenagers in the movie theaters have been reported cheering for one contestants to kill the other just shows how well are children are being conditioned to violence. I won't be rushing with the masses to see this one any time soon...

Thanks for posting the article Rx.

I am not buying it any more that movies of this kind are "attempting to warn an apathetic youth [or anybody else] of the danger of allowing the current system to devolve into a totalitarian nightmare". They are too cleverly made with so-called "rebellions" that in the end show not more that everybody is corrupt - even the leaders of that rebellion.

EmmeYa

Exactly! As if the PTB really want to make a statement on the reality of our human situation and warn us about it! It is far more likely that we are being conditioned to it through subtle psychological manipulations like the cognitive dissonance that's created between acknowledging the horror of a possible totalitarian society and then being led to cheer on your favorite child as he fights another child to the death! Pure insanity!! I have heard the literary series being compared to other great novels such as Lord of the Flies but I am very leery of these accolades. I think we hugely underestimate the powers of media in our collective conditioning and it seems that as we get smarter so do they. I'm still convinced it's conditioning but should probably actually read the books and watch the movie before I continue my tirade. It's just hard to justify using my precious time to dissect and analyze something with such a violent theme.
 
Rx wrote: << As if the PTB really want to make a statement on the reality of our human situation and warn us about it! It is far more likely that we are being conditioned to it through subtle psychological manipulations >>

I think that's right on. There's a term for it with respect to how the media accomplishes this: predictive programming (there's a site about it here for movies: __http://predictiveprogramminginmovies.blogspot.com/ -- or just do a Web search on the term and you'll find many pages with people personally interpreting the predictive-programming aspects of many of movies, books, etc.

The basic idea is to get people used to an idea to reduce their unwanted reactions to the incremental steps toward it. Hunger Games has a psychopathic 1% elite, everyone else at the bottom of the pyramid, the USA broken into sectors kind of like the existing "FEMA regions," etc. Probably a lot more (I'm guessing -- I haven't watched it).
 
PopHistorian said:
The basic idea is to get people used to an idea to reduce their unwanted reactions to the incremental steps toward it. Hunger Games has a psychopathic 1% elite, everyone else at the bottom of the pyramid, the USA broken into sectors kind of like the existing "FEMA regions," etc. Probably a lot more (I'm guessing -- I haven't watched it).

I read the book and saw the first movie when it came out. I haven't read the other books or seen the other movies. This quote from 'Almost Human - Wave Book 7,' which I have been rereading, made me instantly think of 'Hunger Games,' so yeah PopHistorian I think you might be right that it is to plant the idea.

http://cassiopaea.org/2012/01/30/the-wave-chapter-57-its-just-economics/
Aside from the fact that we see evidence of the use of pure mathematics — Game Theory, in fact — in matters of warfare strategy, which includes source notes connecting this work to Wheeler, we find Joseph George Caldwell to be a bit interesting for other reasons. He has a website where he promotes the following idea:

What is the sustainable human population for Earth? I propose that a long-term sustainable number is on the order of ten-million, consisting of a technologically advanced population of a single nation of about five-million people concentrated in one or a few centers, and a globally distributed primitive population of about five million. I arrived at this size by approaching the problem from the point of view of estimating the minimum number of human beings that would have a good chance of long-term survival, instead of approaching it from the (usual) point of view of attempting to estimate the maximum number of human beings that the planet might be able to support. The reason why I use the approach of minimizing the human population is to keep the damaging effects of human industrial activity on the biosphere to a minimum. Because mankind’s industrial activity produces so much waste that cannot be metabolized by “nature,” any attempt to maximize the size of the human population risks total destruction of the biosphere (such as the “sixth extinction” now in progress). [This author’s emphasis]

Let’s stop right here and ask the question: Is this “sixth extinction” something that is generally “known” in the circles that do this kind of research? Is this why they are doing it? What do they know that the rest of us don’t? Or better, what do they think that they aren’t telling us? Caldwell writes:

The role of the technological population is “planetary management”: to ensure that the size of the primitive population does not expand. The role of the primitive population is to reduce the likelihood that a localized catastrophe might wipe out the human population altogether. The reason for choosing the number five-million for the primitive population size is that this is approximately the number (an estimated 2-20 million) that Earth supported for millions of years, i.e., it is proved to be a long-term sustainable number (in mathematical terminology, a “feasible” solution to the optimization problem). The reason for choosing the number five-million for the technological population size is that it is my opinion that that is about the minimum practical size for a technologically advanced population capable of managing a planet the size of Earth; also, it is my opinion that the “solar energy budget” of the planet can support a population of five-million primitive people and five-million “industrial” people indefinitely. (www.foundationwebsite.org; this author’s emphases)

Mr. Caldwell’s ideas are a techno-representation of synarchy, a clue to the real “Stargate Conspiracy.” It seems that there is, indeed, something very mysterious going on all over the planet in terms of shaping the thinking of humanity via books, movies and cultural themes, but at this point we understand that most of what is promulgated is lies and disinformation. We hope to come to some idea of what the “insiders” know that they aren’t telling us, and perhaps we will find some clues as we continue our investigation here.

I just don't see the author going from channel surfing and watching reality tv and the invasion of the Iraq to the first book. Basically the 'Hunger Games' series as a concept just added some ideas, specifically the game itself, to the above structure of society. Maybe the author had some help or was picking up beaming or what not.

quote from earlier in thread said:
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]
 
I recently saw the third installment of the Hunger Games series. -I've read the books as well.

I think quite highly of this series. -It's like 1984 for a new generation, filled with extremely relevant observations and metaphors for our current situation on Earth.

I particularly found myself impressed with its depiction of how propaganda works; winning battles through Public Relations rather than daring-do. It also, (less so in the films, more so in the books), dealt head-on with the lasting psychological and physiological damage violence wreaks upon people. This series does not glorify violence or look away from its consequences.

I think it is possible to err too much on the side of caution sometimes. Truth telling, (even in the form of a not-so-speculative fiction like "Hunger Games"), is important. One could argue that posting grim news articles about our world is in fact programming us to accept the hard reality they represent. -And possibly this is true from a certain perspective, but not in an unhealthy way at all, (unless ignoring Objective Reality is healthy.)

I did some looking at what "Predictive Programming" was all about, and while there is some merit in certain aspects of the concept, I think one can throw the baby out with the bathwater.

This quote from one of those otherwise tiresome so-called skeptic websites which actually makes some sense on this particular subject, (rare, I know):

A major component of predictive programming theory is the idea that if someone sees something that they’ve seen depicted in fiction, they react to it with resigned indifference and maybe a half-hearted protest. According to this view, the mere portrayal of some social condition in fiction programs people with the idea that it is inevitable and should not be resisted.

To understand why this is implausible, consider one of the most famous psychological experiments of all time: Albert Bandura’s “Bobo Doll” experiments. In this series of studies, Bandura and his team recruited two groups of children. In one group, each child was shown a short film of an adult hitting an inflatable clown doll; in the other group, the adult in the film ignored the Bobo doll. After watching whatever film they were assigned to, each child was then put into a room with a variety of toys, including a Bobo doll. The children who had been shown the aggressive video overwhelmingly mimicked the adult and beat up the doll, while the other group left the doll alone.

What does this mean for predictive programming? It completely debunks the idea that simply portraying something will elicit the same reaction regardless of context. Watching the hero hit the Bobo doll makes us want to do the same. The children’s reaction was driven not by the simple presence of the doll, but by the adult model’s reaction to it. It’s relevant that in nearly every film which is supposedly carrying out predictive programming in aid of some dystopian future government, the dystopian society is seen as evil and resistance is seen as a moral imperative.

Consider The Hunger Games, a film about a teenage girl rebelling against the totalitarian government that rules the shattered remnants of North America with an iron fist, described by Alex Jones as “one hundred percent predictive programming.” The filmmakers try to make us sympathise with the heroine, her friends, and the downtrodden masses in their fight for freedom. The idea that this would make people less likely to resist a totalitarian government is both baseless and counterintuitive. It flies in the face of half a decade of research on social learning and how we model our own behaviour after the behaviour of others around us. If you were trying to institute an evil world government, would you really want to put it out there that people who fight against evil world governments are the heroes?

I think a more present danger of something like Hunger Games is that it puts into "virtual reality" an active resistance. Why actually fight back against oppression when it's already been done for you on screen? But I'm not convinced of that either...

Honestly, I think there is FAR more psy-ops toxicity in something like the popular adventure show, "Agent Carter" (with its laughable evil-Russian overtones) or its weird Canadian clone, "X Company". -Both of which seem hell-bent on hitting the, "Society at War!" vibe. -And "Role Model Women are classy, down-home Killers!" vibe. -Both of which are thick with their apologist rhetorical story devices used to sell everything from national mistrust, violence, torture to the general ponorization of all civilians as *good* things. That's normal TV these days.

Hunger Games, by contrast, tries to point out how media distorts perception, how war is not cool, what psychopathy looks like, and that beneath it all, the seemingly indestructible edifice of imperial power is not nearly so secure as it would like to believe itself to be, that it is in fact rotting from within.
 
I also wanted to add...

I don't think Hunger Games is, metaphorically, even about the distant future. I think it describes the human situation as it stands on our planet right now.

If you consider that the Capital City in the Hunger Games universe is really the U.S., (a region which makes nothing of value, consumes all the energy and wealth of its subordinate states, keeps its populace in a near-complete media dream state, -and of course, is run by complete psychopaths), -and the various "Districts" (1 through 12), as dominated client state/countries of our present real world, pressed into labor and production servitude, then you find yourself with a fairly accurate description of our present geo-political reality boiled down to its raw essence.

-Carrying that further, if you consider the 'lost' district 13, (the one with the nukes and the ability to fight back), and call it "Russia", then the metaphor begins to sharpen up a lot around the edges, I think.
 
Woodsman said:
-Carrying that further, if you consider the 'lost' district 13, (the one with the nukes and the ability to fight back), and call it "Russia", then the metaphor begins to sharpen up a lot around the edges, I think.
My sentiments too when i read the book and watched the movie.
 
Woodsman said:
I particularly found myself impressed with its depiction of how propaganda works; winning battles through Public Relations rather than daring-do. It also, (less so in the films, more so in the books), dealt head-on with the lasting psychological and physiological damage violence wreaks upon people. This series does not glorify violence or look away from its consequences.


I would agree with what you said as well.
I'd even say that the whole serie is an anti-war book at its core because it really hammers down the heavy price to pay when a war is waged, even for freedom.

In the books, both sides, the Capitol & the Rebels are using & manipulating Katniss for their own propaganda purposes, either by casting her as a hunger game hero or a revolutionary one.

It's not great literature but I do think it can spark up an interesting discussion about the state of the world with younger people and older ones like me :D
 
FWIW, I agree with Woodsman as well.

And again, I find the books better and clearer than the movies.

Here is what author Suzanne Collins has to say about war and violence:

Suzanne Collins said:
“If I took the 40 years of my dad talking to me about war and battles and taking me to battlefields and distilled it down into one question, it would probably be the idea of the necessary or unnecessary war. That’s very much at the heart of it,” Collins said. “The picture book is really just an introduction to the idea of war…. The Underland Chronicles, sort of moving along in sophistication, is about the unnecessary war. The Underland Chronicles is an unnecessary war for a very long time until it becomes a necessary war…. In The Hunger Games, in most people’s idea, in terms of rebellion or a civil-war situation, that would meet the criteria for a necessary war…. And then what happens is that it turns back around on itself. If you look at the arenas as individual wars or battles, you start out in the first one and you have a very classic gladiator game. By the second one it has evolved into what is the stage for the rebellion, because the arena is the one place that all the districts that cannot communicate with each other, it’s the one place they can all watch together. So it’s where the rebellion blows up. And then the third arena is the Capitol, which has now become an actual war. But in the process of becoming an actual war, in the process of becoming a rebellion, they have now replicated the original arena. So it’s cyclical, and it’s that cycle of violence that seems impossible for us to break out of.

_http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2013/1120/Hunger-Games-author-Suzanne-Collins-in-rare-interview-muses-on-war-and-the-cycle-of-violence

The subject - Is war ever necessary? - is a great one to discuss with (older) kids, I think. It's a perfect introduction to what a benevolent leader is, to what his qualities should be, to what can and should be done in the name of freedom and truth, etc.

I'm always on the lookout for good books for my daughter (she's probably still a bit young to read this particular book series, though) and books which discuss a psychopathic elite and propose a female hero who rely on her courage and sense of duty to her family and her community (and not on superpowers nor magic tricks) to fight this elite, well, there aren't that many.

I don't think Collins has all the answers at all but then again, she's just a children's literature writer. :)
 
Woodsman said:
-Carrying that further, if you consider the 'lost' district 13, (the one with the nukes and the ability to fight back), and call it "Russia", then the metaphor begins to sharpen up a lot around the edges, I think.

I had that hope too. But, when I was reading up on a site about the districts I learned more about District 13 and got an unexpected spoiler. Let's leave it at that, lol.

The movies are great and someone online even said that a map of the districts look very similar to a Fema map, especially the capital around Denver (and the Denver Airport murals we have in real life are eerie).
 
Hunger Games, by contrast, tries to point out how media distorts perception, how war is not cool, what psychopathy looks like, and that beneath it all, the seemingly indestructible edifice of imperial power is not nearly so secure as it would like to believe itself to be, that it is in fact rotting from within.
DITTO!

I just watched the film for the 5th time and it totally makes sense as I watch through the years. I didnt watch it in the movies because they say that it is so brutal, which is true, and watching people killing each other makes my stomach upset before. I watched it only three or four years ago when the trilogy was finished, and the movie have metaphors that I think is true in our reality now-- false freedom and security the Capitol is offering to Panem, the fear they inflict to the districts to remind them of their failed revolt, the victors' life, and Coin´s transformation to name a few.

I just have a love/hate thing for Katniss because although she was brave enough to think and act on her own and became an icon for the revolution which she fought till the end, she was being dishonest with Peeta and Gale. Maybe you cant really have it all. haha

Im glad I waited for the trilogy to finish and watched it. 🤩
 
Back
Top Bottom