The Hunger Games

Casting Is Everything

by Hunter Isham

        The Hunger Games, like so many other young adult novel adaptations barreling out of Hollywood, seemed to come out of nowhere. Well, at least for me, anyway. I don't keep up with the best-selling books my peers are reading —I remember seeing Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson on the cover of Entertainment Weekly in 2007, and thinking, "What the hell is Twilight?"—but when film adaptions are on their way, they tend to end up on my radar. Suzanne Collins' novel and subsequent books caught my attention as potential films when I began hearing about how good they were, and about how Jennifer Lawrence, a recently Oscar-nominated young actress, would be an ideal choice for the lead role of Katniss Everdeen. She was cast, of course, the film was better for it, and fans of the book cheered for her portrayal of the heroine. I was keen on seeing this human embodiment of the glue that held the film together, but then I didn't, and I only recently found myself sitting down to watch The Hunger Games as preparation for another film I thought I might get around to seeing: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.
        Well, the good news for those still catching up is that the critics and fans didn't lie; Jennifer Lawrence absolutely anchors the film. She's excellent as she conveys so much of what the rest of the film does not. You see, the first step in an eventual saga is always going to be filled with world building, and that can be quite the tedious process. The Hunger Games introduces us to Panem, a country in North America made up of twelve districts. The backstory is a little murky in the film, but it's explained at some point that this country is the result of an uprising roughly three quarters of a century ago. The aristocracy was left in power, and an annual, televised death match is held to remind the citizens of the power that hovers overhead. Two people from each district are chosen, and so begins the story of Katniss, the female "tribute" from District 12 (the poorest). There's a lot more to it than that, but I'll leave it as a surprise, especially when the plot is the only thing this film can offer beyond its characters that could provide any semblance of depth.
        The world of The Hunger Games is fertile ground for a story dealing with political corruption, as well as our obsession with celebrity and reality television, not to mention violence as entertainment. Unfortunately, these themes are mostly muddled, and the weight of the film is placed on the shoulders of the characters, the best realized of which is Katniss. The idea of celebrity is toyed with to entertaining effect, with Stanley Tucci one of the film's many supporting assets as a polished and bubbly television personality who covers the games, but the political stuff is pushed to the background, and the violence is watered down to the point that it's not as shocking as it needs to be to convey its horror (most likely and disappointingly to meet a PG-13 rating). Part of the blame must be thrown to co-writer/director Gary Ross, whose over-abundant use of "shakycam" makes even the most serene moments of the film seem like the opening of Saving Private Ryan. It's mostly effective in the action sequences, but its use elsewhere is unfounded. As for the themes, that comes down to issues with the screenplay, and being as unfamiliar with the source material as I am, perhaps that untapped potential is the book as well, but one would hope that the film would improve upon the text where possible (although I suspect that the book is indeed better than the movie).
        A blockbuster that doesn't live up to its full potential is not a new concept in Hollywood, and the audience is hardly blind to it, but what keeps The Hunger Games from deflating completely is the generally fantastic cast surrounding Lawrence. The aforementioned Tucci is joined by Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland, each doing strong work with the relatively small roles they have compared to competitors in the games. Sutherland, portraying the apparently absent-in-the-book President Snow, has the least to do, but he sets the stage for a greater presence in later installments. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth, as fellow District 12 tribute Peeta and hometown friend Gale, respectively, are both a little flat, but I'll chalk that up to the script for now. The latter has little to do here, so he may prove himself more capable in later films. It doesn't need to be said again, but I'll say it anyway: Jennifer Lawrence makes this movie. She is the key to this film's success more than anything else, because with the muted themes and distracting direction, identifying with and rooting for the protagonist is essential.
        The Hunger Games is not exactly required viewing for anyone looking to see the latest and greatest Hollywood blockbuster*, but its far superior sequel (keep an eye out for another review of that one) makes it a necessity. Thankfully, a colorful cast led by a strong Jennifer Lawrence elevates the film. The Hunger Games fans I know mostly loved this film, and everyone else seems to think its a good movie buoyed by an excellent performance. I definitely fall into the latter category, as I think most of the non-faithful will. The Hunger Games fails as a film to fully capture my imagination, but it soundly has my attention, and with a building franchise, that's enough to commit to another trip down this post-apocoplyptic rabbit hole of a story. They didn't exactly catch lighting in a bottle with this first installment, but with the groundwork laid, I think the creative team will have far more luck with Catching Fire. 7.5/10


*I'm referring here to films on the level of The Dark Knight.