Mockingjay Part 1

Seeing Mockingjay part 1 (third film in the Hunger Games series) so soon after seeing Snowpiercer was a mistake. Snowpiercer offers a grown-up version of rebellion by the downtrodden, while Mockingjay part 1 offers a young adult version.

My archived posts (HERE and HERE) on the first two movies in the Hunger Games series reminded me that I quite enjoyed the first film, found the second less interesting, thought it would have been preferable for its somewhat repetitive content to have been blended into part 1. That wouldn't have yielded a second gob of $$$$$$$$$$$ would it? I haven't read the books, but after seeing Mockingjay part 1 I get the same feeling - that splitting this part of the story into two was, once again, unnecessary for any reason other than $$$$$$$$$$.

This time I can't even say that I'm glad I saw the film, as I did regarding the second film of the series. There is much very obvious padding in Mockingjay part 1; trite dialogue and repetitive action sequences played out in unrelentingly grey rubble-strewn environments. Inclusion of the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the previously entertaining Woody Harrelson, giving them each a scant few boring lines, seemed to me like a cynical ploy to hold the interest of any more mature audience members. A Maggie Thatcher-like turn by Julianne Moore as leader of the rebels didn't feel right. The only constant high quality in this film lies in Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Katniss Everdean.


If Mockingjay Part 1 is meant to be, for its target audience of young adults, a kind of "War and Revolution Primer", I suppose it succeeds, but for that demographic alone. Whereas during the first two episodes in the Hunger Games franchise, I knew I was watching a story written for younger generations, I still found something of interest. Not so with Mockingjay part 1. I've seen far more affecting films about war and/or revolution, as I'm sure have all audience members over the age of 50. This film, in contrast to the first two in the Hunger Games series, left me feeling that I was simply too old for it.

Hunger Games Catching Fire - but too slowly ?

We half-enjoyed the original Hunger Games movie (well, I did); a post about it is HERE. We saw the first sequel, Catching Fire, at the weekend. I was disappointed in it, yet glad to have seen it. At two and a half hours it was far too long. Much of the first third (maybe half) could have been condensed without losing a thing. In fact, I think that this part of the story could easily have been included in the first movie, perhaps making that a real epic-long presentation, to be followed by a sequel of one blockbusting climax movie incorporating the whole of the last novel of Susan Collins' trilogy. But I'm forgetting the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Hollywood has to, and does, spread the filthy-lucre-making material as thinly as possible. Why make two long movies when four will make double the dosh?

Without giving too much away, this sequel is set in Panem (USA in the far future) one year after the original film - time for the next Hunger Games. In intervening months downtrodden people of the districts, inspired by the defiance and bravery of heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), are themselves experiencing the first rumblings of defiance and contemplating resistance to the totalitarian Capitol. Panem's President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has been watching this development with concern. He declares that the coming 75th Hunger Games, rather than drawing new young "tributes" from the districts to fight each other, will involve instead all living victors of former Hunger Games. Naturally that includes Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), her Games partner. Snow is going to make sure Katniss, now a beacon of hope for the people, will not survive. He has ways....he also has a new manipulative Gamemaster named Plutarch Heavensbee. (Dang, but it sounds as though Susan Collins, author of the novels, picked her characters' names by drawing syllables out of a hat !) Plutarch Heavensbee is played with his usual class by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Woody Harrelson, I was happy to note, returns in the alcohol-sodden role of ex-victor and benign mentor Haymitch.

The 75th Games are followed in the movie in much the same way the 74th were followed in the original, though this time the competitors are older, thus removing some of the obscenity of seeing children being forced to destroy other children.

There's more in the way of techno-tricks and CGI this time around, a much bigger budget was available, obviously. I didn't find that additional expensive bells and whistles added much, more decent dialogue would have been better.

All in all, Catching Fire didn't move on far enough to make the movie satisfying for me. As I've mentioned already, I reckon most of its content could have somehow been incorporated into the first movie. The real and satisfying nitty-gritty will come next - a revolution proper, it will be I guess. It'll be 2 years before that hits our screens though, if reports are to be believed. By then, will we care?

My husband wasn't impressed by Catching Fire. He thought it too relentlessly dark, and found several continuity flaws in it. For instance, how come Katniss always had enough arrows? Did she have a magically replenishing supply? It seemed so. Perhaps this was explained in the first film - we can't recall it if so. The other two possible major flaws can't be explained without giving too much away. I did see one flaw myself (but am not sure whether it was explained and I missed it). At one point there's a plot element involving a clock; President Snow orders it be spun around, moving the crucial 12 noon point to a random position. But from the way the action proceeded it didn't seem to have made any difference.

There was a particularly cringe-worthy scene, outside of the games arena: at a celebratory reception at the Capitol. Elites were all decked out in ridiculously overdone outfits, wigs, makeup etc. like some nightmarish pantomime cast, with mountains of specially prepared exotic foods piled around the place. When encouraged to try a certain delicacy one of the victors declined saying he was already full to bursting point. An elite character then offered him a glass of liquid promising, "this will solve that problem". I can't remember the rest of the dialogue, but the liquid, on offer to all, was being used to bring about the urge to vomit, so that more food could be sampled and consumed. (I bet they did stuff like that in ancient Rome!) The true horror of that scene lay in the fact that out in the districts people were starving, and have, for 75 years, been forced annually to send their young out to compete to the death on the chance of obtaining extra food for their district during the coming year.

The whole thrust of this set of books/films is an old, old story of downtrodden masses finding their strength, inspired by some heroic figure or event. I haven't read the books, but from the two movies there is a clear intention to satirize 21st century life in the USA: our current way of life, feelings of disenfranchisement, analgesics such as reality TV, sports-madness, a tiny minority of the population holding all the wealth and all power over a majority kept in check by hunger and fear.

 The 3-finger salute of solidarity with the people - returned below

One oddity I've noticed in scanning a couple of comment threads following reviews of the movie: some right wingers seem to think the film is highlighting how bad life can be under a centralised state power; while lefties (including me) see it more as condemnation of what happens when 1% of the population holds the wealth of a vast nation, has bought the nation's powers of government for itself, and is drunk on its own (assumed) unassailability.

My take-away catchphrase from Catching Fire will be a line spoken by Haymitch. It'd be wise for all of us in the 21st century to keep it in mind too:

"Always remember who the real enemy is."

Non-astrological Thoughts On The Hunger Games

Feeling a tad bored last Sunday I persuaded the husband we should go see The Hunger Games. We weren't particularly keen to see the movie, but the rest of the bill seemed even less attractive. Target audience of The Hunger Games is "young adults" - probably 14-ish to 19-ish or a bit older; these days 20-somethings don't seem nearly as mature as they did in days gone by. We're way out of sight of the target demographic, but we're both sci-fi fans and hoped that this element of the movie would be worth a look, keeping in mind that the story, adapted from the first book of a trilogy by Suzanne Collins, isn't meant for oldies such as we. Oldies have been there, seen that etc. and have tried to understand many things over many decades.

The movie, and books, are meant mainly for "clean slates", who, though brought up with TV, internet and violent video games haven't really endured much in the way of real adult strife, though teenagers do tend to see their own versions of life obstacles everywhere - in school, in college, at home.

At the end of the show my first words were - "Well, better than I expected - I wasn't bored!" Response, as we stumbled about in the half light, last of the handful of people attending an afternoon screening, "Hmmmm....erm...." Later husband said he'd felt somehow uneasy throughout, realising that the ending could only be sad and ugly - also, he'd thought that if technological progress had reached the level depicted in some of the story's themes, how come life had descended to such an horrendous level for so many? There was too much of a disconnect. Human nature wouldn't allow that, rulers need to enjoy at least some praise from the masses. I didn't agree.

A little more background as to how the extremely nasty idea of holding Hunger Games, where 24 children aged between 12 and 18 must fight each other to the death, had arisen might have helped in understanding the whys and wherefores of it all. This background was absent, apart from some quick explanatory text at the start of the film. I understand that more detail will follow in the sequel(s) - three of these are planned.

A wild guess at a date in our future when the story's events could be set: I think we'd have to look at a time beyond 200 to 300 years hence. The Games have been held annually for 74 years when the story begins. They originated after a rebellion against ruling classes who had set themselves up to oversee what remained of North America, following a series of disasters, natural and war-driven. A people's rebellion was put down. Annual Hunger Games were created as a punishment, so the people of Panem would never forget the result of rebelling against authority.

North America's new name is Panem (from "panem et circenses" = bread and circuses). The country, or what was left of it, was divided into 13 Districts each with its own raison d'etre: agriculture, animal farming, coal mining, engineering, lumber/paper, etc etc. Some districts were easier to live in and rather more desirable than others. Katniss, the film's young heroine, comes from District 12, one of the poorest of all. She and a male companion are chosen or volunteer to fight for their lives as "tributes" in the 74th Hunger Games, along with 22 others, 2 from each District.

District 13 was originally responsible for the Rebellion and thereafter destroyed, leaving only 12 Districts. Our movie theatre had a big map in the foyer, based on the one below, showing the Districts. Our part of Oklahoma is shown as being underwater! This map shows only the USA-as-was, not the rest of North America, but online there are other overall versions of the map - see here. Wikipedia's page The Hunger Games universe explains each district.



The Hunger Games serve as both punishment of the Districts and entertainment for the elite in The Capitol, who watch on screens, gamble and manipulate via advanced technological doo-dads which I haven't yet got my head around.....some of this made no sense to a semi-thinking adult! A fun - nay ridiculous - part of the movie for me was the way the weathy, spoiled inhabitants of The Capitol were depicted. These people would be the future equivalent of what we now call "the 1%".



Costume designers must have had an overdose of early 18th century French rococo farce - or too much Lady Gaga! Capitol men have names culled from days of the Roman Empire: Claudius Templesmith announcer at The Games (Toby Jones - see right), and Seneca Crane for expample. Below is Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) with Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), who acts as official escort to the young "tributes" once they've been appointed.



Some details in the movie's theme originate in today's reality TV shows: mentors, stylists to provide make-overs, manipulation by those running the show/Games; playing for sponsorship/ votes by using sad backstories; an urge for celebrity. Other ideas hark back to mythology and ancient history: token sacrifice & gladiators for instance - mans' inhumanity to man.

Below: my own favourite character from Hunger Games Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), the only prior Hunger Games victor from District 12 still living. He now resides in The Capitol, acts as mentor to the young "tributes". He drinks a lot, but his shrewdness and cunning are instrumental to the story's outcome.



During the movie I thought more than once about a recent post of mine Humans: Risen Apes of Planet Earth. The irony of our sitting in a theatre watching this spectacle didn't escape me either. That said, it was a thought provoking film and can perhaps can be seen as a warning signal about much that passes for entertainment nowadays, as well as being a vehicle to present a basic theme of ugly oppression to young minds in an accessible way.

The Hunger Games has elements of allegory - possibly not picked up by younger viewers; fantasy, which youngsters adore; and a background of dystopian USA, which some of us could well imagine without much coaxing. Love rather than sex is emphasised, and that can only be a good thing in my view. Violence is ever-present, in sanitised form, no close-ups of severed limbs, lots of wobbly camera work to blur and distract, no horrendously sickening sights of how starving people actually look. The people of the story's Districts are said to be near starvation, but all looked fairly robust to us, including the movie's heroine Katniss. This was possibly a direct intention, considering the target audience.

As in all decent movies, and books, aimed at a certain demographic, there are deeper layers waiting to be discerned by a different demographic. This is definitely the case in The Hunger Games.