“Three, rather than two forms come under judgment here: the novel, the adaptation, and the film. The novel is unilaterally praised; the film, moderately complimented, while adaptation once again emerges as the bad boy, the rake of the interart triad, partly scolded, partly pardoned.”
-Kamilla Elliott, Rethinking the Novel/Film debate
As a rabid fan of Suzanne Collin’s trilogy, I braced myself for disappointment. I knew there were characters that would be omitted and certain scenes will have diminished grandeur. With a novel like The Hunger Games, the sheer scope of adapting the riveting 300-odd pages to a brisk 142 minutes is undeniably daunting and like Elliot wrote: the novel is always praised, the film is respected but the adaptation, especially with die hard fans, is almost certainly going to be trashed. I am happy to write though, that Gary Ross’s adaptation serves as an exception.
First of all, IF YOU HAVE NOT READ THE BOOK, YOU WILL NOT UNDERSTAND THE MOVIE! This film is for the fans made by fans. I can firmly support my assessment because I attended the midnight screening with two friends that had not read the books but were just coerced into the event. Their understanding of the plot was meticulously gleaned from months of anticipation-fueled discussion by fans in their social circles. With new eyes and pure minds, they were unfortunately left confused at the end of the film. These are the reasons why:
Character and Plot Development
Without Katniss’s internal monologue, we are left in the dark as to why she is the way she is. Let’s face it, Katniss is annoying. She is crass, unapologetic and cold. If I wasn’t forced to see the world in her literary eyes I probably wouldn’t have understood why she’s so unpleasant. With the exception of Seneca Crane and Haymitch, no character has a real arc. We are even unsure at the end if Katniss and Peeta shared a genuine connection. The ending didn’t have resolve or conviction; there were too many loose ends that needed to be tied. If the film stood alone as an original screenplay, any social commentary or political undertones that were so well fleshed out in the scenes at District 12 and festivities in the Capitol, dwindle on the precipice of obscurity as the credits roll.
Use of Handycam filming
The shaky single camera approach a’la The Office was effective in the beginning with a bleak interpreptation of District 12; the emaciated faces and monochromatic sea of hunger devoured bodies was borderline haunting. The use of the same camera technique in the games portion of the film was confusing. I understand the use to this technique to mimic the frenetically heart pounding experience of being a tribute but substance fell by the wayside of style in this case. There were some battle scenes (the cornocopia comes to mind) that can leave a viewer nauseated. Especially imagine someone that is trying to keep track of all the new information that was just introduced only half an hour ago with the flurry of interviews and tryouts in addition to following the staccato jumps and whips of a handheld camera. It is a lot to absorb without a background of the plot from the novel.
Arclight Pasadena
With the lacking features of the film entirely as a film, disregarding the novel, comes the next problem of adapting literature to film: staying true to the source material. In general, Ross does a good job in helming a film that capture may key points of the novel. These were some of the deviations and shortcomings that I noticed that are worth pointing out:
The understandable:
- Expanding the scope of the narrative to include the insight of the Seneca Crane’s gamemakers, the announcers of the games (who served as interim narrators) and District 12 while the games were taking place
- Depiction of the riot in District 11. Even though the riot is first mentioned in Catching Fire and it was district 7 that started it, seeing the riot as a direct consequence to Rue’s death was poignant
- Added screen time for President Snow. With a great actor like Donald Sutherland, it is difficult to resist utilizing him to the fullest extent for added theatrical heft as well as making him into a more terrifying villain
The bearable:
- Elimination of Madge’s character for time and reworking the origin of the mockingjay pin
- Lack of relationship dynamic between Katniss/Gale and Katniss/Peeta. There is no indication of Katniss’s conflicted feelings for one boy over the other. Even Ross wanted to make a film about survival and not puppy love, these conflicted feelings make up a good bit of Katniss’s internal narrative in the novel which is not acknowledged in the film. Even the highly emotive Jennifer Lawrence couldn’t conjure up something convincing with the limited time given to contemplate these ideas
The inexcusable:
- BUTTERCUP! Buttercup gains importance as the trilogy progresses and also eventually indentifies herself directly as the cat in MockingJay. When I read the book I took Buttercup as an extension of Katniss, a creature that loves Prim unconditionally while perpetually possessing the desire and ability to survive. And where was “his muddy yellow coat [that] matched the bright flower”?! During the split seconds that Buttercup was on screen, he was obviously sporting a black one.
- It is quite obvious that I am a fan of Peeta’s character which is exactly why I’m angry that the depth of his character wasn’t fully realized. The audience still doesn’t know that his affection for Katniss is genuine and likewise goes for Katniss’s feigned interest for Peeta. Hopefully all this will be explained in the second movie
- No matter how I try to spin it, the ending was undoubtedly rushed. From the moment Cato dies to the when the credits run, that stretch of time felt anticlimactic. I did enjoy the added scene of Seneca’s death by nightlock (which was a poetic touch) but everything I loved about the ending was dropped. It left me wanting more in the worst way possible — I wanted closure, which I didn’t attain at the end of The Hunger Games.
Arclight Pasadena
You would think that with all these complaints I wasn’t a fan of the film but it was quite the opposite. George Bluestone, another contributor to the ongoing discourse of filmic adaption of literature stated that, “Changes are inevitable the moment one abandons the linguistic for the visual medium” and that the crucial assessment of a film is whether it “stays true to the spirit of the book”, as in does it uphold the integrity of the source material. And, brushing aside that the author and creator of this fictional world lended her seal of approval on the film, it does succeed in supporting the spirit of the novel, for these reasons:
- TONE — Ross was able to capture Collin’s theme of survival into the tapestry of his film. I felt the tribute’s danger and peril through the editing; I empathized with Seneca’s need to create entertainment to keep his job. You can make a film that includes every line spoken and item described but no one’s gonna watch a 10 hour movie. The important thing is to capture the story’s spirit and the film achieves this.
- SOUNDTRACK — when you read a book for the first time I always think that it’s easier to imagine imagery than sound. The soundtrack of the film is nothing I ever imagined while reading and yet is everything I wanted. It’s multidimensional and compliments the tone of the film. My favorite piece is what I’ve named “Katniss’s hunting song” that plays when our heroine is either hunting in the arena, woods or for gamekeepers. It’s a complex layering of bells that resonates in my mind as the tinkering of her nerves delicately throbbing in her mind
- COSTUMES — or more exact, the depiction of the outfits of the Capitol citizens. Every scene that shows the capitol citizens is filled with lush and vibrant color. I was worried there were going to be over exaggerated from Collin’s elaborate descriptions but there are spot on. They were resplendent without being gaudy
- DIALOGUE — there’s some dialogue that is added especially to the film either to bridge gaps in the narrative or add dimension to character. Effie gets more quips and Haymitch is more integral to Katniss and Peeta’s finale in the games. Perhaps the most integral and satisfying additions though are Snow and Seneca’s interactions. In particular I really enjoyed the scene when Snow is explaining to Seneca the purpose of the games: “hope is stronger than fear”. The explanation of ‘how dangerous too much hope can be’ lends itself perfectly to the theme of Catching Fire.
All in all I think this first installment of The Hunger Games trilogy serves as a spark for the darker and more complex themes of the second and third books. We are introduced to characters that we can continue to root for or against and brought into a world that begs more attention. In my opinion, Ross’s rendering of the trackjacker hallucinations is still the single best thing he achieved in the film. Now, is it too early to count down to November 2013?
Tebowing Peeta
Every year I pick a film that I root for to win the big BP come oscar night. And every year, for the past decade (With one or two exceptions) the film I pick has lost. That’s why I am almost hesitant to put my weight behind Michel Hazanavicius’s The Artist. It is, along with Hugo and The Descendants, the favorite to win the big prize come oscar night and, I’m almost hesitant to write this because I loved the film so much, but it’s MY PICK TO WIN BEST PICTURE. Even though I have not seen Scorcese or Payne’s works yet, I think The Artist transcends comparison. The film also has the backing of the Weinstein Co. which has proven to be quite shrewd and unrelenting when it comes to promoting their films. Yes people, come February 26, I predict The Artist will win the top prize.
Food + Film 