Right now
as I post this cinemas Australia
over are about to play their first screenings of the latest
novel-turned-big-film franchise to hit us: The
Hunger Games. This film seemed to come out of nowhere for me. I’d never
even heard of the books until the first film posters arrived at my work a few
months back, but since then I’ve done a little research (though admittedly,
really couldn’t be bothered reading the books) and gotten a little outraged (as
I am prone to do). Now, if the phrase “it’s the new Twilight” hasn’t been
enough to put you off yet, here’s some other reasons why you should not give The Hunger Games your monies.
- It’s Kinda a Rip-Off
I read an article on The Hunger Games a week or so ago that suggested the film had “a
touch” of the Japanese classic novel/graphic novel/film Battle Royale about it. I had to read that sentence twice. If by “a
touch” the journalist meant “the entire freaking plot was ripped off” I think
he’d hit a little closer to the mark. If the two stories had nothing more in
common than ‘people forced to kill each other’ I wouldn’t have such an issue,
but once you include the young age of the contestants in the competition, the
fictional dystopian and militarised future portrayed, the competition as
punishment for rebellion against an all-powerful system, and the broadcast of
the events, the worlds depicted start to seem alarmingly similar. What’s more,
in both cases the protagonists desire to win is motivated both by developing romantic
feelings for another contestant, and care of and sacrifice for a sibling after
the loss of their father. I’m not a spoiler, but the endings too have far much
more in common than they do different.
- It’s Battle Royale for Nannas
A lot of what I’ve read about The Hunger Games alludes to the films
high level of violence compared with other tween fare such as Twilight. But the thing I find most
concerning is how a film featuring such confronting and violent subject matter
has only achieved an M rating (and even only a PG13 in the US). The extent to which The Hunger Games has been watered down
and romanticized is its primary point of difference from Battle Royale. The deaths onscreen in The Hunger Games are all clean and neat, not to mention unrealistic
for such a situation. While the set up of Battle
Royale is every bit as extreme and unrealistic, commendably the film
displays realistic character actions in such a scenario and doesn’t shy away
from the situation’s necessary brutality. Teen sexuality too is far more
interestingly examined in Battle Royale.
While the manipulation of sexuality for gain is touched on in The Hunger Games, where Katniss stages
feelings for Peeta to garner audience sympathy, in Battle Royale sex itself becomes both a weapon and a weakness for
the contestants. This is all the more surprising when you consider the fact
that Battle Royale intentionally used
actors of the correct ages, limiting the amount of sexuality the film could
include, while The Hunger Games uses
21yos. The use of older actors in The
Hunger Games could once again be seen as an attempt by the filmmakers to
limit the confronting nature of the story. Though I’m not exactly sure I want
to advocate high violence movies for tweens, arguably romanticizing violence
for a youth audience is far more dangerous than letting them see the explicit
and realistic stuff up front.
- It’s Kinda Shallow
Aside from the realistic and confronting world
portrayed, the main reason for my respect of Battle Royale, compared to something like The Hunger Games, is the extent to which the film is such a perfect
allegory of the social climate in which it was produced. The book was written
in Japan
in 1999, in the aftermath of the bursting of the bubble economy. Though the
book is set in a dystopian future, many of the social problems depicted were those
facing Japanese youth at the time of the book’s release. High levels of
unemployment impacted on depression and suicide rates, leaving Japanese
teenagers with few adult role models and a negative outlook for their futures. Rising
distrust in education led to teenage behavioural issues in schools, like those
depicted in the film. School leavers found it almost impossible to gain
employment, with the competition for jobs reflecting the competition for life
in Battle Royale. Comparatively, The Hunger Games does not fare well for
broader underlying themes. The most interesting point the books seem to make
concerns contemporary society’s obsession with voyeurism and publicly
humiliating competition. But this too is prevalent in Battle Royale, written almost a decade before The Hunger Games. It took the place of foreshadowed warning in the
late ‘90s, but by 2012 such a metaphor seems both obvious and shallow. Beyond
this, even from interviews with Suzanne Collins herself, the only other themes
I can gather from the story are along the lines of “war is bad” and “poverty is
bad”. Even the film’s intended audience of teens is surely a little beyond
this.
- Complete Lack of Beat Takeshi
So your film has Stanley Tucci, Woody
Harrelson, Donald Sutherland and hell, even Lenny Kravitz? Still doesn’t have
the cool power of this guy:
 |
| So Badass |
Ok. So I’ve
done a whole lotta ragging on The Hunger Games here, now its time to give a
little back. I accept that this film is going to top the box office, and I’m
glad because I genuinely would rather teenage girls watch this than Twilight.
But chances are if you’re reading this blog you’re probably a little over the
target age-range for this film. So if you’re over 18, please ditch the kid’s
version of this story :)
