Hunger Games: Battle Royale for the whole family

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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 :)

Hugo: A Scorsese Film Through and Through

In the lead up to Hugo I’ve read a number of articles and reviews posing the question; can Martin Scorsese do a kids film? I never really viewed that particular question as one worth asking, and having now seen Hugo my suspicions have been confirmed. Though perhaps best known by some for his gangster pictures and his thrillers, Scorsese has never been a director to shy away from certain genres. A film aimed at a younger audience is one of the very few types he was yet to tackle in his long career.

Instead the central element to Scorsese’s entire body of work, in my opinion, is the presence of a male, socially-isolated protagonist. One who either lives outside of society or is trapped within one that doesn’t understand him and that he can never fit in with. Across all Scorsese’s genres we can see this character from Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, to Henry Hill in Goodfellas, from Jake La Motta in Raging Bull, to Newland Archer in The Age of Innocence. These characters allow Scorsese to explore his central themes of masculinity and its implicit melancholia.

Hugo Cabret in Hugo is the natural progression of Scorsese’s work, exploring the birth of this melancholia as a boy comes of age. For Hugo it begins with the loss of his father and the resentment of his uncle as an unsatisfactory replacement. All Hugo’s failures of masculinity serve as reminders to him of his grief. His impotence becomes intricately linked with his pathos. His search for a replacement father leads him to idolise George Melies, though he too is another example of Scorsese’s flawed and isolated males, denying his past work as an artist since becoming less successful than he used to be. He also befriends Isabelle, a girl who despite her cheery demeanour has clearly lived a childhood as isolated as his own, and prefers the company of books to other people. Additionally, despite the friends he makes throughout the film he continues to be forever in public and rarely noticed.

Even the film’s happy ending masks the continuation of Hugo’s sense of isolation and loss. His success is in facilitating George’s acceptance of his past and the re-emerging of his films, but Hugo himself stagnates. Though by the end he has discovered the mystery of the automaton and delved into the idealised past of Melies’ films, he does this with the continued aim of reconnecting with his father, an aim that can never be realised. Hugo finds companionship but never accepts a replacement father-figure or moves on from his grief, ensuring his continued melancholia and sense of impotence.

This lack of conclusion for his suffering males is another recurring element in Scorsese’s work. Henry Hill hates suburban life after selling out his friends, Teddy Daniels in Shutter Island refuses to accept reality, Newland Archer ultimately refuses to break with social convention despite a life-long opposition. Though overall Hugo is an uplifting film, its protagonist carries a masculine melancholia that makes it Scorsese through and through.

What I'm Watching This Christmas

I don’t know about you, but Christmas Eve for me is always a time of ignoring my family to retreat to my room to watch Christmas movies and await my presents the next day. If you’re like me and looking for something to watch tonight, here’s a list of Christmas movies that don’t suck

1. It’s A Wonderful Life (1946)

A classic for a very good reason. Jimmy Stewart (aka the love of my life) is miserable on Christmas Eve and considering ending it all when he’s visited by an angel/hobo who shows him how much worse everyone would be if he’d never been born. The fact that it’s about suicide stops it from being too soppy and just the right level of heart-warming.

2. Love Actually (2003)

I feel it would be entirely unnecessary to explain this film so let’s just cut to why it doesn’t suck. It’s cheesy in a way where you know that the film is laughing with you. There are a few ridiculous moments but the film doesn’t take them too seriously. Most importantly not everyone ends up happy – a necessary element for me to enjoy a romantic comedy. Plus, it is impossible for ALAN RICKMAN to suck. Fact.

3. Home Alone (1990)

To remind you that there was once a time when Macaulay Culkin was cute rather than kinda creepy and that even if you find your family unbearable on Christmas Day, your parents could be less competent. Also, great ideas for how to protect your home if dim-witted bandits are trying to rob you. RIP John Hughes – Patron Saint of Youth Angst

4. A Muppet Christmas Carol (1992)

I freaking LOVE Muppets! A classic Christmas tale turned into a musical and narrated by The Great Gonzo, what more could a girl want for Christmas? In my opinion this film is quite possibly Michael Caine’s finest work.

5. Die Hard (1988)

First, thanks to my friend Ed for reminding me what a great Christmas film this is. For those who think that something soppy like Love Actually might just induce vomiting, comes a heart warming tale about a family reunited by terrorists just in time for Christmas. Not to mention it provides me with the double dose of ALAN RICKMAN required for a perfect holiday season. I know what I’ll be watching tonight.

Merry Christmas guys

Three Musketeers

The latest version of The Three Musketeers by Paul W.S. Anderson can best be described as a little bit embarrassing. I was never expecting a traditionalist re-telling, so the flying ships and machine guns didn’t bother me. What bothered me was that I was expecting something totally ridiculous that was at least fun to watch. Instead it was something totally ridiculous that often induced cringes and impassioned sobs of ‘Why?’

The three titular characters are not half-bad, played with some competence and sense of character by their respective actors, but Logan Lerman as D’Artagnan irritated me throughout. He was so Hollywood that even in this Hollywood-ised, explosion-filled version of the tale he seemed out of place. His accent and mannerisms could not even briefly be removed from a 21^st century Hollywood setting.

On the issue of accents, it certainly takes you out of the world of the film when you realise that every character has a different one. Having a mix of French, German, British and American accents, while modernist is just confusing. I know that making all the actors put on French accents would sound a bit too ‘Allo ‘Allo,  but surely there’s a middle ground somewhere.

I also thought this film might be something of a career revival for Orlando Bloom, following getting cut from the last Pirates of the Caribbean and, to the best of my knowledge, having not really done anything of note in 4 years. But despite the fact that he appears to be having a lot of fun with this he can’t seem to get over the hurdle that he’s not a particularly talented actor. He does an ok job, but he needs to put some work in if he still wants to be getting gigs when he’s 40+.

Christoph Waltz however, as Richelieu makes a perfectly acceptable villain (as always) and Freddie Fox is pretty good as King Louis XIII, though I must say that the facial hair on a 14-year old confused me throughout. Mostly because a joke is never made of it despite the set-up being there.

Possibly the biggest problem with the film is that its script panders to the lowest common denominator. There are far too many moments when character motivations are stated plainly in the dialogue, leaving absolutely no room for audience interpretation. Although it’s a common affliction of mainstream cinema, it does bother me when a film assumes that its viewers are such sociopaths that they can’t interpret human emotion on their own.

Visually the film at least delivers, with plenty of opulent sets and explosions to keep most viewers happy. Thankfully, Anderson also knows that 3D doesn’t just mean stuff flying out of the screen. The 3D is subtle and inoffensive, largely being used to add depth rather than assault the corneas.

The film is not completely devoid of fun, but the sheer level of ridiculousness you need to accept to gain access to that fun was usually beyond the capacity of this viewer. Should have gone with my gut and seen Contagion instead.

'Cowboys AND Aliens' - a concept that should have suceeded

So, I’d been looking forward to Cowboys & Aliens since I saw the first trailers months ago. I was excited for a number of reasons, primarily:

1. cowboys

2. aliens.

3. Harrison Ford

When I went to see the movie last Tuesday, I felt like I was determined to not be disappointed. Every time disappointment threatened it was like a voice in my head would pipe up “but there’s cowboys AND aliens” to repel disappointment. There’s no doubt that this is the ultimate high concept film. And although overall I still didn’t mind the film, looking back now I’m starting to wonder whether cowboys and aliens was all that Cowboys & Aliens had to offer.

The story itself was just that little bit too predictable. The characters were a little shallow and their personal journeys within the film were pretty easy to plot out. Few of the characters showed any development by the end, and those that did seemed to develop as a spontaneous phenomenon rather than in response to the conflict they’d faced. What’s more, despite my excitement for Harrison Ford he failed to wow me. I spent the whole film thinking “Harrison Ford got really old and has made enough money that he no longer has to put effort into his acting”. Massive disappointment for this fan.

I could forgive the predictability of the story if the film had been a little cleverer in terms of structure. The first hour of the film is structurally your standard western. Replace the word “aliens” with “Indians” in the story outline and the film could easily have been The Searchers, the film that convinced this cinephile to love westerns in the first place. But the latter half of the film dragged, with action sequences clearly intended to draw in the lowest common denominator clouding what could have been an interesting modern interpretation of the western.

Though I loved picking up on the references to Alien and Star Wars (amongst many others), I feel the use of such intertextuality was a bit heavy handed, paying homage to such films without really adding much to the subtext of the film.

Maybe this blog is a bit harsher than I intended it, but it seems as though Cowboys & Aliens is one of those movies that disappoints me a lot more when I think about it in retrospect than it did at the time.