The Hunger Games

Today I’ve been to the theaters to watch The Hunger Games.

From IMDb’s Suzanne Collins:

In a dystopian future, the totalitarian nation of Panem is divided between 12 districts and the Capitol. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal retribution for a past rebellion, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors while the citizens of Panem are required to watch.

Basically, this year’s the 74th annual games and citizens throughout the nation are selected to battle in the arena. The games are organized in retribution to the insurrection of twelve of the nation’s districts.

The movie is very Battle Royale-like, though not as gore. All in all, I give it ★★★☆☆.

Spoilers alert.

However, as the curtain fell at the end, I was angry. The movie carries a very bad message but lacks the arguments to explain why:

People need to submit to the higher power and do whatever they are told; it’s either compete in the arena or die.

There is no message of hope in the movie. No hope of change.

Basically, the nation has been punishing for 74 years straight the people that rebelled in these districts. Those people are now dead, and their children are still paying for the rebellion.

People bend down and accept the whole system instead of rebelling. The only other line of thought is to leave and run away and never return. Not to fight. Not to earn freedom.

In French, we call it “courber l’échine”. (I cannot find an appropriate translation.) We bend the spine, our most important spine, to the higher power. We give in. We submit. We bend down. We kneel before the authority.

It’d have been fine had the director chosen to show why people are so placid. But he does not. The people in there are as cattle, obedient and harmless.

It’s making me even more angry than some personae talk about not giving up, not watching the games to make the power reconsider the games, or not killing opponents to disavow the system. But the idea is not followed through.

At one time, district 11 rebels and riots. But the rebellion is quickly and recklessly broke down by the authority. No other sign of rebellious action whatsoever from there on.

Finally, the couple from district 12 wins, goes home happy and feasts with its kin. It is a complete agreement of the system. Despite the female protagonist’s feat in destabilizing and killing (albeit not directly and certainly not publicly) the director of the games, nothing has changed. For all we know, her sister could very well be selected next year.

I reckon the movie is based on a book, and I have not read it. I cannot therefore tell whether it’s the director’s choice or the writer’s original intent. I do not know either if the explanation was in the book and is missing in the movie.

It just feels like there’s a certain 1984-like resignation to endure the power’s authority, that there’s no escape. But the movie completely lacks any sign of that. No mention. Nothing.

If people haven’t given up, they should fight for freedom.

If they have, the movie should show it in some way.

Well, I think I’m running in circles here.

Make no mistakes, this movie is entertaining. But it could have been greater, better, more sensical had the director answered this concern.