The short answer: Well, it was good. But…
And, of course, the long one:
The Hunger Games opened in theaters across the nation tonight. While my excitement to see the adaptation wasn't quite enough to lead me into a teenage-filled theater on a work night, I was eager to see how Suzanne Collins' first-person dystopian novel would translate to the big screen.
As a story, The Hunger Games is action-packed and shocking enough to make for a captivating film. But part of what makes the books so appealing to readers is the first person narrative, which allows readers to place themselves in Katniss' shoes. However close to the books as the movie may be, it won't be able to completely capture the raw emotion of a first person telling of the story.
The fast paced nature of the book, which leads readers on from cliffhanger to cliffhanger, may be lost in the film. Part of what makes The Hunger Games a book you just can't put down is Collins' tendency to leave you with a shocking cliffhanger just when you thought you were approaching "a good stopping point." And the next thing you know, it’s five a.m. and you realize you've devoured the entire book over one weekend. Movies are always limited to that two-hour period, so no matter what, it's going to end quickly. But when you finish a whole book in a short amount of time, there's a rush you get, a daze of emotions as the words bounce around in your head and the imagined scenes replay in your mind's eye.
Whenever I saw a preview for one of the Harry Potter movies, I'd get this magical feeling of excitement. Maybe it was the familiar refrain of John Williams' score as the Harry Potter logo flashed across the screen, maybe they just had better commercial editors. But The Hunger Games previews made me apprehensive. I still can't get over that--however good an actress she may be--Jennifer Lawrence just does not look like Katniss. She's too old. Something's missing, it's just not quite right. (But more on that later.)
Last night, I was hopeful that the movie would prove me wrong and would blow me away. I wanted it to. But with a story this brutal and this raw, I was worried about how Hollywood would water it down.
And water it down they did.
There are just some things you can’t portray with a movie, because a camera will always be a third-person perspective. Even if you shoot from the “eyes” of a character, you never get their thoughts or feelings without clumsy voiceover. Katniss’ logic is only something we can guess at when watching her on screen, and on that note, much of the subtext and Katniss’ own confusion about her feelings towards Peeta is completely lost in the film—to my overwhelming disappointment.
Overall, the movie was incredibly slow. I’m not sure how audiences will feel about that because it lacks the traditional action-packed Hollywood punch that movies like The Pirates of the Caribbean have. It’s slow and deliberate, which does a good job to set the mood and atmosphere of the world, but seems like it’s on the opposite end of the spectrum from the tone of the book.
Because it wasn't in first person, a lot of things had to be explained differently, like how the tracker jackers worked. After awhile, a friend thought that these explanation scenes were awkward and interrupted the flow of the action sequences. I do agree with that judgment, but neither of us could think of a better solution.
Ultimately, my conclusion is this: as with any recent book adaptation, the movies are more "supplemental". The books are always going to be better, and you'll get a much better understanding from them, as well as more interesting subtlety and complexity. There are some things a movie just cannot do.
Yes, go see it. You will probably enjoy it, because, in general, it's good. But it's not great.
~
Hungry for more about The Hunger Games? Check out the posts below!
~
Hungry for more about The Hunger Games? Check out the posts below!
No comments:
Post a Comment