Stories
My name is Dave and I am a story addict. Last night my wife and I went to see The Hunger Games, and in two minutes, I
was hooked. I loved it from start to
finish and I could see it again tonight.
I read the books and burned through them like a fire. Couldn’t put them down. Good writing, great characters, great plot
and thematic depth that yields a surprising richness of meaning.
One of the chief pleasures of my life from as early as I can
remember has been the experience of being hooked on a novel or a play or a
movie. Sometimes I feel a sort of guilt
that I care so much about these non-real characters that when I am in the middle of
their lives, I cry or laugh with joy as I read or view, but the tragedies
and joys of neighbors and friends often elicit far mere tepid emotional
responses from me. I realize this
happens because I have submitted to the world of the story and allowed myself
to be manipulated by it. But still,
sometimes it seems a bit silly to behave in such a way.
But enough of this Calvinist self-flagellation and on to the
Hunger Games movie. Wow!
First off, no novel made into a movie, in my memory, sticks as closely
to the written text as this one does. The characters seem to have jumped right
out of the book and into them movie—except perhaps the Woody Harrelson
character who was more likeable and less a drunkard than the Haymitch of the
book.
Both book and movie draw on certain archetypes and also on
earlier stories, movies and TV shows but without being imitative or stealing
from them. Often just a single line of dialogue or scene makes the connection
and perhaps some of the connections I saw were not even intended.
For starters there is “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard
Connell which has always been on my short list of all time best short stories.
(People of my generation know it because it was anthologized in a lit book used
in many high schools in the 5O’s and 60’s.) Then there’s Shirley Jackson’s “The
Lottery” evoked by the “reaping” scene. I
suppose William Goldings Lord of the
Flies must also be included because of the children fighting, though the
principle characters seem not to be infected with the blood lust of Golding’s
boys.
Several scenes suggest The
Truman Show. The opening of the
Games with the chariots suggest, perhaps Ben-Hur,
but a the very least any movie that involves human slaughter at the Roman Coliseum.
And then there are the TV shows—American Idol and Survival and The Miss America
Pageant and the Academy Awards.
When we read books and watch movies, we build a sort of
mental encyclopedia that enables us to recognize and be enriched by allusions
done well. The Hunger Games uses those allusions, sometimes to deepen our
feelings (“The Lottery” scene), sometimes to heighten the satire (the Miss
America Pageant interviews).
Enough for today.
Perhaps in a later post, a few words on the important themes.
Hi Dave! I enjoyed this post too. Sometimes if I really like a book, just out of curiousity, I will look it up on Amazon to see if others liked it as well. Then I like to read the reviews from the people who gave it one star, just to see what they had to say. A lot of the folks who gave The Hunger Games one star thought it was horribly violent, had a grusome concept, and couldn't possibly be meant for young adults. I can only assume these people couldn't see the satire and social commentary on our society today. One review of the movie I read (I haven't seen it yet) thought the movie lost a little of that sharp commentary on our current society--perhaps because they didn't want to alienate their audiences by pointing a finger at them. What do you think? I must be one of the few people left in America who hasn't seen it yet! I better get to the movies! Emily Kramer
ReplyDeleteGood question, Emily. I don't think I can distiguish between what I brought to the movie from the book and what the movie acutally said--so my answer is I don't know but I think the movie does get at some of the satire: the skewering of our entertainment culture and also the clear distinctions between the haves and the havenots. Dave
ReplyDelete