The Hunger Games: Book vs. Movie

Movies and Books: The Hunger Games

**Warning: This post contains spoilers about both the book and movie adaptation of The Hunger Games! Proceed with caution!**

We say it so often that it's become a cliche: "I enjoyed the movie, but the book was so much better!"

Although books and movies each have their own set of pros and cons, we can't help but be disappointed when we feel that the movie adaptation of a beloved book fails to live up to our expectations (though that rarely stops us from excitedly buying tickets to the movie anyway!).

Suzanne Collins' hit series The Hunger Games is perhaps the best loved young adult series this side of Twilight. The film adaptation of the first in the series broke records this weekend, raking in over $150 million dollars in the United States. Below, I break down the differences between the book and the movie to show each medium's advantages and disadvantages. Once again, this post is rife with spoilers!

Life in District 12

Book: Collins spends a significant portion of the first third of the book detailing the coal-rich, impoverished district that is Katniss Everdeen's home. The griminess and starvation of the majority of the residents is palpable on the page, and Collins takes her time describing Katniss' daily life: her relationship with her mother and sister, her friendship with fellow hunter Gale, her illicit trading at The Hob, and the differences between the wealthier residents of District 12 and the starving poor.

Movie: The film envisions District 12 as similar to Depression Era United States: women in plain, practical dresses, men going off the coal mine, etc. And although the film conveys the poverty of District 12, I didn't get the sense of absolute desperation that I got from the books--the fact that an illness or injury that leaves you unable to work might mean imminent starvation for your entire family. Seeing District 12 onscreen was thrilling, no doubt, but it was surely whitewashed from the horrors conjured up by Collins.

Point: Book

Katniss' Thoughts and Psychological Process

Book: The book is written from Katniss' point of view, which gives the reader plenty of insight into her thoughts and feelings. We see everything from her growing anger at The Capitol over the indignity of the Games, to her mixed feelings toward Peeta. In the book, for example, Katniss believes Peeta's romantic feelings for her are entirely a strategy for winning sponsors and thus, the Games. Her feelings toward Peeta change and evolve over the book, ranging from annoyance, to distrust, to betrayal, to affection.

Movie: The filmmakers wisely stay away from using voice overs (I am not a fan of voice overs in movies generally) to convey Katniss' thoughts. Instead, the movie focuses on action and plot points, rather than Katniss' psychological state at any given moment. This definitely takes something away from the emotional experience of reading the books and seeing Katniss transform. However, Jennifer Lawrence, who plays Katniss in the movie, does an excellent job of conveying terror, suspicion, and in some cases, love (especially for little Rue).

Point: Book, although the film is definitely helped by Lawrence's excellent performance.

Secondary Characters

Book: Although Katniss and Peeta are the main characters, Collins' novel is filled with colorful (literally!) supporting characters, such as drunken mentor Haymitch Abernathy, perky District 12 escort Effie Trinket, and TV personality Caesar Flickerman. The supporting characters often provide comic relief in the book, and either serve as mentors and helpers to Katniss, or, in the case of the other Tributes, adversaries.

Movie: This is one area where the movie really succeeded. The supporting characters in the film adaptation are perfectly cast and light up the screen. I was especially impressed by Stanley Tucci's performance as the gregarious Caesar Flickerman and Lenny Kravitz's (yes, him!) performance as Katniss' wonderful, warm stylist Cinna. The supporting characters are excellent foils to Katniss and Peeta (who, being from District 12 and in constant danger of dying during the Games, are often introverted and grave). They bring humor, color, and fun to an otherwise (understandably) grim tale.

Point: Movie

The Actual Hunger Games 

Book: One thing the book dwells on is how hungry and thirsty Katniss is and how much time she spends looking for food during the Games. This detail is taken for granted in the film, which focuses on more exciting (and violent) action sequences. But the suffering Katniss endures during the Games is so much more intense in the books. Additionally, the descriptions of the terrifying obstacles the Gamemakers place in the Games, such as the Tracker Jacker wasps and the Muttations at the very end are so much scarier in the book than on the silver screen.

Movie: The film faithfully adapts all the major deaths and occurrences from the Hunger Games, from Rue's death to Katniss blowing up the other Tributes' food. But even on the big screen the terror and excitement I felt while reading the book was never fully replicated. This is especially true at the end when Katniss, Peeta, and Cato are chased by the Muttations. In the book, these werewolf-like creatures are genetically engineered to resemble the fallen Tributes, making the attack all the more psychologically horrifying. In the film, they're still scary, but not quite to the same extent.

Point: Book

Take away: The Hunger Games movie is a great film and is very faithful to Collins' novel. I will definitely see the second and third movies when they come out and am looking forward to seeing Katniss' budding revolutionary tendencies and love triangle with Gale and Peeta unfold on the big screen. However, there is no substitute for the power of imagination while reading a novel. On the page, everything was more intense: sadder, gorier, grimier, scarier, more emotional. While the film is entertaining and fun, Collins' dystopic novel (the first in a trilogy) is the far more satisfying pop culture snack.

Movie: 3.5 out of 5 stars

Book: 4.5 out of 5 stars

Some Stuff I've Seen Lately

Movies: It, Wanderlust, A Separation, Pariah

It seems that I've gotten way behind on my movie reviewing and so here is a Reader's Digest Condensed version of my takes on a few movies I've watched over the past couple weeks.

Pariah


Pariah, directed by former Nashvillian Dee Rees, is a coming of age tale from a unique perspective: a black, middle-class lesbian teen. Although Alike (wonderfully played by Adepero Oduye) is black, Pariah could have just as easily been about a white teenager. The focus of the film is on Alike's sexuality and familial/friend/romantic relationships--not her race. Some have called Pariah "the gay Precious", referring to Lee Daniel's devastating film about a poor, black girl who is illiterate, abused by her mom, and pregnant (a second time) with her father's baby. Honestly? I find the comparison confusing at best and racist at worst. The only thing the two films have in common is that the lead characters are both black teen girls. But Alike in Pariah is downright privileged compared to Precious. She lives in a comfortable, middle-class home. Dad is very distant, but clearly loves Alike and her sister, Sharonda. Mom is religious and strict, but mostly just confused and concerned about her older daughter's secretive ways and fondness for unfeminine clothing. Alike is surrounded by a loving support system: her sister knows she's gay and accepts her; her English teacher encourages her writing (Alike is a talented poet); her best friend Laura introduces her to a women-only strip club and tries to get her a girlfriend.

Pariah is not so much a movie about oppression and unending suffering as it is about figuring out who you are--authentically--despite external pressures to behave in a certain way. Even when Alike's mom freaks out when she finds out the truth about Alike (a truth she probably already knew, but refused to admit to herself), there is still love, hope, and a better future for Alike. Pariah is a very modern and refreshing take on coming out of the closet as a gay teen. Being gay today does not automatically mean you will be a hated outcast. Although Alike faces difficult challenges in her quest to understand her sexuality, she is the embodiment of the popular gay rights slogan "It gets better".

4 out of 5 stars

***


A Separation


This year, A Separation was honored with the Best Foreign Film award at the Oscars, and man was it deserving of the prize! A Separation is easily one of the best films I've seen in 2012 so far. One reason I found it so appealing is that, despite its subject matter, A Separation does not wallow in melodrama. It's subtle, humorous, and captures the small choices that impact our lives in big ways.

A Separation follows an modern Iranian family. Simin wants to move abroad so that her 11-year-old daughter, Termeh, will have more opportunities in life. Simin's husband, Nader, doesn't want to move because his elderly father is suffering from Alzheimer's. From the get-go we sympathize with both Nader and Simin--both have selfless reasons for wanting to stay or move. Simin asks Nader for a divorce, which he refuses to grant. Instead, she moves to her mother's house, forcing Nader to hire a devoutly religious woman, Razieh, to clean and take care of his father while Nader is at work. Because of Razieh's religious beliefs, she finds it morally difficult to tend to Nader's father without another man present. Also, Razieh is hiding a secret that interferes with her work at Nader's home, and her neglect of her duties leads to a string of unintended consequences that affect everyone involved.


The previews of A Separation made the film look like a big, dramatic bummer; so I was pleasantly surprised at the levity director Ashgar Farhadi injects into the movie. Even during tense moments, a character usually rolls his or her eyes or says something darkly comic that relieves a bit of the tension. And even though all the characters (some more than others) have negative personality quirks and behaviors (for example, Nader has a tendency to emotionally manipulate his daughter), no one is a villain or a monster. Everyone in the movie is trying to do what they think is best under a certain set of constraining  circumstances.

A Separation is worth watching twice (at least): once for the plot twists and a second time for the wonderful acting. It's an excellent film about the drama of everyday life.

5 out of 5 stars

***



Wanderlust


From the minds of David Wain and Ken Marino--two comedians known for their work on the short-lived sketch comedy series The State, as well as cult films Wet Hot American Summer and The Ten--comes Wanderlust, a pretty good comedy about a couple of over-worked Mahattanites, George and Linda (Paul Rudd and Jennifer Aniston), who in the wake of  an unexpected job loss move to George's brother's home in Atlanta. Along the way, the couple spends the night at a bed and breakfast in Elysium--a hippie commune in rural Georgia--and have their minds blown by the free love/no personal property/tons of pot and alcohol way of living there. After George has a fight with his alphahole brother, the two decide to stay at Elysium for a few weeks and see if they want to to move there permanently. During their stay, control freak Linda begins to love the forcibly low stress way of living at the commune, whereas open-minded George begins to resent the ladies man leader of Elysium, Seth (Justin Theroux, excellent at portraying an alpha male in a supposedly hierarchy-less community). George and Linda's trip down the hippie rabbit hole threatens to tear their relationship apart.

Wanderlust is one of those movies--similar to Crazy, Stupid, Love--that I enjoyed a lot but didn't think was particularly earth-shattering. Rudd and Aniston are a great comedic team: they're both "straight men" who slip easily into silly, absurdist comedy (see Aniston's hilarious drug freakout in this movie). Wanderlust is also blessed with a funny and competent supporting cast, including Alan Alda as the elderly man who founded Elysium (along with a handful of fellow hippies he is compelled to list every time the subject comes up) and Malin Akerman, Kathryn Hahn, and Kerri Kenney as the women of the commune whose personalities range from horny to irate to flighty.

Many of the jokes in Wanderlust try too hard or go on a bit too long to the point where they aren't that funny anymore. Take Ken Marino's portrayal of George's asshole brother, Rick. Marino plays Rick so intensely, that he comes off an abusive psychopath instead of just a raging dude-bro jerk. In a movie that's not explicitly absurdist and weird (as Wet Hot American Summer was), Marino's performance seems out of place.

But other than a few jokes that fall flat, Wanderlust is a goofy, entertaining film that is refreshingly feel good (the hippies would approve).

3.75 out of 5 stars

***


It


If you enjoyed The Artist and are intrigued by the silent film era, I highly recommend checking out the 1927 comedy It (no, not that movie where Tim Curry plays the scary clown...) starring Clara Bow. Based on the concept of "It"--a mix of charm, sex appeal, and a sense of glamour and fun--created by writer Elinor Glyn, It follows the trials and tribulations of one Betty Lou Spence (Bow), a shopgirl who is hot for her new boss. Betty Lou schemes her way into her boss's heart by using other men to get to him, lying, and playing coy. Sounds like a catch, right? But you have to forgive the girl--she's just so bursting with "It" that she cannot contain her mischievous and naughty ways! I described Betty Lou as the Zooey Deschanel of the 1920's--especially during a scene where she and her roommate take scissors to her dowdy work dress to create a sexy cocktail dress she wears on a date. So quirky! So cute! So charmingly daft! By god, she's got IT (as the intertitles and actors inform us numerous times).

Despite It being a light little trifle, the film is pretty funny and enjoyable. Whether you are a lover of silent cinema, or a newb who wants to learn more about silent movies, It is worth checking out.

3.75 out of 5 stars

Violence Begins in the Home

Movies: The Woman

Caution: There will be spoilers!

The Woman, directed by Lucky McKee, is a horror movie where the supposed villain turns out to be the one who saves the day, and the so-called "victims" are the true monsters.

In the grand tradition of horror cinema, The Woman is not merely a scary movie: it is a commentary about some aspect of our society seen through the exaggerated lens of gore and violence. In this case, The Woman takes on domestic abuse, what it means to be "civilized", and the patriarchy and shows (with a complete lack of subtlety, as is common in horror films) that the real monsters of the world don't hide in caves or cellars, waiting to jump out at us: instead, they walk among us in the form of rapists, abusers, and those wishing to control and manipulate us.

In The Woman, Chris Cleek--attorney, husband, and father--goes hunting and discovers a feral woman (Pollyanna McIntosh) living in the woods on his property. He captures her, chains her in his cellar, and informs his family that they are all going to participate in the woman's "civilization". It becomes clear that Chris (and his son, Brian, who eagerly follows in his dad's abusive footsteps) is the one who needs to be tamed. Chris Cleek appears to the outside world to be a handsome, goofy, normal guy--maybe with a few alpha male tendencies, but overall a decent guy. Behind closed doors, however, Chris beats his meek wife (played by the lovely Angela Bettis) and controls his children with an iron fist. His attempts to civilize the feral woman include beating her, starving her, and raping her. In time, his son begins to get in on the torture, and that's when things really hit the fan.

The climax of The Woman contain a few twists--including a very bizarre one involving one of the Cleek's daughters--while still being pretty predictable. Of course, Chris Cleek gets what's coming to him when the feral woman finally gets loose. It's pretty gory, but not as disturbing as what Chris puts his captive through.

Some who have see this movie claim that it's some kind of feminazi man-hating propaganda because the film portrays Chris Cleek as a misogynist sociopath who beats, rapes, and controls the women in his family as he sees fit (and in one disturbing scene tells his daughter that a woman's [every woman's] job is to sexually service men), while the women in the film are either the victims of Chris or the avengers. The film could indeed be read as a warning against men (who represent civilization) who feel that they have the right and the duty to control women (representing nature). And I kinda dig that--especially these days, given how the whole birth control and abortion war is playing out on the political stage. But in the end, I thinkMcKee wanted to make a film that, above all, questions what it means to be "civilized". Just because Chris puts on nice clothes and goes to a good job every day doesn't make him less of an animal underneath. And, conversely, just because the woman snarls, bites, and bares her teeth doesn't mean she commits violence without reason: in the end, she only kills those who have harmed her, and leaves those who helped her alone. The feral woman has more principles than her supposedly more evolved captor.

So if you're in the mood for a cathartic feminist exploitation picture (and who isn't!?) in which men who hurt women are violently punished--but don't want to sit through The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo again--The Woman is a good bet. Again, it's about as subtle as a sledgehammer, but who sees horror films for their subtlety?

4 out of 5 stars

And God Created Woman

Movies: Crazy Horse

The documentary Crazy Horse, about the upscale cabaret in Paris, felt a bit schizophrenic to me. It vacillates between genuinely erotic and breathtakingly dull. Not to sound prurient, but the scenes that feature dance numbers/stripteases--very artistically done by extremely talented women--are so beautiful and revel so joyously in the wonder that is the female form, that the rest of the movie (showing the backstage preparations and arguments over things like costumes and lighting) is downright boring in comparison.


Director Frederick Wiseman fails to give the audience some kind of narrative--anything, really, to give us a reason (beyond T&A) to watch this movie. Most documentaries aim to capture their subject(s) in a series of candid moments in order to make it obvious that we are not watching something scripted. However, even documentaries with the most mundane or obscure subjects are typically edited in such a way to give the audience something to grasp on to. Think of the rivalry between Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell in The King of Kong. It's a movie about Donkey Kong champions--an absurdly specific and silly subject--and yet, dammit, you want that jerk Billy Mitchell to get his just desserts! There is a clear hero and villain in that film, and it gives the audience someone to root for and someone to root against.

Some documentaries don't have a hero or a villain, or even a complex narrative, and yet still manage to fascinate the viewer. The documentary Hell House, about Christian "haunted houses" that are created to teach locals about sin and hell, manages to maintain a pretty neutral stance despite its potentially controversial subject. But because the director picked such a fascinating topic and all the people interviewed are articulate, funny, and interesting, Hell House is very compelling despite its simple narrative.

Sadly, Crazy Horse blows its potential to be an interesting film. It relies heavily on featuring nude dance numbers (which, to be fair, are pretty amazing) and slacks on telling any kind of story. The director has a tendency to focus on the most annoying, motormouthed behind-the-scenes people, such as the artistic director  and costume designer who both seem to be able to talk nonstop for hours at a time while saying absolutely nothing of importance. I would rather have heard from the dancers themselves--who, based on what we see in this documentary, are treated as little more than legs, boobs, and booties that need to fit a particular "look", despite the fact that these body parts are attached to extraordinarily talented women who are less strippers and more professional dancers.

The feminist in me saw Crazy Horse as fertile ground for discussion of mainstream views of female beauty, bodies, sexuality, and empowerment. The movie-goer in me just wanted some kind of plot device to keep me from falling asleep. Sadly, with this film, we get neither.

4 stars for the dance sequences
2.5 stars for everything else