The Serious Games of Life and Death | Meryl Amland | Catholic World Report
Box-office hit The Hunger Games depicts the fight for freedom and dignity in a dystopian future.
One of the most popular dystopian novels in recent literature, The Hunger Games, was released this past weekend as a major motion picture. Critics are estimating the new hit could possibly generate more revenue than either Harry Potter or Twilight. The first weekend at the box office brought in $155 million, so I am willing to bet those estimates are correct. Suzanne Collins’ trilogy has captivated audiences of all ages, and the first movie is a surprisingly good adaptation of the book.
The Hunger Games is set in what we assume to be a future North America, now divided into 12 districts, known as Panem. These districts are ruled by the Capitol, where the Hunger Games—much like ancient Rome’s gladiatorial games—are held each year. One boy and one girl, between the ages of 12 and 18, are chosen at random from each district and then sent to the Capitol to fight to the death in a giant arena. Twenty-four “tributes” go in; only one can come out alive. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) lives in the impoverished District 12. When her little sister, Primrose (Willow Shields), is chosen as the female tribute for their district, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Along with the male tribute, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss must learn what it takes to survive the Hunger Games.
Those worried parents who think this is just another popular-teenage-hormone-story-competing-with-the-Twilight-books-and-now-made-into-a-movie should consider watching the movie, or better yet, reading the book. Admittedly, stories about a bunch of teenagers killing each other for reality television did not appeal to me either at first, considering such stories can be found on television already (if not quite so literally). Not even the popular Katniss-Gale-Peeta love triangle attracted me.
However, I discovered a rather more crucial theme underlying the entirety of the film: the value and dignity of human life in the face of a tyrannical government. Don’t believe me? Read on.
I can't get past that the dystopian society in which this takes place is watching for entertainment children kill each other. What should I think then about our own society, when large crowds go for entertainment to watch this movie about children killing each other?
As far as I'm concerned, the payoff you describe is sufficient to overcome such a disgusting premise.
Posted by: Howard | Friday, March 30, 2012 at 07:29 PM
Sorry, there was a major typo in my earlier post. I meant to say, "As far as I'm concerned, the payoff you describe is INsufficient to overcome such a disgusting premise."
I understand that the trajectory of many stories is that something very nasty is done to an innocent victim, but that by the end of the story the innocent victim is somehow vindicated and guilty party is punished. For a movie like this, the comeuppance would have to be pretty severe, and probably pretty disturbing in its own right. Schindler's List probably shows about the worst crimes a movie can and still end right, and even that would have ended with a foul taste had not it shown Goeth being hanged. (OK, The Passion of the Christ is in a different category. And it's not just how cruel the crime was; how explicitly it is depicted also matters.)
None of the reviews I've seen indicate that there is more than the tiniest hint of a comeuppance. More significantly, I'm not sure it is possible to set a movie right when it crosses a certain point. The fact that the murder of children is done for entertainment makes a critical difference, at least to me. Something of the same anger is awakened in me that was depicted in Ramses in The Ten Commandments when he was mourning his firstborn son and was told the Hebrews were laughing. (Ramses was in the wrong in how he reacted, but mostly he was in the wrong to listen to the poisonous words.)
Posted by: Howard | Saturday, March 31, 2012 at 02:23 PM