The Hunger Games
Reviewed by John Lobell
First, this is a discussion of the movie; I have not read the books. Second, I am going to exercise some laziness and, for those not familiar with the story line, quote from Wikipedia to get us up to speed:
“The story takes place in a dystopian post-apocalyptic future in the nation of Panem, which consists of a wealthy capitol surrounded by 12 less affluent districts. As punishment for a past rebellion against the government, the Capitol initiated the Hunger Games—a televised annual event in which one boy and one girl from each of the 12 districts are selected in a lottery as “tributes” and are required to fight to the death in an arena until there is one remaining victor. When the protagonist Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) hears her younger sister’s name called as the female tribute for their district, she volunteers to take her place in order to save her from having to participate. Joined by her district’s male tribute Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson), Katniss travels to the Capitol to train for the Hunger Games under the guidance of former victor Haymitch Abernathy (Harrelson), expressing resentment for both the Capitol and its populace for forcing her and her fellow tributes to fight to the death for their own amusement.”
So, in a dystopian future, children fight to the death for the entertainment of the populace and to provide social cohesion. And a girl is the victor. As some have noted, we have a Spartan child-raising theme, along with some Theseus and some Roman gladiators, all presented as a combination of The Truman Show and Survivor. And one more thing. The three books in the trilogy are in the top ten on Amazon’s bestseller list, and the movie is the first action movie with a female lead to break into the all-time top 200 grossing action movies, so something here has caught on, particularly with teenagers who constitute a large part of the audience for the books and the movie. What might that be?
Let’s look at what is going on in this movie. And let’s make an assumption: If a movie with an improbable premise catches on, it could be because on some level people feel that it depicts their experience.
The people in the movie, outside of the capitol, are impoverished and hungry. Few are hungry today, but many feel that they are having a hard time getting by. So there is the first touch point.
Next, young people in the movie are forced into competition. Today, we don’t even have the draft any more, but young people, forced into competition for grades, entry into college, and making the team feel more stress than we might think, and I suspect that plays a role in the success of the story.
Next, in the movie there is no hope of a better world. These kids accept their fates, train hard, fight hard, and try to bring honor to their country and their communities. As we look at the lives of those in the former Soviet Union and in former Eastern Block countries, we see how hope is rung out of people. The fact that this resonates with American kids today should warn us that there is something wrong with our own contemporary cultural and political situation.
Notice that in Total Recall, Ultra Violet, The Island, and dozens of other science fiction films, the protagonist overthrows the oppressive system and frees everyone, and in movies like Gattaca, where the oppressive system remains intact, the protagonist at least beats the system. But not here. Our two chief protagonists are able to win and live, but only within the system. They go home (presumably with more adventures to follow in sequels), but the system that suppresses, demoralizes, and ultimately enslaves its subjects, endures.
So, if this movie is reflective of the way young people feel today, how do they feel? They feel pessimistic. They feel that the government is hostile to them, and they are hopeless to change it. They feel they live in poverty brought on by a corrupt system. They are profoundly pessimistic. How could that be?
People tend to think of the world as it was when they grew up, perhaps as it was in the time of Harry Truman’s “The buck stops here,” of Eisenhower’s Interstate Highway System, of Kennedy’s vision to go to the moon, of Bush senior’s character and courage, of Reagan’s gleaming city on a hill, of Clinton’s joy of life and balanced budgets.
But what do young people who were born in the past fifteen or twenty years recall? What is their experience of our country and our government?
– A congress that funds lavish international first class travel on “fact finding” junkets for themselves and their families?
– A first family that spends half its time on luxury vacations, flying on personal his-and-hers jumbo jets?
– Washington parties catered at thousands of dollars per person?
– Fund raising dinners at $40,000 a plate?
– Government workers paid on average twice what comparable workers in the private sector are paid?
– A president who lashes out at corporate meetings in Las Vegas (often the one bright moment in the otherwise dreary day-to-day lives of many workers—one thinks of Mao enforcing dull lives on his peons while he and his family lived in luxury) while members of his administration party there with a bill to the tax payer of $822,751, and then issue coins to commemorate the event as though they were Roman emperors?
– And a government that lashes out at and seeks to silence its critics.
The Washington Examiner reports: “The Obama extravaganza two years ago for Mexican President Felipe Calderon, which included a performance by pop star Beyonce, cost $969,793, or more than $4,700 per attendee, the documents show. The Calderon dinner was held on the South Lawn in a massive tent adorned with decorated walls, hanging chandeliers, carpeting and a stage for Beyonce’s performance. Guests rode private trolley cars from the White House to the tent. Celebrity guest chef Rick Bayless from Chicago’s Topolobampo restaurant was imported to prepare Oaxacan black mole, black bean tamalon and grilled green beans.”
When Harry Truman left the White House, he took the car he owned when he arrived out of storage and drove back to Missouri. Is this stuff disgusting, or is it just me?
Peggy Noonan writes in her column in the Wall Street Journal: “Every story that has broken through the past few weeks has been about who we are as a people. And they are all disturbing.
“There is the General Services Administration scandal. An agency devoted to efficiency is outed as an agency of mindless bread-and-circuses indulgence. They had a four-day regional conference in Las Vegas, with clowns and mind readers.
“The reason the story is news, and actually upsetting, is not that a government agency wasted money. That is not news. The reason it’s news is that the people involved thought what they were doing was funny, and appropriate. In the past, bureaucratic misuse of taxpayer money was quiet. You needed investigators to find it, trace it, expose it. Now it’s a big public joke. They held an awards show. They sang songs about the perks of a government job: “Brand new computer and underground parking and a corner office. . . . Love to the taxpayer. . . . I’ll never be under OIG investigation.” At the show, the singer was made Commissioner for a Day. ‘The hotel would like to talk to you about paying for the party that was held in the commissioner’s suite last night’ the emcee said. It got a big laugh.
“On the ‘red carpet’ leading into the event, GSA chief Jeffrey Neely said: ‘I am wearing an Armani.’ One worker said, ‘I have a talent for drinking Margarita. . . . It all began with the introduction of performance measures.’ That got a big laugh too.
“All the workers looked affluent, satisfied. Only a generation ago, earnest, tidy government bureaucrats were spoofed as drudges and drones. Not anymore. Now they’re way cool. Immature, selfish and vain, but way cool.
“Their leaders didn’t even pretend to have a sense of mission and responsibility. …”
The movie does an excellent job of not only showing the luxurious lives those in government provide for them selves at the expense of the “commoners,” but the idea that the audacity to do so is in proportion to their power to intimidate any who might challenge them. We see this today as the IRS, with the power to audit its critics, spending $49 million on “conferences” for its employees (vacations commoners can only dream of) and $4.1 million on just one “conference.”
When our protagonist, Katniss leaves her impoverished coal town, where she had kept her mother and sister alive by hunting squirrels with a bow and arrows, she is escorted aboard a super train by a ridiculous overly made up fop of a woman where she sees table after table covered with rich foods. On arriving in the capital city, she encounters gleaming buildings, luxurious accommodations, and lavish meals. All funded on the backs of poor people like herself.
George Will, writing of Montgomery County, where many Washington government “workers” live, describes “Entering Montgomery County, you immediately pass Ralph Lauren, Cartier, Bulgari, Gucci, Jimmy Choo and Saks Fifth Avenue. For those who toil in the ambit of the federal government, virtue may be its own reward, but Louis Vuitton luggage isn’t to be sneezed at.”
When I was a kid my father was rather high up in the New Deal SEC. We shopped at Sears.
So, here is a thought on why The Hunger Games might resonate with today’s teenagers. It is a depiction of the world in which they live.
While I agree with your review, I would like add a few thoughts to it.
It seems to me that this is yet another in a long series of recent movies that share the same general motif, and that is the slaying of the dragonslayer, just like in that dream that Jung once dreamt, in which he and the savage man slew Siegfried, the dragonslayer, by hurling their primitive weapons at him. It also goes back to Nietzche’s essay, The Birth of Tragedy, in which he elaborated on how the Apollonian ideal gradually replaced the Dionysian one, and eventually built around itself a civilisation based on its own image. The intellect achieved dominion over the irrational, spontaneous, chaotic aspect of life by repressing it and marking it as taboo, the dragon which represents the indomitable, wild nature of man, and of the world itself, was downgraded from a deity to fiend, forced to dwell in some remote, unattended basement of the psyche, just like the heroine in district 12, while the intellect erected ever grander monuments to itself, growing more and more complacent. The character of Donald Sutherland embodies this, he is analogous to The Architect from The Matrix, he even resembles him somewhat, the control freak, the Apollonian intellect run amok, and the decadent, fake, highly ritualized mazelike society resulting from it. And just like in The Matrix, there is a strong, primordial, instinctive resistance to this mathematically perfect, synthetic world, and it always comes from somebody who was able to see through its illusory nature by observing it from the outside. It is only fitting that this archetypal principle be embodied as female, the ancient War Goddess (also Manet’s painting: Luncheon on the Grass). She is personified as the Oracle, the antithesis to the Architect, and her champion Neo in The Matrix, but here, they are merged into one character, the goddess with the bow which champions herself. Lisbeth Salander from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is another excellent example of just such a heroine, the dragon tattoo on her back embodies her essence and makes it crystal clear what she represents. Her symbol in this movie is the mockingbird, which, I would assume, represents the Trickster, and the Trickster is, to quote Joseph Campbell: the power of the dynamic of the total psyche to overthrow programs. And that is just what the heroine did, the Intellect failed to establish dominion over her through its power ritual, and the Architect instantly felt threatened, for she rode in fittingly wearing a dress of flames, flames which could easily grow into an uncontrollable wildfire. Now, I haven’t read the books either, but I assume that her actions eventually lead to a massive rebellion in which the people rise up to overthrow the oppressive government and bring the balance to the Force and all that, which would be the logical conclusion of this myth.
Another figure which is not to be overlooked is her drunken mentor, Haymitch. He can be said to represent Dionysus himself, the drunken god. He too is a marginalized misfit within the city, what Spangler would define as internal proletariat, someone who dwells within the society but is not part of it, a Dionysian man made small and insignificant by the Apollonian behemoth. He also reminds me of the centaur Chiron. The centaurs were in the Greek mythology known as drunken, violent beastmen, and yet, Chiron was the one who was able to control his bestial nature thus becoming the tutor of many of the greatest heroes of Greek myth.
Anyway, this is a myth I see appearing more and more often in movies and other forms of art, which would suggest that the perception of this dragonslaying mentality, which has dominated western culture for so long, as something negative which needs to be fought, and the necessity to retrieve the goddess archetype which was lost along the way, is strongly taking root in the collective subconscious of westerners, which I’m very thankful for
Your Prometheous is wonderful and well Drive is just one of those perfect movies. I have spent some time on The Hunger Games also. The Capitol is Simulated Reality not unlike Cronenberg’s Cosmopolis in the limo, and outside Simulated Reality is a dark primitive poverty grinding world. But it is clairvoyant in what Foucault and Baudrillard call our greatest danger, that of confinement and surveillance.