I’m pretty sure at least everyone I know has been telling me for the last year or two that I should read The Hunger Games, a 2008 young adult novel by author Suzanne Collins that hasn’t quite reached Twilight or Harry Potter heights of fan-fueled hysteria yet but is getting close. And so, on the eve of the release of the theatrical adaptation, I did.
And, I’ll be honest, that might have ruined the movie for me.
See, the tricky thing here is that the film, much like the book, is grossly compelling (in the most literal sense possible). The story is of a ruthless political system that forces children into violent, fatal combat against each other. It doesn’t get much more horror show than that. And, while a little soft on the gory bits, the film captures the essence of the story and turns out to be an emotional tale of survival and love. It’s a good movie.
But it’s not as good as the book. And, having read the book, it’s hard not to judge against that very high standard.
In the story department, not much is changed. In a future North America, a dozen poor districts of the nation of Panem live under the iron-fisted rule of the rich Capitol. As toll for a past rebellion, the Capitol forces each district to annually send one boy and one girl — between the ages of 12 and 18 and chosen by lottery — to compete in the titular Hunger Games, a winner-take-all deathmatch from which only one of the 24 kids can emerge alive as the victor.
When teenage heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), an able hunter and provider for her family, sees her younger sister chosen for the games, she volunteers to take her place. Sent with her from District 12 is a baker’s boy who once showed her a kindness, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), and neither are given much shot in the contest, which is filled with other “tributes” who’ve trained their whole lives to participate in the games, which are nationally televised for entertainment.
The film gets this absolutely right. As befits a visual medium, it at times becomes the broadcast itself, with commentators, graphics, replays — all of it, including some exposition. It’s a neat trick, and an unsettling one that underscores the work’s dark theme of violence as entertainment.
But where things go wrong is in subtlety and nuance. Many of the relationships central to the narrative are abbreviated on film, such as Katniss’ hunting with handsome partner Gale (Liam Hemsworth) back home or the alliance she forms with District 11 tribute Rue (Amandla Stenberg), who gets little development. The backstory of Katniss’ family and her struggle for survival, both of which heavily influence the character, are virtually nonexistent.
Most glaring, though, is the loss of the depth that goes into the relationship between Katniss and Peeta. This isn’t just a vapid, shallow Twilight debate about whether the lead girl should fall for him or that Gale guy we barely met.
Her gratitude toward Peeta, her attempt to shut that feeling out, his espoused romantic feelings for her, all these are psychological subplots that play into the game that serves as the background for the story, because ultimately these two are supposed to kill each other. Seeing all that subjectively from a first person point of view in print builds drama. That it’s missing from the film, or at least less acute, is unfortunate.
And yet, anyone who hasn’t read the book may not notice. Anyone who has read the book will recognize how well it has been adapted in most respects (Collins co-wrote the screenplay). The film runs a whopping two and half hours, but is paced so well you’ll never realize it — just like the book. It’s cohesive, it’s engaging and it’s very impressive visually with both its scenery and its art direction. In short, there’s a lot to like about it (other than the over-used shaky cam).
There’s just more to like about the book. If I were to do it over again, I’d see the film first to appreciate all it has to offer on its own and only then pick up the source material for its greater depth.
RATING: 3.5 stars