Hollywood has a long and sad history of taking beloved properties and making horrible films, or at least, horrible adaptations. This happened for many different reasons. Sometimes the original owner just wanted to make a quick buck and didn't really care what the studios did with the project. Other times the studios would probably think that the property wasn't as loved as it may have been and felt they could mold it into something more to their liking. Usually, it all stemmed from ego. How else can you explain a costume designer changing a character's costume needlessly if not because they think they can do something better or want to do something that's theirs? How else can you explain a director adding scenes of his own or subtracting or even altering a fan-favorite scene so much that it doesn't resemble the source material at all?
Ego.
Thankfully, things have gotten better over the last decade or two. I credit the internet for this. Thanks to the easily accessible availability of email, chat rooms, forums and blogs, people can make their bitching heard. I think Hollywood is both annoyed by this (in the sense that they don't want to hear the whining when they fuck up) and afraid of the organization of it. Look at the Harry Potter series and the amazing fan base that it had just from the books. If Warner Bros. had significantly messed up the first installment, there's no WAY the series would have been able to progress the way that it had while being as financially successful as it is.
It took decades for Hollywood thick-skulls to learn something they should have already known: please your built-in fan base. Why change so much about something and piss off the one thing you got going for you - the fans? Obviously if you're telling a story that's already loved by so many there is something THERE for all to love. Give that story the respect it deserves and you will be opening that SOMETHING to a wider audience who will then embrace it and love it just as much as the fans that were already there.
This brings us to the Hunger Games which remains an extremely faithful adaptation. But it's not without it's flaws.
If you don't know by now, the Hunger Games is the first installment in a trilogy of books that takes place in a far-future dystopian North America. The country that exists there now is called Panem. It's broken up into 12 Districts and every year each district must send one boy and one girl between the ages of 12-18 to fight in an outdoor arena until only one remains. The story revolves around Katniss Everdeen, a young girl who lives in the poorest District of Panem. For some time she has had to scrape out a living for her family by hunting in illegal woods since her father died and her mother has become somewhat catatonic. When her younger sister is selected for the Hunger Games, Katniss volunteers in her place and the rest is the film and/or book.
I could write a TON about this story and what makes it so good. And I've written at least one article detailing why and how it should never be brought up in the same sentence or Hell, even paragraph when talking about Twilight. There are some heavy themes and deep concepts being told her. This is not fluff and soap-opera drama. This is a powerful coming-of-age story amidst depression and rebellion. It's about hope and courage. With Katniss, we have a heroine to look up to. Someone who is strong and self-reliant. She has her flaws but that only works in her favor because it makes her a real person. The concept of the Capitol as the U.S. and the poor Districts as the third-world nations of our time is weighted stuff. The people in the Capitol have it pretty good, the rest really don't, just because they're born where they are born? This is a thought we can all relate to and you cannot analyze this sort of interpretation from barmy material.
So I'm not exactly an impartial reviewer here. I hold the books in very high-esteem and it's hard for me to disconnect the film from the book. Especially because so much is done right. But before I get to that, let me explain what was wrong.
In this aspect there are really only two things I want to talk about. The first being that when you get so much right the question becomes why didn't you get EVERYTHING right. This might sound a bit spoiled or have me coming off as nit-picky. But seriously, it's like eating a meal that's great and suddenly the last few bites are bad, how does that happen? This is purely a critical problem from the perception of one having read the book, so it won't apply to you if you haven't followed the series. That's why I'll just end it with the quick notion that when you get such trivial things right but then either fuck up emotionally powerful moments or omit them entirely, it makes me feel like you tripped up. You missed the point. I'm glad the costumes and settings look great, but couldn't you have gotten a very important character's death scene PERFECT if you were going to do all the rest? This goes back to EGO...but I digress.
The second problem I had with this film, and this one is a BIGGIE, is the shaky-cam stuff. I was over the whole shaky-cam action set-piece back with the Bourne series. And that's really where this technique blew up. I get it, I totally understand it in theory. It's a great theory - DOESN'T. FUCKING. WORK. There is just no practical way to make the audience feel like they are physically in the scene. Until we have holodecks, the best way to get the audience to feel like they are in the movie is to get good performances from your actor's, have relatable material, and most importantly, let the audience see what is going on. When I can't tell what's happening or who is who in an action scene I immediately lose interest...as does most if not all the audience. If I can't tell what's going on why would I care? Because you're shaking the camera to make me feel like I'm there? 'Fraid not, just looks like you're shaking the camera like an asshat and shit is blurry. I know there are some people out there who would try to defend this technique, but it's rank amateur directing. Sorry, it is. It's a director that is overcompensating for something. Probably his lack of faith in himself to shoot a proper action sequence.
I was so upset about this aspect of the film that the thought has crossed my mind that if Gary Ross directs the second installment of this series (called Catching Fire), I might have to bow out.
So with the bad stuff out of the way...what was done right?
Well first off, I felt the casting was pitch-perfect from start to finish. I especially loved the inspired casting of Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. He truly embodied the character and the quiet charm and reserve that he holds along with his relationship with Katniss was very wonderfully transplanted onto the screen.
The music was good, and the visuals and characterization were spot-on. The world that was brought to life here was rich, interesting and beautiful - even when things were not so bright, shiny, and happy. Yes, done right, the gloom can be beautiful. Tim Burton made his career out of that idea.
Most importantly, and this is another long-winded part, the movie captured the essence of the book. This is something that is very hard to do and it does not like to be detailed, analyzed and/or discussed. It is something that lacks a formal explanation. It's a feeling. The soul of this story/book exists within this movie, and that is an amazing thing. In many ways, I feel that often I wouldn't mind a movie screwing over a book so much as long as it captured the spirit of the story. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for extremely faithful adaptations (of almost everything), but on the flip side, you can have a strong adaptation that lacks the soul of the book (I'm looking at you David Yates directed Harry Potter movies) and that's almost as jarring as the movie that lacks the soul AND the proper content.
Overall, I enjoyed the movie, and I think most everyone will. Those who have read the books will have mixed feelings but will generally love it. Those who haven't read the books will probably love it even more than the rest of us...until they read the books.
Maybe I am acting a bit spoiled. After all, I can remember a time in film history when Katniss would've been made a 30 year-old man and the Hunger Games would've been a life-sized strategic-board game like Battleship or some stupid shit. The movie would be full of weird techno music and Madonna would have song some stupid theme song that gave her a pointless cameo. David Bowie would have been President Snow (yes, with his Labyrinth cod-piece) and Muppets would've been the Muttations. Wait a minute, that last part doesn't sound so bad.
It's possible I just want to have my cake and eat it too, but I really don't think it's asking for too much to have a seriously powerful moment that a lot of things hinge on done right for the film when you're getting a character's eyelid make-up color perfect. Cinna wears gold make-up on his eyes. Sure they got this, but missed some of the important stuff. The non-readers won't notice this...but I did.
And, naw, I don't think I'm being unreasonable.
8 / 10
No comments:
Post a Comment