"The Hunger Games," the Young Adult Franchise That Ended Up Being a Very Dark Treatise on the Effects of War, Comes to Fitting Conclusion.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

The Hunger Games series has been a pleasant surprise (both the books and films) because it started out as a knockoff of Battle Royale but ended up becoming a meditation on war and revolution. The final two parts, while too blatant in their message, do not glory in the war, but rather analyze it. The first part was about propaganda, which made it interesting, if a little on the boring side. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) spent the bulk of the film as the symbol of the rebellion, which meant she filmed a bunch of promotional videos for the war, but spent very little time in the actual war. It felt like a cheat, both for the audience and for Katniss. In Part 2, however, Katniss gets involved in real war.

If Part 1 was about the effects of propaganda and symbols in war, Part 2 is about actual war. An early scene has Katniss arguing with Gale (Liam Hemsworth) about bombing a compound and the collateral damage it could cause. Katniss worries about every death since she had to kill so intimately during the Games, but Gale thinks that even people mopping the floors of a Capitol compound deserve to die. The film actually leaves it up to the viewer who is right as innocent people do die, but positive results ensue. What is notable is the fact that such an issue is brought up at all. In most films, especially young adult films, there are simply good guys and bad guys. In The Hunger Games, it’s more of a gray area. It’s important that a franchise aimed at young people contains such a debate, because war in the real world has collateral damage. But in most popular movies and videogames aimed at young people, there is none.

Despite Part 2 being a meditation on war, it is still an action movie for the most part. Director Francis Lawrence (who has helmed the series since the second film) has an eye for action, and things are kept fresh rather than letting them devolve to nothing but bombings and shootouts. The best sequence of the film is reminiscent of Lawrence’s work on I Am Legend as the heroes spend a tense night in tunnels, fleeing mutated horrors that would have been right at home in Legend (this time the CG is a bit better, though).

While there is plenty of action, the film keeps focusing on the characters’ reactions to it. Katniss is the reluctant warrior, only fighting because she must. Gale is the bold warrior, willing to do whatever it takes to end it. And Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), newly released after being tortured and brainwashed, is the damaged warrior. Peeta’s condition foreshadows nearly every major character: this rebellion will leave you damaged, but there is hope. Once again, The Hunger Games is a franchise that, for better or worse, does not shy away from the effects of violence and war. The heroes do not celebrate, even when they win.

As for that “better or worse” part, any film that wants to get big ideas across runs the risk of becoming preachy, and Part 2 definitely falls into that trap a few times. The amount of speeches about war and rebellion in this film is staggering. It seems like every five minutes someone is giving a speech to remind us what the movie is about. It makes you want to yell, “I get it! This movie is about war and its consequences!” The film, which is a bit long, probably could have shaved ten minutes off its screen time by nixing a couple of these redundant speeches. Also, just like in Part 1, characters spend too much time watching screens. It’s hard to not feel silly watching a screen featuring characters staring at a screen.

Despite these minor squabbles, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 is a fitting end to the series (which probably won’t really end and will be expanded upon within a few years). The series truly found its tone and look in the last few films, ditching the glitzy Capitol of the first two films and flooding the last films (quite literally in one scene) in darkness. The colorful world gives way to concrete and despair as the series focuses on war. Hats off to The Hunger Games series. It could have easily been fluff spoon fed to the masses of young fans, but ended up being a surprisingly dark, if not heavy handed, treatise on war and its effect on everyone.           

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 receives:

Random Thoughts - SPOILERS

I couldn't help but think about Dante and Randall's conversation about the Death Star in Clerks. Turns out Gale and the contractor have the same view of laborers for evil empires...

I don't know why Gwendolyn Christie is in this film. She has maybe two minutes of screen time. 

The treatment of Philip Seymour Hoffman was handled as deftly as possible. He's reduced to a series of reaction shots here and played up as the silent plotter behind it all. I suppose it works.

"Catching Fire" Proves That "The Hunger Games" Has More To Say Than Other YA Franchises

Directed by Francis Lawrence, written by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Jeffrey Wright, Elizabeth Banks, and Philip Seymour Hoffman - Rated PG-13

Much like the unfortunate deputy, the Capitol has no idea what's about to happen.




The first Hunger Games movie was a welcome departure from the usual young adult adaptation fluff.  Typically, a young adult (or YA) series is either skewed too specifically to its young audience (the Twilight series), or its world is too complicated, or wacky, for the non-readers (insert any of the failed YA franchises here).  The Hunger Games worked because it had something for everyone, and the setting was recognizable.  You had the love triangle business for the tweens, but you had the social satire for the adults.  Sure, the satire wasn't very subtle, but it left you with something to think about.  Plus, there was a strong cast that made you care about the characters.

Catching Fire doesn't simply continue the story of The Hunger Games, it enhances it.  The appropriately titled film (and book) takes the injustices hinted at here and there in the first installment and puts them at the forefront.  Heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) can no longer be the quiet pawn in the government’s game.  She has become a symbol, and it’s impossible for her to keep a low profile.  Because of this, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has to push Katniss back into the spotlight, so he can destroy her and any hopes for a revolution that she might represent. 

This is a fairly basic story as far as dystopian films go.  An impoverished populace must fight their rich overlords.  What makes it different is that this is not a film about planning.  Katniss is truly a game piece that each side uses, often without her knowledge.  Since she is kept in the dark, the audience is as well, for the most part.  The film diverts from the book (which is told only through Katniss’s perspective) with a few scenes with Snow and the new head Gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), but the bulk of the film is told through Katniss’s eyes.  This is important because it leaves some mystery to what could have been a very boring story.  Katniss is an unwilling symbol of freedom that needs to see firsthand the atrocities being committed throughout society.  Instead of boring secret meetings in which plans are hashed out then performed, we get to see Katniss react to the extreme poverty gap.

The Hunger Games is a series that requires you to suspend disbelief and accept that this world, in which the nation’s youth are forced to kill each other for entertainment, exists.  As a free society, the audience may find it hard to believe that humans could ever let things get so bad, but historically, it happens (some would argue it’s happening right now).  Some might think, “How is Katniss so gullible?”  But she is the product of the world she was born in.  There is no grand revolution to celebrate because it hasn’t happened yet.  In fact, it was attempted years ago, and the district that rebelled doesn’t exist anymore.  So her frame of reference for revolution is the opposite of, say, an American’s.  To Katniss, revolution means everything you know and love will be destroyed.  So it’s important for her to see the discontent firsthand.

Director Francis Lawrence, writers Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (credited as Michael DeBruyn, for some reason), and author Suzanne Collins have done a fantastic job of showing the divide.  Collins, of course, laid the groundwork, and Beaufoy and Arndt focused on the best examples, but Lawrence (no relation to star Jennifer) should get most of the credit for presenting it all in a very effective way.  He sticks with the first film’s style by following most of the characters from behind as they walk into scenes, but he has improved upon the original.  Perhaps it’s only because there was more money available, but Catching Fire simply looks better than the first film, which means that the differences between the rich of the Capitol and the suffering of the poor are that much more realistic and powerful.  The staging of most of the film in general is quite effective with the characters small in the frame and the surroundings towering around them.  It created a feeling of the world bearing down on all of these characters.

Who cares about the world bearing down if you don’t like the characters, though?  Thankfully, Catching Fire has enough talent for you to get on board with most of the characters involved.  There are some great actors involved with this, including two Academy Award winners (Jennifer Lawrence and Philip Seymour Hoffman) and two more nominees (Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci).  These four acclaimed actors are joined by returning stars Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Toby Jones, Donald Sutherland, and Liam Hemsworth, to name a few, and a few newcomers in Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, and Lynn Cohen.  The fact that there are even this many roles to be filled by recognizable actors shows that this is no throwaway movie for tweens.  Because of the size of the cast, however, most of the roles rely on screen presence alone. 

Most of the actors are given at least one scene to show off a little bit, but there’s not enough for them to do to stand out in any way.  But it is certainly nice to see the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer in small roles.  The most high profile new addition would be Philip Seymour Hoffman.  His character takes the place of Seneca Crane, aka the guy with the crazy beard, from the first film.  Hoffman looks pretty much like he does in any other movie, but he gets to play up the ruthlessness in this role.  Hoffman is perfect for any role that requires him to seem indifferent to characters around him. 

As for the returning stars, nothing much is going on with them.  Lawrence and Hutcherson both do fine in continuing their fake romance while realizing how bad things are around them.  Banks is still pretty much a walking costume, which is kind of the point with her character.  And Harrelson is still the comic relief as the constantly drunk, but wise, former victor.  If there is a slight fault to the film, it is that his character’s alcoholism is treated so lightly, but laughs are hard to come by in the bleak world of the film, so it’s not a terrible transgression.

Catching Fire, despite the love story and social commentary, is still a bit of an action film, as well.  Since the focus is more on the problems with society than it is on the titular Games, the action is pretty scant until the last hour or so.  But that last hour is filled with plenty of tense moments.  Once again, this might be because of a larger budget, but the action looked better this time around, especially the special effects.  Director Francis Lawrence has used computer effects to his detriment before (I Am Legend), but that may have been simply because the technology was not yet up to snuff.  Either way, it looks great now, as nothing in the Arena segment seemed overly fake or manufactured.

Overall, Catching Fire improves upon the original and solidifies the series as something more than the passing fad that other series were.  There are some big themes about society and life in general behind the blood and love of the story.  Will the tweens focus more on the love triangle and pick which “team” they are on?  Probably.  But for those of us who don’t care who Katniss ends up with, there is a seriously enjoyable movie beyond that love story. 

"The Master"

Written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, starring Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Laura Dern, and Rami Malek - Rated R

"If you figure out a way to live without a master, any master, be sure to let the rest of us know."

 

 

 

Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson has become one of my favorite filmmakers over the years.  Since I first watched Boogie Nights, I was hooked (it would be years before I watched his first feature, Hard Eight).  After Magnolia, I thought I had Anderson’s neo-Altman style figured out.  Then came Punch Drunk Love, which, admittedly, caught me off guard.  After a few viewings, I came to enjoy the film and accept Anderson’s true style.  His focus went from a collection of messed up characters to a singular view of one troubled man.  This style was perfected in There Will Be Blood, a movie that I consider to be among the best of all time.  Obviously, my expectations were catastrophic when I went in to see The Master.

I suppose the key question would be, “Is this better than There Will Be Blood?"  Some might think so, but I do not.  Blood left you with a lot to think about, but it was also extremely entertaining and absolutely engrossing…and it has Daniel Day-Lewis.  The Master has its moments, but as entertainment, it leaves a bit to be desired.  And it is certainly a more challenging film.  This is the type of movie that will leave nearly everyone with their own personal interpretation of the film.  I actually love movies like that, but when you stack that up against There Will Be Blood, I have to go with the latter. 

The Master is extremely intriguing, though.  I found myself very involved in the film.  It’s a difficult film to figure out, but that’s the fun part of it.  The weirdness and absurdity of it all make it worth watching.  From the strange concoctions the main character makes to the childish arguments between the two leads, I found myself disgusted and perplexed, but I also found myself laughing.  This is intentional laughter, mind you.  Joaquin Phoenix told Time that he sees the film as a comedy.  I agree to a point.  I would like to hear someone argue that the jail cell scene was not meant to elicit a few laughs, because that scene cracked me up.  So there is entertainment, it’s just a bit unexpected. 

The themes of the film lead to a bit more intellectual satisfaction.  Since the film is loosely based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, there’s a lot to go into down that road (though I think that’s the easy way out).  The bigger questions are about who or what exactly the titular master is.  Is it religion in general, conscience, women, sexuality, addiction, insanity?  The list could go on.  I don’t want to posit theories, necessarily, because I like the idea that the film could be about any of these things and then some.  Some would call that a kitchen sink approach, but it made the film infinitely fascinating to me. 

The other theory floating around out there is that Anderson is the master, and he is just playing a trick on all of us by throwing us a confusing movie with no point.  And supposedly he’s laughing at all of us internet movie nerds as we try to decipher the indecipherable.  There’s nothing wrong with that scenario, really.  In fact, I quite like the idea of Anderson laughing maniacally as he scans the IMDb message boards.  I just don’t buy it.  To each his own and all, but I think there’s a point to this movie.  Also, how could Anderson allow Joaquin Phoenix to give the performance of his career for nothing?  Not to mention Philip Seymour Hoffman’s work, or Amy Adams’s. 

The acting is an aspect of the movie that most can agree on, even if they hate the film.  Phoenix, coming off his strange (and hilarious) performance art piece I’m Still Here, is absolutely disturbing, in the best possible definition of the word, as WWII vet Freddie Quell.  It’s an award-worthy performance, and not just because he gets to hit stuff and yell a lot.  Everything, from his twisted facial expressions to his strange posture, emits a troubled soul.  It is honestly one of those performances in which you forget that you’re watching an actor; I can’t think of higher praise than that. 

Hoffman, as Lancaster Dodd, does a great job as always, of course.  He is remarkably believable as the leader of this cult/religion/movement.  It’s also great to see Hoffman team up with Anderson again after a one film hiatus.  He is outshined a bit by Phoenix, but watching these two work together is great.  Their more heated interactions were easily my favorite moments from the film. 

The supporting players do fine work, as well, most notably Amy Adams.  She is the quiet undercurrent of the film, and she deserves a lot of focus, both as a character and an actress.  I also enjoyed Rami Malek’s nervous performance and Jessie Plemons as Hoffman’s son (can you say, “perfect casting”?) made for some interesting scenes, not to mention he has the line that fuels the “Anderson is just messing with us” theory: “He’s just making it all up as he goes along.” 

The other aspect of the film that most can agree on is the fact that it is beautiful.  While this film doesn’t lend itself to grand visuals as often as Blood does, there are still some amazing shots.  In fact, the film is meant to be projected in 70MM, although I didn’t have the chance to see it in that format (not a lot of art house screenings in southern Indiana).  The point is this is certainly a visual film.  I found the images of Phoenix as a sailor at the beginning of the film to contain the most lasting imagery, but the camerawork is effective throughout. 

Another welcome element is the music of Johnny Greenwood for the score.  The work here is not as ambitious as his previous work on Blood, but it is just as effective.  When there’s a tense scene going on, Greenwood’s score definitely amps it up nearly to the point of physical discomfort.  That is a good thing, by the way. 

All of these things come together to make a very effective Paul Thomas Anderson film.  I didn’t “like” it more than There Will Be Blood, but I found myself thinking about The Master and the themes therein much more than I did after watching Blood.  When I walked out of the theater after seeing Blood, I was thinking mainly about how awesome I thought it was.  When I walked out after this film, I found myself contemplating every aspect of it.  Was I as entertained?  No.  But the film has really stuck with me.  I won’t say that this is a film that must be watched multiple times to “get it,” but I cannot wait to watch it again so I can see which theories match up.  I might even come away with something new entirely the next time I watch it.  If that’s Paul Thomas Anderson just messing with me, I’ll take it. 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I left with the impression that sexuality is the true master of the characters.  There's the hinted at homosexual attraction between Dodd and Quell, mainly on the part of Dodd, who has to be *ahem* released of his desires by his wife at one point.  That leads to the power Dodd's wife, Peggy, holds over nearly everyone.  And what about that scene in which Quell sees her eyes turn colors?  Finally, what led me to this conclusion was the bookend images of Quell with the sand lady.  Despite his journey, he is still a slave to his sexual desires.  But that's just me.

How messed up are all of those drinks he makes?  Someone in my audience actually blurted out, "Oh no!" after he took a drink of one of them. 

That childish back and forth in the jail cell is fantastic.  It was so great to see Lancaster Dodd, this man of answers, be reduced to yelling, "No one likes you but me!" 

"Synecdoche, New York"

Synecdoche, New York - Written and directed by Charlie Kaufman, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Samantha Morton, and Tom Noonan - Rated R

Where to start with this one? Synecdoche, New York is a complicated, funny, depressing, disgusting, impressive, ambitious, and beautiful film about playwright Caden Cotard (Hoffman), who may or may not be dying and his attempt to stage a play about everything that takes place in a constructed New York within a giant warehouse with people becoming characters and characters becoming people. So this is standard stuff for Charlie Kaufman (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation) but maybe not so standard for the average filmgoer. The story is much more complicated than I just put it, and looking back at my sprawling single sentence description, that's saying something. The trick is to watch this movie without trying to understand every bit of it. It's a lot like reading Shakespeare (I'm not saying this is as good as anything Shakespeare wrote, but the the best way to watch/read this film is similar to reading Shakespeare). You might come across words you don't understand in Shakespeare, but the language sounds great and if you can get the main point out of the overlong speeches, then you'll do okay. If you sit there and try to understand every word of a Shakespearean play, then you will probably not enjoy it. Same goes for Synecdoche. If you ask yourself why does this character age and this one doesn't?, or who is this new character and why is she taking up so much screentime all of a sudden?, then you will not enjoy this film. You can analyze it, but looking for some definite meaning behind it will only leave you angry. So don't just try to figure out "what's really happening" in this film, allow yourself to watch it first.

Now that my opening rant is over, let me say that I did enjoy this film. It wasn't life changing or anything and it didn't really make me evaluate my life (more on that later), but I was constantly interested and Philip Seymour Hoffman gives possibly the best performance of his career. I know he's done the whole depressed, mumbling artist before (The Savages), but I hated his character in that film. I found myself hoping for the best for Caden Cotard in this film, even though he comes across as a bit pretentious and selfish. Okay, not a bit, he is completely selfish and completely obsessed with himself. He puts on a play of his own life, then has somebody not only play him, but also play him directing him, while he watches it all. It's a fine line between ambition and selfishness, yet I enjoy watching him. And he plays an old man to perfection. It's almost creepy how much he changes throughout this film. And the performances around him are very good as well. I thought Samantha Morton was great and Tom Noonan really stood out as Caden's stalker/portrayer. Catherine Keener did a good job, but I wish she would stop playing these disconnected, miserable wives who end up being even more selfish and despicable than the disconnected husbands that she's leaving in the first place. So she was good in that I hated her character, which may not have been the point, but it created a reaction for me, so there you go.

It may seem like I haven't necessarily explained what the movie is about, so I want to point out that this film is really an examination of life in general. There may be theories of the afterlife, the subconscious, the fear of death, the awkwardness of relationships, but all of that adds up to life in general. Just listen to the characters discuss the play. When they talk about the play, they are talking about the movie. It's almost like breaking the 4th wall, but I thought it was an interesting way for the filmmaker to reach through to the audience and say, "you are all right and you are all wrong. It's about life, so it's going to be different for each living person." But the film isn't so strange that it's all about interpretation. There is a straightforward story here, but it's about more than just a play. Also, one of the strangest things is the film is a constantly burning house. This may turn some people away as being too stupid or absurd. But it is a cool and funny idea, really. And if you can accept it and continue with the movie, you'll be doing yourself a favor.

The burning house is just one of the interesting visuals. Just imagine a portion of New York City in a giant warehouse, with a second warehouse and a second NYC , and then a third. Anyway, it looks amazing when you see a New York skyline with a warehouse roof above it. It's massive and impressive, without being too showy. Obviously this is not an effects driven movie, but it does contain some impressive visuals that are there for the story, not vice versa.


Now on to Kaufman himself. I'm not sure if I really like his work. It's all interesting, but sometimes it comes off as being complicated for the sake of being weird. I didn't get that feeling with this film. It might be because he directed this one. It's his first directorial effort and that might be the most impressive aspect of it; that he would attempt such a complicated film for his debut. I don't think he'll match this film, but his directing career is certainly going to be interesting.

I had to wait on DVD for this (since I think it expanded to a total of 50 theaters before it was pulled) and I checked out a few special features. There's a behind the scenes type thing that covers multiple aspects of the making of the film. A featurette with Hoffman talking about his character which I turned off because it was late when I watched it and it was about to put me to sleep. There's a conversation with Kaufman and some British guy that I did fall asleep during because the British guy didn't seem to know how to talk to Kaufman. But there is one interesting feature, a five-person conversation about the film with five critics/bloggers. It's interesting and a must-see if you want to know about some of the philosophical references (which I completely missed because I'm just not into philosophy, which might be a philosophy all it's own...). Apparently Caden's last name of Cotard refers to a syndrome in which a person believes that he/she is dead, dying, or missing/losing organs. There's a few more, but you're better off watching the feature for yourself. Just make sure you have a dictionary handy, these guys are pretty uppity and love to throw out references to obscure films and they love to use words that nobody uses in everyday language. But there's good information in their conversation, even though I think their emotional reactions to the film are exaggerated; one guy claims he must drink after watching the movie, one claimed that he went into a two week depression after watching it, and at least three of them admitted to weeping either during or after the film. Maybe these critics are much more in touch with their emotions than I am, but I think the majority of the people out there are not going to be that changed by this film. It is just a movie after all. The critics also claimed that this film will cause you to examine yourself more than the film. I have to disagree. I was able to look at the film for what it was, not as a referendum on me, personally. Sure, I can relate to aspects of it, but you know what? I can relate to aspects of Transformers, but we don't mention reactions to movies like that. I'm sorry, but Synecdoche, New York and movies like Transformers do have something in common, they're movies and they are meant to entertain. So ignore some of the more pretentious critics of this film and remember that it is not an essay on philosophy and it's not a pyschological exam made just for you. It's a movie, enjoy it.

Few more things: There's a podcast called the Slash Filmcast (you can find it on iTunes or at http://www.slashfilm.com/) that recently reviewed Watchmen along with Kevin Smith. It's lengthy and they talk about almost everything that I wanted to talk about with it, so check that out if you want more Watchmen stuff. And check it out if you like movies in general, because those guys are by far the best of all the movie podcasts out there. They don't just agree with each other, like most podcasts, they have actual conversations. And they are going to do a show on Synecdoche, New York soon and it will certainly be interesting, with many different interpretations.

Almost forgot, if you're wondering about the title, it's part a play on words because the film takes place in or near Schenectady, New York. And the word synecdoche itself is a figure of speech that uses a part of something to refer to the whole (i.e. faces in the crowd referring to complete people) or vice versa. Look up some more examples if mine doesn't make sense. But the point is that the play he's putting on is a part of life referring to life in general, but sense it's a play, it's really not life...or maybe not. That's what I gathered from it, though. But everyone's different.


Next: Happy-Go-Lucky, possibly a retro review of RoboCop, and I might check out Knowing.