The Hunger Games - Bread and Circuses

The film version of The Hunger Games was always bound to succeed or fail based on its portrayal of Katniss Everdeen. The faithful adaptation, special effects, and the macabre spectacle of the Games were bound to impress, or at least satisfy, thanks to the strong source material and massive budget. But the movie would crumble if the audience didn't believe in Katniss. Thankfully, Jennifer Lawrence is electric. Her Katniss is earnest, compassionate, charismatic, and fierce; for me, she is the real highlight of the film. I realized that Lawrence was the ideal choice during the Reaping scene; it's featured prominently in the trailer, and for good reason. Primrose's name is called, and Katniss volunteers to take her place in the Games. Lawrence's face communicates a litany of emotions, taking us through disbelief, shock, terror, resignation, and just a bit of resistance. As she makes her way to the stage as District 12's volunteer tribute, Lawrence's performance filled me with awe and dread at her character's loyalty and acceptance of her certain death.

The Hunger Games is the current tween craze a la Twilight and Harry Potter, a publishing sensation with a plot just begging to be captured on film. But Suzanne Collins' book is morbid, brutal, and rife with cultural and political critique. Most of us know the story: in a futuristic, totalitarian nation called Panem (that's bread in Latin), the powerful Capitol subjugates its 12 defeated districts through years of hunger, poverty, and political impotency. Each year, the Capitol selects by lottery 24 teenagers from the districts to compete in a televised battle to the death, the victor to be showered with wealth. The narrative demands that we question our voyeurism, our obsession with reality television and any entertainment that allows us to witness others' emotional and physical pain while sharing the drama with a community of viewers. The novel satirizes our infatuation with violence to an absurd degree:  it forces us to watch and cheer on children as they brutally gore each other, as the spectacle is edited and packaged into compelling television.

Clearly, violence -- political, economic, physical -- is central to this story. The physical violence of the arena is the most visceral, and I was curious to see how graphic the movie would be. It was important to stick to a PG-13 rating so the book's young fans could see it, but to gloss over the brutality would be also be a disservice. The film's violence is filmed in quick, sometimes blurred shots. We see blood, and we certainly know what's going on, but the camera never ruminates long enough to seem indulgent. I wonder, though, if indulgence in violence is kind of the point. The novel satirizes our culture's bloodlust by forcing us to witness violence over and over.  

I do think the movie suffers without Katniss' narration. The novel is written concisely and urgently in Katniss' voice, offering the reader insight the movie lacks. There are a few points in the movie that lack depth or clarity, the most glaring being Katniss and Peeta's "showmance." Also notable is Rue's death. I think the director completely botches the staging, making it appear that Katniss sidesteps Marvel's spear and unwittingly allows Rue to die. (The book's description is so brief -- two sentences -- the reader has little idea how it happened.) Also, when Katniss drapes Rue's body in flowers, the film audience may not understand that Katniss' act of love was also a blatant act of rebellion against the Capitol, an intentionally provocative display to prove that the tributes can sometimes retain their humanity and respect for life.

The expanded roles of President Snow, gamemaker Seneca Crane, and Caesar Flickerman substitute for Katniss' narration, helping to elaborate on the manipulativeness of the Games, and their importance for subduing the districts. In fact, the scenes in the Capitol are mesmerizing. With one glaring exception: Katniss' costumes! Rubbish.

For more Hunger Games analysis, please read my friend LL's essay on the trilogy. I haven't read all of it (spoilers abound), but I know it's great because she is great.


(Photo credits: College Humor, Lionsgate.)

  

Top 10 Harry Potter Characters, 5-1

I'm back from the dead with my top 5 Harry Potter characters! Enjoy and share your own!

BAMF. She don't play.

5. Albus Dumbledore. I always felt safe when Dumbledore was around. He was like everyone's grandpa. But then came Deathly Hallows, and we find out he: a) practiced dark magic with Grindelwald, b) possibly killed his sister, and c) knowingly sentenced Harry to death in order to vanquish Voldemort. Ummmm, ok. So the most perfect and trustworthy wizard we know actually has a dark past? YES! Dumbledore is more fascinating for the guilt and regret that we know burdened him throughout his successful life.

4. Dobby. Dobby is not the most nuanced character, but he is my sentimental choice. Who better espouses Rowling's most cherished values of love and friendship? Dobby is driven by gratitude, loyalty, and love for Harry, risking (and losing) his life for his friends and for the cause. Few sacrificed more for the good fight.

3. Harry Potter. Not much more needs to be said about Harry. I adored little orphan Harry, I understood emo 13-year-old Harry, and I marvelled at heroic Harry. I never questioned Rowling's choices with her protagonist; his occasional arrogance and self-importance seemed normal to me, and were outweighed by innumerable acts of selflessness. I think I realized how much I cared for Harry when I read the final chapters of Deathly Hallows: when Harry walks into the forest, ready to face death with his parents at his side, I devolved into a hideous, weeping troll. I thought he was really gonna die!!!

2. Minerva McGonagall. McGonagall is a bad bitch. Maggie Smith's stern, stiff-upper-lip, Scottish schoolmarm with a heart of gold is exactly the kind of character that appeals to me. But her real bad-ass-itude doesn't show until the wizarding world is in peril. In war, the combatants get most of the glory, but it takes a convicted and steadfast soul to live a moral life and protect children in occupied territory. At the Death Eaters' Hogwarts, McGonagall is the personification of "Keep Calm and Carry On." Minerva ain't no punk.

1. Hermione Granger. To me, Hermione is the heart, soul, and brains of this saga. She began as a bookish scold, a smarty-pants who could make her classmates feel small. But we soon discovered that Hermione is deeply compassionate, clever, and loyal to a fault. Through every adventure the trio embark upon, Hermione saves their asses every. single. time. Think about it: the potions in Philosopher's Stone, the time-turner in Azkaban, and the numerous times she knows a spell the boys don't. She's even their moral compass. I'll admit that I have a weakness for the smart girl; let's call it a Lisa Simpson complex. But Hermione is truly a compelling character, because she's not just the brilliant saving grace of the HP trio, but she's an insecure, brave, arrogant, annoying, and loving woman who kind of saves the whole damn world.

Honorable mentions: Sirius Black, Tom Riddle, Remus Lupin, Luna Lovegood. 

My Top 10 Harry Potter Characters, 10-6

War heroes, Hogwarts glitterati, fashion-forward wizards.

I came to Harry Potter late. I somehow avoided the hype throughout my teen years, finally relenting at 24. As we've heard many times before, I was initially sceptical that these too-long children`s books could hold my interest. I was an English major, after all, and our lot is prone to snobbery. I was accustomed to Austen, Spenser, and Joyce, not some fantasy series adapted into blockbuster movies. I amended my judgement as soon as I read the first chapter of Philosopher's Stone: the Dursleys, the cupboard under the stairs, the owls, and the orphaned boy who would become our hero. I was captivated.

Now that I've read all seven novels -- most of them twice -- I am a devout Harry Potter fan. I think Rowling's great strength as a writer is her ability to write sensitive, credible characters. Say what you will about her shortcomings: the 50 pages of expository dialogue at the end of every novel; the misguided liberal hogwash that was SPEW; the frequent deployment of deus ex machina, which solves story lines with convenient plot devices and rule changes. (The latter never bothered me too much, except for the crux of Goblet of Fire, when we discover that the villain impersonating Moody is Barty Crouch, Jr ...... who?.) 

But Rowling can write a damn good character. I think the key is that Rowling rarely indulges in cheap, Disney sentimentalism; rather, an English sense of restraint and moral ambiguity pervades the novels. The series' best characters stumble through moral grey areas. This is how Rowling most clearly shows respect to her young readership: she shows us that humans -- even Dumbledore! -- make poor decisions, act selfishly, and endure crises of faith. I loved Harry's angsty adolescence, Dumbledore's sinister past, Snape's ambivalence, and Hermione`s evolution. Even when their dialogue was written simply as heavy lifting for the plot, these characters retained their humanity.

And now -- although the list is the tool of lazy writers and journalists everywhere -- I made a damn list of my 10 favorite Harry Potter characters, based mostly on the books and some on the movies and some on whether or not I like the actors. I'm no purist, k?

After some agonizing cuts, here are my top 10 favourite Harry Potter characters:

11. Narcissa Malfoy. Ok, I`m cheating. But I am so fascinated by Narcissa`s third-act about-face in Deathly Hallows. Why does she tell Voldemort that Harry`s dead? Does she sense that the war has been lost? Does she make a moral decision? Is her motivation purely selfish, her only goal to collect her son and get the hell out of there? That Rowling says almost nothing about Narcissa`s decision makes the ambiguity more potent.

10. Bellatrix Lestrange. What's not to love? She's a sycophantic, id-driven sociopath with an erotic obsession with Voldemort and an awesome bird's-nest wig. (That's actually her craigslist personals ad.) Some fans take issue with the fact that she's married but loves only Voldemort. Um, she's a mass murderer. Is adultery really her principal crime here? 

9. Molly Weasley. She is the only real maternal presence in Harry's life. She is an absolutely fearless defender of her convictions and her family. As someone with a strong and devoted mama, I am a Mrs Weasley devotee through and through.

8. Dolores Umbridge. To me, Umbridge is the series' best villain. Sure, Voldie's got the pathos, but Umbridge's evil is more terrifying, because of the quiet pleasure she derives from it. She's a cardigan-wearing, kitten-loving Eichmann, who metes out punishment with calm inhumanity. She seems to have no beliefs, aside from discipline and power. Her evil can be adapted to whatever and whomever will keep her employed. Eek.

7. Neville Longbottom. Neville is the non-Harry (the Uncanny Harry?) - a boy who lived, but not The Boy Who Lived. Neville is not burdened by legend, but instead burdened by expectations and the shadow of his shattered, but once brave, Auror parents. His journey from scared little boy to leader of Dumbledore`s Army is one of the most emotionally satisfying aspects of the series. 

6. Severus Snape. I was totally fooled by Snape, right until the end. I thought Dumbledore`s fatal flaw was his capacity to trust. Was I ever wrong. Snape is still kind of a bastard, but is capable of such deep compassion and courage that all his stankitude must be forgiven. Alan Rickman, by the way, is so masterful in the films, especially in Snape`s final montage. I most enjoy his glacial pace of speech in the final film, as if he methodically chews and spits out every word with disgust.