The biggest departure does away with the first-person POV and takes a more third-person omniscient perspective. This allows for the film to explain certain things that aren't explained verbally in the book. Another major departure, most likely due to the new POV, is the various different characters explored in the film.
In the book, it is almost 100% Katniss' story, but in the film, we are given more of characters like, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), and Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley). While some purists will say that changing the POV was a bad thing, it should be noted that first-person POV works much better in a book than in a movie. If every scene were of Katniss, then we in the audience would get overwhelmed, seeing pretty much the same character scene after scene. The change in POV also helps to variate the different locations seen in the film. It would get pretty monotonous seeing the same forest over and over.
One of the biggest departures revolves not around structure, but theme. In the book there is a pretty clear and concise social criticism, but that has been toned down in the film. Instead, writer/director Gary Ross and Co. have decided to make it more of a love story between Katniss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), with Gale rounding out (pointing out?) the triangle. This is not necessarily a bad decision, however, as the filmmakers were tailoring the film to a wider audience. How often do you get a bloody and violent action film with a pretty decent romance? Now, one could say that toning down one theme in favor of another limits the film, but that would require an analytical review all its own.
Now, down to the nitty-gritty. The Hunger Games, at its core, is about overcoming the odds and fighting for what you love (specifically, family and a potential soul mate). Katniss is developed well, with two major character development points revealed through flashback (one of which also develops Peeta). Other than those two, however, the characters in this film are relatively static and flat. The major exception would be Seneca Crane, who has an increased presence in the film (I believed he's only mentioned in the book). It could even be argued that Seneca deals with as much conflict as Katniss (again, that would require its own write-up).The Hunger Games is an admirable film and Gary Ross handles the material well. He's no stranger to adaptations, having written and directed the Oscar nominated Seabiscuit in 2003. Its major flaw, however, lies in its execution. While the film is favored by its style and structure, it is this same style and structure that holds the film back. One of the major thematic developments in the book happens when Katniss begins looking after District 11 Tribute Rue (Amandla Stenberg). Their relationship is reduced to a few curt scenes in the film and therefore reduces the emotional power brought on by a scene that occurs soon after.
And it isn't isolated to that one incident. In the book there's a greater sense that Katniss and Gale have a romantic connection. In the film there is none of that. Sure, we see Gale's longing looks at Katniss while she is fighting for her life, but she never returns the courtesy. What develops as a conflicting triangle in the novels is nothing more than a third wheel situation in the film. The filmmakers are really limiting themselves in terms of the personal conflict that Katniss will endure in the coming films.
I will end on a bright note, however, and say that The Hunger Games is one of few book-to-film adaptations that has impressed me these past few years. It definitely helps that none of the irony is lost in phrases like, "Happy Hunger Games!" Despite its flaws, the film certainly achieves something big, big, big.
The Hunger Games - 3.5/5
No comments:
Post a Comment