My
gravest concern with Catching Fire (2013) is that it
never quite does.
This
sequel to 2012’s The Hunger Games takes ninety lugubrious -- if earnest -- minutes
to get to the film’s central action and when it does so the action is a straight-up
regurgitation of the previous film’s arena game show environs, only this time
with no clear winner…only losers.
What’s
more, the involvement of the central character, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), in
the new “Quarter Quell” games makes no brand of sense whatsoever, especially
given the film’s clever, even knowing dialogue about Everdeen’s value/threat to
President Snow’s (Donald Sutherland) regime.
In
other words, if President Snow were any sort of fearsome and intelligent leader
at all, he would follow the sage advice of his new game designer, Plutarch
Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and destroy Katniss outside the games, via the auspices of propaganda.
As
Plutarch deviously suggests, Snow could transform this young woman of the woods
and dirt into a celebrity fairy princess of sorts, thus negating her “common
folks” credibility, and simultaneously subtracting her worth in the rebellion’s
eyes.
Of
course, Snow doesn’t do that, because this (blockbuster) film must, in the end
find a way to get the audience -- and Katniss -- back to the Hunger Games arena…no matter what.
Yet
to make that eventuality occur, you can practically hear the narrative cogs and
wheels groaning under the strain.
In
terms of the original The Hunger Games, I’ll re-post my
original review later today. But in broad strokes, I felt the first film’s
biggest strength and biggest weakness simultaneously involved casting.
Jennifer
Lawrence was (and remains…) a strong, compelling central figure as Katniss.
But
on the other hand, all the teens who served as Tributes in the 74th
annual games had so much muscle mass that it was difficult to buy into the
reality that they arose and grew-up in an era of scarcity and starvation. The
narrative told us they did so, but the visuals revealed that these kids grew up
in close proximity to the local gym.
To
Catching
Fire’s credit, it doesn’t make the same mistake. Lawrence remains a
power-house performer who galvanizes attention and projects levels of
complexity, and the regurgitation of the games scenario in the last act features
folks of all ages, shapes and sizes, and so doesn’t look like a casting audition
at the CW gone violently wrong.
Last
week, I wrote about Veronica Mars (2014) and about how the film industry could use
more films featuring a strong female lead character. Katniss clearly fits that
bill well, and so I would definitely recommend the sequel on that basis.
In
Lawrence’s hands, Katniss is never less than intriguing to watch. Like
Veronica, Katniss is not a princess, and she doesn’t have a pony. In fact,
Katniss must always be the very antithesis
of a princess in her life. To make her a princess would be to destroy her, and
that’s a message I can get readily behind.
But
despite the presence of Lawrence in her career-making role, the saga has yet to
provide the actress a coherent script that makes full use of her abilities.
Still,
I find it admirable that in its own small way, Catching Fire attempts to
forge a social critique about celebrity culture, and its inherent corruptness or
emptiness. The film would have been even stronger if it had pursued those points more assiduously.
“I
don’t want to kill you. I want us to be friends.”
A
year after the 74th Hunger
Games, victor Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) still suffers from survivor’s guilt.
She also feels ambivalent about choosing between the two men in her life, agreeable
Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and alpha male Gale (Liam Hemsworth),
But
President Snow (Sutherland) presents Katniss with graver concerns. After
Katniss’s show of defiance and independence in the games, the districts are
threatening to rise up against the totalitarian ruler. Snow demands that Katniss serve his agenda,
lest it become necessary to wage war against her home, District 12.
To
save lives, Katniss agrees to Snow’s terms, and decides to marry Peeta as a
show of her obedience and loyalty.
But
when Gale is injured by Snow’s shock-troopers Katniss intervenes, and reveals
her true colors. An angry President Snow promptly orders up a diabolical twist
in the long-standing Hunger Games, this time known as “The Quarter Quells.”
This
year, tribunes shall be selected from among former victors.
In
short order, Peeta and Katniss are back in the games fighting for their lives
and their freedom.
They
must go through training again, find new allies, and prepare themselves for the
worst.
On
the day of the games, they are dropped into the arena, now in a tropical
setting, and must contend with fierce baboons, spinning island rocks, and
poison gas…
People are looking at you, Katniss. You've given them an opportunity."
There’s
a great idea lurking in Catching Fire, and it often attempts
to come to the forefront. Basically, that idea concerns the emptiness of
celebrity culture. For instance, at one point, Katniss is told that she is
famous, and she replies, tersely, “Famous
for what? Killing people?”
In
a celebrity culture, it doesn’t matter why one is famous, only the fact of fame
itself.
The
Kardasshians, Paris Hilton, Honey Boo-Boo, the Duck Dynasty family and (the recently-deceased)
fellow with the 132 pound scrotum all prove this point rather nicely. There is no
compelling reason for them to be famous since they all seem absent of talent of
any kind.
But
these folks are famous nonetheless.
For
some reason, our society wants us to look at them, and keep looking.
But
why?
What
is their “value” to the corporate-owned media?
And
to us as viewers or consumers of that media?
Catching
Fire attempts
to tackle this issue, and one scene in particular really does well with the concept. In fact, the film momentarily teeters on brilliance
when Plutarch outlines his scheme to destroy Katniss.
He
tells Snow not to kill the famous icon, Katniss, but rather turn the State’s
camera to her constantly, like a 24-hour reality show.
Thus
the people will see her trying on wedding gowns, attending parties and so
forth. Thus the message (interspersed with footage of uprisings being quelled…)
will be that she is one of the fancy ones;
one of the elite. She will be seen as compromised, co-opted.
To
actually see Plutarch’s plan enacted would have made for a great genre film, I
suspect, and would have presented Katniss with a new and fascinating set of
challenges. She’s already conquered the
bow -- as demonstrated in a vivid
training sequence involving attacking holograms -- but what about the
adoring press?
What
would she do if a mountain of wealth were thrown at her?
If President Snow were to shower District 12
with wealth?
It
would have been fascinating to see Katniss tempted by wealth and fame, and have
to fight back against the power of the capitol in a material sense.
In
this case, the “hunger” game would have been about the “hunger” for material
things, for the safety and security that comes from wealth. She says she isn't interested in jewels or wealth in the film...but has she ever been faced with them? Awash in them?
Would
Katniss have been able to continue her campaign of resistance if Snow got Prim
into the best school in the capitol?
Alas
Catching
Fire doesn’t think of such things. In no time at all, Snow drops
Plutarch’s clever plan, and instead decides to send Katniss back to the arena
for the Quarter Quells.
This
is not very smart.
After
all, Katniss achieved her fame in that domain. She survived the games, and become
the symbol of the resistance through her experience on national television, and
in the arena.
Knowing
that, why put her in the exact same position again? Where she could again
influence millions of people through her behavior?
Talk
about making the same mistake twice…
Snow
has nothing to gain by throwing Katniss to the lions this time around, and especially
since his people could have the same response to her feats.
Had
he been thinking more clearly and effectively, Snow would have escorted Katniss’s
family out of District 12 and moved them into a castle in the Capitol.
He
would have asked Katniss for her thoughts about how he could make the people
happy. He would have truly made her “a friend,” in the eyes of the people,
negating her power as a symbol of the peoples’ struggle.
Also,
it’s baffling why Plutarch -- secretly Katniss’s
ally --would propose the whole “make her a celebrity” strategy, given that
it makes so much sense and seems so efficient. It’s better to rob Katniss of
her currency as a symbol, than to make her a martyr, but why would someone on her side suggest something so
diabolical?
Because
he knows Snow is an idiot and won’t listen to any counsel but his own?
No,
there’s another reason, and it is called Screenwriting 101. Virtually every blockbuster sequel – book or
film -- must apparently be obligated to re-stage “popular” moments from the
first “chapter” of the saga.
So
we get an underwhelming return to the arena in Catching Fire that makes
no sense at all.
What’s
worse is that after we have waited so long to get back to the arena, the game
itself feels half-hearted. We get several
deaths, but no conclusion, and no victor at the end. This denouement reveals what I already
suspected: the games are, essentially, a time waster in the movie.
To
put this matter another way, Catching Fire takes the better
part of ninety minutes to get us right back to where we started in The
Hunger Games, and then, instead of giving us a victory or defeat for
Katniss, just whisks her away from the arena and ends the movie.
Why
bother with telling us the rules of the new game, or making us weigh the
allegiance of new allies and enemies if the games are going to simply end
without closure or resolution?
Why
not instead have made the book and the movie about Katniss legitimately joining
the resistance movement? Seeing her do
that would have felt more like a step-forward and not merely a regurgitation of
scenes we’ve already seen before.
Another
problem with Catching Fire is that the writers don’t always trust audiences
to get what they are “saying” about the characters. How many scenes do we need of Effie
(Elizabeth Banks) crying and apologizing to Katniss, for example?
We
get the point from one short scene that she has had her faith in the system
shattered, and that through “knowing” Katniss, Effie has seen the degeneracy of
both the games and the president.
But
the movie shows us this scene once, and then it shows it to us again, just in
case we didn’t get it.
In
a movie that is two-hours and thirty-four minutes, it would be nice to have those
two minutes back. Some
judicious editing seems to be in order.
Catching
Fire is very
lucky indeed to have Jennifer Lawrence in the lead role, revealing and
exploring many sides of an intriguing character. It’s rewarding to watch
Katniss no matter what she’s doing, because she is an independent, fiercely
loyal person.
“You’re a strangely
dislikable person,”
a character notes at one point, of the franchise’s hero.
Isn’t that wonderful?
That
description is true only in the sense that Katniss does nothing to please those
around her. Instead, she does only the things that she must do to stay alive,
and to preserve her family and her district. She isn’t going to make nice about
that fact, either.
Katniss’s
best scene in the film occurs, in my opinion, when she applies logic to a
statement made by Snow about the general instability of his administration. Her
remark isn’t a quip or a wisecrack so much as an arrow straight through the
heart, cutting right to the point.
Quite
simply, I can’t find any grounds to quibble with the presentation here of Katniss,
or Lawrence’s acting. I hope, indeed, that young people are widely attracted to
Katniss Everdeen as a role model because she is an engaged, intelligent,
resourceful person.
Both
Katniss and Lawrence are too good for such a middling, confused, long-winded, and
incoherent script. The movie doesn’t do either of them justice.
Lastly,
I am very curious about the next part of the saga, Mockingjay, simply
because it should have no obligation to return to the Hunger Games and their
milieu.
Instead
-- like the book -- it should be able to focus on uprising, rebellion, and the
idea that no matter what regime is in power things have a way of staying
exactly the same.
That’s
the kind of narrative innovation this sequel needed, a leap away from the cruel
dystopian game -- been there, done that
-- and a step closer to a more serious consideration of the way that those in
power are corrupted by it.
Because
it fails to really innovate in any significant way -- even when Plutarch gives
us the blueprint to do precisely that -- Catching Fire is barely Treading Water.
The other problem I have with the Plutach's plan is that in the original, it's certainly the case that winning the Games sets you up for life. Win, and you're out of the hunger cycle (and the implication is that you can't be a tribute again).
ReplyDeleteThe problems with the plot (and to a lesser extent, in the predecessor, and other movies of this type) is that part of the control that the government attempts to exert on the populace has to do with consistency. The rules are the rules, no exceptions. Winners thrive, others die. Whenever the government changes rules in mid-stream, they risk losing control, as it becomes obvious that there are no rules. The corollaries to that are that there's no rules for the ruled, and that the rulers will do anything to keep power (except, perhaps, make the correct decisions).
The Running Man dealt with this. Last season's winners get to pose on a beach, then are killed. But no one knows they're dead.
Rollerball dealt with this. Transportation kept changing the rules, and loses by doing so.
Having the guys who are savvy enough to rule the world with an iron hand be dumb enough to think that they have to somehow publicly deal with a single person is nothing more than an 'idiot plot'. You know what that is -- a plot that can't happen unless someone does something stupid.