[Marxism] Hunger Games

Shalva Eliava shalva.eliava at outlook.com
Wed Dec 9 22:36:41 MST 2015


Two more articles:

Guardian: In debt, out of luck: why Generation K fell in love with The
Hunger Games
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/oct/31/hunger-games-mockingjay-teenage-anxiety

Black Star News: Candidate Bernie Sanders As Mockingjay
http://www.blackstarnews.com/us-politics/justice/candidate-bernie-sanders-as-mockingjay.html

The last two movies were the best in my mind (in fact I couldn't help
but think of this Guardian video report on the Syrian war when I saw the
third:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2013/sep/18/syria-revolution-story-video),
but the movies in general are mostly valuable in that they might
motivate people to read the books, which are definitely quite good and
subversive. I had planned to pen an essay showing the "marxian
imagination" of the project, but never got around to it. The book has an
implicit world-systems analysis/anti-colonial thrust, with plenty of
echoes of the debates between revolutionaries of the late 19th century
about terrorism versus movement building in the final book. Certainly
labor, exploitation, repression, and dependency are notable themes.
Claims that the book has anything other than a left-wing message is
bullshit...

Honestly, I can't help but think that Collins was influenced by London's
book Iron Heel. The main characters even have similar names: Katniss
Everdeen vs Avis Everhard...






On 12/9/2015 6:27 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote:
> ********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
> #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
> #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
> *****************************************************************
>
> Have seen the first two without much interest but got into it a bit
> more in the final half-hour of MockingJay, part 1.
>
> This is an interesting write-up:
>
> LRB, Vol. 37 No. 24 · 17 December 2015
> At the Movies
> Michael Wood
>
> Perhaps because it’s based on a lively trilogy of novels for supposed
> teenagers, more probably because its writers and directors knew how to
> have a good time with stereotypes, The Hunger Games movie series is
> attractive because it is so eclectic, because it raids whatever
> cultural bank or shopping mall is handy. The heroine’s name combines a
> plant with a character from Thomas Hardy: Katniss Everdeen. If you
> frivolously mishear it as Catnip, as I did, you can be reassured:
> that’s what a friend calls her in the novel. The chief bad guy is
> called Coriolanus, and the place where it all happens, to quote the
> first book, is a ‘country that rose up out of the ashes of a place
> that was once called North America’, now called Panem. The allusion is
> to Juvenal’s ‘bread and circuses’, but as pronounced in the movies it
> sounds like the name of a defunct airline.
>
> The novels by Suzanne Collins, who also had a hand in writing the
> movies, were published in 2008, 2009 and 2010, and by 2012 their sales
> had broken the record set by the Harry Potter books. The four movies –
> strange how three keeps becoming four in the film world – appeared in
> 2012, 2013, 2014, and last month. The Roman themes are everywhere and
> that’s what the games are about, except that the people just get the
> circus, no bread. The circus is an annual fight to the death among
> teenagers chosen by lottery, two from each of the 12 districts that,
> along with the Capitol, make up the country. Actually there are 13
> districts, but we don’t know that until the third movie, Mockingjay
> Part I: a district that has purportedly been destroyed has literally
> gone underground and is now the centre of the resistance movement. The
> dictator’s idea is that if people have to lose their children and
> watch them die on television all notions of rebellion will be
> perpetually dispersed. He’s wrong, of course, but it’s a great theory
> for an evil dictator to have, and it makes you wonder if a similar
> spirit isn’t behind a lot of programme planning in the real world: the
> unflagging coverage of Donald Trump, for example, which humiliates us
> as we watch it. Why do we watch it? Ask the dictator, he knows.
>
> The resistance offered by our heroine Katniss is unintentional at
> first, or at least unpolitical. Showing entirely the wrong spirit, she
> suggests a suicide pact to Peeta, her partner from District 12,
> instead of killing him and becoming the winner. This is where they
> both should have ended, but there were more books and movies in the
> offing, and Coriolanus decides to let them live on as a poster-couple
> for the regime: they can distract the people with their great love
> story. For a while. Coriolanus’s cunning plan is to celebrate Panem’s
> 75th year by staging a game starring only winners of previous games:
> there are some tough people in this set, who will easily take care of
> Katniss and Peeta. He’s wrong again, but not in the way we perhaps
> expect. Our heroes are among the six survivors, but then things go
> awry. The master of the games, Plutarch Heavensbee (even comic
> eclecticism can go too far), is secretly working for the rebels, and
> snatches Katniss and two other survivors to take them to join the
> resistance in District 13. Unfortunately, Coriolanus has managed to
> capture the other survivors, and much of what follows in the story
> depends on the way Katniss and Peeta feel about themselves and each
> other in their respective situations. She becomes a resistance
> heroine; he becomes a tortured government stooge.
>
> There is a great moment near the end of Mockingjay Part I where
> Coriolanus allows Peeta to be rescued so that he can kill Katniss:
> he’s been brainwashed into hating her and programmed as a murder
> weapon. He nearly makes it too, and the attempt provides the best
> sequence in all four films. Katniss, her face bruised and her neck in
> a brace, gets up from her hospital bed and wanders into a place where
> she hears the leader of the rebels making uplifting propaganda out of
> the triumph of Peeta’s rescue. Then she turns away and finds herself
> peering into Peeta’s room: he is strapped to his bed, and thrashing
> about in a crazed fury. The screen goes black, end of movie.
>
> Peeta’s brain gets unwashed, but very slowly, and he’s an unreliable
> ally throughout Mockingjay Part II – at one point he kills a colleague
> by pushing him into a vast sea of oily lava. I won’t spoil – or do I
> mean improve – the suspense of the last movie by telling the story,
> except to say that there is a grand, stylised, violent climax and
> Coriolanus is dealt with, and that the efforts to provide a quietly
> up-beat domestic ending after that – what could be more up-beat than
> the death of a memorable bad guy? – are truly excruciating.
>
> There are some wonderful performances in these films, starting with
> that of Donald Sutherland as the bad guy. White-haired, bearded, as
> jovial as he is sinister, he makes dictatorship look like an
> intelligent sadist’s dream. In Mockingjay Part I, his aides think it
> is time for him to have Katniss killed, because she has been visiting
> a hospital and stirring up revolt. He says no, then pauses. ‘Kill the
> wounded.’ Not everyone could say that line with the discreet relish
> that Sutherland conveys.
>
> Jennifer Lawrence is remarkable as Katniss. She looks vaguely morose
> even when she is happy, and she has the quality, rare in a movie star,
> of being able to look glamorous at times and a pudgy mess at others
> without changing her character. Julianne Moore is very good too, as
> Alma Coin, president of District 13. She is smooth and eloquent, and
> no one suspects her of being anything other than the idealistic leader
> of the opposition. Perhaps the Mao suit might have given us a clue,
> and we should have known that in this sort of fiction all leaders are
> bad guys in the end, and most of one’s pals, sooner or later, go over
> to the dark side. Philip Seymour Hoffman, who plays Plutarch, died
> during the shooting of Mockingjay Part I, but left enough footage for
> all but a few scenes in the last movie. He is genial and scornful at
> the same time, a sort of (possibly) virtuous counterpart to Sutherland.
>
> The eclecticism I mentioned earlier is especially evident in the
> movies’ unlikely tones. Every season of the games is orchestrated as a
> show, with producers and designers, as if killing and dying were just
> an excuse for expensive art and theatricals. Elizabeth Banks, as the
> producer Effie Trinket, wears one improbable wig after another, and
> would win any prize available for the most extravagant false
> eyelashes. Stanley Tucci, as a television presenter, camps up every
> act of violence and political betrayal as if it were just another
> morsel for the Minotaur of showbusiness to eat. Collins has said she
> got her idea for certain aspects of the series from watching footage
> of the Iraq War alternately with game shows. But how the movies manage
> so successfully to do the campy stuff along with troubled teenage
> romance and the desolation of bombed cities, is a question we would
> have to put to the directors, Gary Ross (Hunger Games) and Francis
> Lawrence (the other three films). It certainly works, because the
> comedy and romance and terror are vividly there. We can’t reconcile
> them, and we would be in bad shape if we could.
>
> There is one effect that may link these pieces, even if the joke is on
> us. We keep forgetting, as the characters do, that the world of The
> Hunger Games is one where nothing goes unfilmed. When Katniss visits a
> hospital in District 8, a place that has been savagely bombed by
> Capitol forces, she takes a film crew with her, so that her distress
> can be part of resistance propaganda. This is mildly distasteful, but
> we see the point. Then we glimpse Coriolanus far away in his mansion
> watching her visit live on screen, and distaste and/or sympathy turn
> to a form of fear for her and everyone else. This is not an invasion
> of privacy (Katniss’s trip wasn’t private): it’s a cancellation of the
> very idea of place. There isn’t anywhere to go, you can’t leave your
> observers behind. All this vision needs for it to sneak into the next
> dimension is a mode of film that will show us things not when they
> happen, but just before.
> _________________________________________________________
> Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
> Set your options at:
> http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/shalva.eliava%40outlook.com





More information about the Marxism mailing list