Fuse Film Review: The “Hunger Games” Sequel — Better Than The First Time Around
Jennifer Lawrence has blossomed into a charismatic screen presence in her gala return as Katniss, the beloved bow-and-arrow heroine of “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.” She’s far better than the first time around, and so is the Francis Lawrence-directed film, a superior sequel.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, directed by Francis Lawrence. At cinemas throughout New England.
A scene from “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”
By Gerald Peary
Some very shrewd talent scout in LaLaLand checked out Jennifer Lawrence, age 20, in Winter’s Bone (2010), that icebound downer of an American indie, and projected an international movie star. Before you knew it, she was signed on for the lead in The Hunger Games (2012) (Fuse commentary), where, a decent choice in the coveted role of Katniss Everdeen, she seemed a bit overwhelmed to be in such a blockbuster, a might stiff. But then Lawrence broke through as the zany lead in the screwball comedy, Silver Linings Playbook (2012), grabbing, at 22, a Best Actress Academy Award. In interviews, she felt the freedom to be herself: loose, smart, uninhibited, unpretentious, very funny, and totally endearing. For now, fame and riches have made her winningly confident. Lawrence has blossomed into a charismatic screen presence in her gala return as Katniss, the beloved bow-and-arrow heroine of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. She’s far better than the first time around, and so is the Francis Lawrence-directed film, a superior sequel.
You might recall that Katniss and her pretend boyfriend, Peeta Melark (Josh Hutcherson) were, in The Hunger Games, joint winners of the 74th competition, killing off all their opposition. And now: a mirror of Jennifer Lawrence’s free spirit in corporate Hollywood? In Catching Fire, Katniss’s loyalty is suspect to the government of Panem, which created the Hunger Games as a mass entertainment diversion, so that the people would not notice a totalitarian regime. The vain, ruthless President (a white-haired Donald Sutherland) makes a surprise visit to Katniss’s house. He threatens harm to her family, including the little sister, Primrose (Willow Shields), whom she adores, unless Katniss cooperates fully on a “Victory Tour.” She and Peeta must make a whistle-stop visit to each of Panem’s 12 districts and, as Hunger Games celebs, give platitudinous speeches about how honored they are to be representing their country.
But Katniss is not one to toe the line, when arriving, horrfied, in the downtrodden, apartheid-like black district. Her speeches hover dangerously close to sedition, especially in the eyes of the paranoid, spiteful, Nixonian government. That’s when a J. Edgar Hoover-like Gamesmaster is brought aboard: Plutarch Heavensbee (a deliciously creepy Philip Seymour Hoffman). Urged on by the president, he’s to concoct a Dirty Tricks plan to stop Katniss, who has become far too popular in Panem. His heinous scheme: yet another Hunger Game for their 75th anniversary, ex-winners against each other. Meaning, so much for Katniss’s and Peeta’s one-year retirement from the killing fields.
I’m one of those who said “No” to Ring movies after the first of the trilogy left me maddeningly bored. And one Harry Potter movie more than sufficed. Strangely, I’m a fan of The Hunger Games saga, including the one book I’ve read by Suzanne Collins: intelligent, imaginative, and decidedly well written. So, I’m psyched when, in Catching Fire, the story really gets going with another Roman gladiator-like super-contest. As before, this global media event is lorded over by the toothy, tanned Caesar Flickerman, played stupendously by Stanley Tucci with a jackass laugh and the unctuous excitement of the late Bert Parks hosting the Miss America pageants.
It’s very Survivor, as all the contestants are catapulted to an alien tropical island (filmed in Hawaii), actually a simulacrum of an island, with video surveillance everywhere and horrors programmed by the hour: floods, poison gas, flesh-eating, monkeys. And, of course, the contestants pitted against each other.
And here is where Catching Fire really gets subversive.
Many have noticed a strange trend in movies this year, capped by Gravity, Captain Phillips, and All is Lost, individual heroes battling adversity. To me, old-fashioned, middle-American, WASP self-reliance with elite protagonists. Moderate Republicanism? Well, Catching Fire becomes a “screw you” to the “everyone for yourself” battles programmed for the Hunger Games by the rightist, racist government. On the island, Katniss and Peeta find themselves bonding in alliance with those whom the power people branded as their enemies. Let me proclaim it: a Blue State coalition of women—vigorous young (Katniss), hippy old (Megs), and brash punk (Johanna) — and computer geeks (Wiress), including an enterprising, educated African-American (Beetee), plus several liberated white males (Finnick, Peeta). Brains definitely over brawn—and could Peeta, I wonder, be closeted gay?
There are some cool James Bondian battles on the island with, somehow, a minimum of violence; and the only sex is Katniss’s conflicted smooching, with both pal Peeta and, when she can find him, her poster macho-boy, Gale (Liam Hemsworth). So Catching Fire is swell for 14-year-olds, who have swarmed to it, and also a rare mass-media, tentpole pleasure for oldsters like me.
Gerald Peary is a professor at Suffolk University, Boston, curator of the Boston University Cinematheque, and the general editor of the “Conversations with Filmmakers” series from the University Press of Mississippi. A critic for the late Boston Phoenix, he is the author of 9 books on cinema, writer-director of the documentary For the Love of Movies: the Story of American Film Criticism, and a featured actor in the 2013 independent narrative Computer Chess.
Gerald,
I find it very interesting how strongly you associate the government of Hunger Games as rightist and Nixonian. If anything, this world represents a conservative perspective of liberalism, gone out of control – Big Government with tiered socialism and unilateral control of information. It’s amazing how strongly a person’s worldview can impact his/her perceptions of the ideologies that are portrayed in this movie. I recommended broadening your view of the world beyond the New Yorker and MSNBC.
Best regards,
Matt
You said it all…it’s in line with the false narrative describing Nazism as an extreme form of conservatism, when in fact Nazism (aka, National SOCIALISM) is economically a collectivist statist ideology with far more in common with the modern left wing than conservative free-market individualism.
You mean I should start listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Fox News? I’m sticking with The New Yorker.
Yes, Matt, it is amazing how a person’s worldview can impact his perceptions of the ideologies portrayed in a movie. Only in your rightist vision could the villainous government of Panem be described as practicing “tiered socialism.” Donald Sutherland’s President is no more a socialist than is that moderate Democrat, Barack Obama. The only kind of “socialism” practiced by the Big Government of Panem is that of the fascist right, like the “socialism” of the Nazis.
the major theme of the hunger games (hence the name) is that the natural resources of the agricultural territories is collectivized for the benefit of the cities, causing mass starvation. if you can’t see the parallel between this practice and the history of rural china under mao or ukrainian countryside under stalin, you probably shouldn’t be a professor.
You are conflating socialism, especially of the democratic kind, and the worst excesses of Communism. Yes, I can see parallels between Donald Sutherland’s president and Mao and Stalin, but also Richard Nixon.
While America is sliding toward an NSA Fascist police state under what is perhaps the most extreme leftist administration in the history of America, you expect people to believe Fascism/Authoritarianism is some kind of exclusive conservative paradise, and a way of life that is preferred by conservatives? People I know living in the “Blue States” report a stunning lower standard of living and less personal freedoms.
This must be a right-wing robot reply. No real human could argue so idiotically, “The extreme leftist administration” of Barack Obama? Is Rick Perry your source of information? Michele Bachmann? Meanwhile, I’m starving up here in the Blue State of Massachusetts, but scared to say it, afraid of arrest by the liberals.
Monsanto Protection Act, Expanding TSA, NSA invasions of privacy, mandatory healthcare where the IRS imposes fines if you don’t purchase from the government. Rand Paul, a conservative opposes this control-grid nonsense advanced by the Blue-State cheering Left. You have bought into the marketing programs of Fascist control freaks whose actions don’t resemble their promises in the slightest. You need to step back and open your eyes. Take a look at foreign and alternative news and take notice of newsworthy items that don’t get reported on FoxNews, MSNBC, NPR etc. Become a fan of the truth and quit cheering for the liars.
Kudos to the commentators above on the laughably dim worldview of the critic. Conservatism looks to limit the role of government to preserve individual freedom. It is liberals who would usher in tyranny through the unchecked expansion of government power. Check your assumptions, read some history, and wake up.
Conservatives want to stop women’s right to choose and want the government to close down clinics where abortions are performed. Explain that one.
As if Liberals are marching in the streets, protesting women being treated like animals in countries like Saudi Arabia. LOL.
Or protect an unborn’s right. Depends on how you view it. Can it only be viewed your way?
I guess one could say the excellence of this story is how vastly different people interpret the goings on. To me, the story is a great example of what can happen when a powerful, central, leftist government controls all aspects of life. The only people who are well off are those in the Capitol, whose wealth is made by the government. Yet here the author finds them to be “right wing.” Very interesting.
I agree with the three previous comments. This article, rather than being a movie-review, is a sophomoric and stunningly ignorant effort to lump anyone who has opposing political views from the author into a group that would somehow agree with the totalitarian government of the Hunger Games movies. He also misunderstands the point of the book, which is placed so far in the future (and on the far side of a nuclear apocalypse) that no current political ideologies can even loosely be applied to the circumstances in which the people are placed. The book is not a condemnation of any one political group (because if Suzanne Collins — whose name Gerald Peary misspells — and the movie producers wanted to fill her story with political commentary they would have employed the same immature methods that Peary uses in this article: blatant, unfounded, and poorly placed). The book/movie is an ode to freedom, not some kind of weird way for liberals to gain political points. Ironically, Gerald Peary writes this article in a period where Democrats are becoming synonymous with dishonesty, power-grabbing, and spying on American citizens —- a period in which a Democratic president refuses to promise he won’t use drones against American citizens on American soil. I don’t want to blow those things out of proportion, but it is puzzling that Peary is so aware of Nixon’s faults, but strangely blind to abuses of power on the part of Barack Obama.
Sci-fi is always, always about the present, about our lives, our government, our way of living in the universe. Or else, why read it?
I’m not blind to the abuses of power of Barack Obama. Where did I say I was? I’m not for his spying–how Nixonian!– and his drones–a small reminder of Nixon bombing Cambodia into oblivion. I am for universal health insurance, something certainly not offered the downtrodden citizens in The Hunger Games.
Thanks for correcting my spelling of the author. Oops! I will go back and fix it in my article.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to echo the sentiments of the commentators above. The author has an incredibly parochial view of liberal and conservative tenets. Under the current leftist regime the United States is more closely resembling a totalitarian police state everyday. The regime is methodically brainwashing the masses and leading them to the conclusion that a country in which everybody is dependent on the government is basically good. This will only lead to a situation in which the government can lord over the commoners like an omnipotent God, essentially stratifying the world into the haves and the have-nots. This also happens to describe the world of the Hunger Games.
“and could, Peeta, I wonder, be a closeted gay?” You’ve got to be kidding me. That just tells it all. Sounds like the author liked this movie, therefore, it must reinforce his stereotypes in every way possible: villain must be white male Republican. Heroes must be women, minorities and if a white male happens to sneak in on the good side, well then we must qualify him as a “liberated white male,” (because as everyone knows, white males are inherently evil) but, damn, there’s no gay. Every good modern story has to have a gay hero. It’s in the formula (really, Susan Collins should have known better). Wait, Peeta must be gay! Never mind that he’s in love with Katniss for 3 books and they live happily ever after in the end. He’s got to be gay. It’s part of the formula…… Thankfully, Susan Collins didn’t stick to the progressive script when she wrote the books. She actually challenges readers to think. Sadly, not everyone was up to the challenge.
I said he might be gay, for their relationship always strikes me as more boy-girl friendship than some hot spark between them, I’m just looking at the images in the movie.
I don’t just like a movie if it’s on my side politically. Check out my piece on 12 Years a Slave. But I find it fun the way a bunch of Blue State types have aligned themselves while the fascist government tries to make them fight following a Tea Party philosophy: “Everyone for yourself. Losers deserve to lose: their fault.”
There are many things I do not agree with when it comes to this review. I’d like to focus on one of the most galling points for a feminist. Male stereotyping. Must a man be ‘macho’ or gay? What about the outdoorsy gay man? Peeta is strong in the way more men should be — he doesn’t talk down to Katniss, her respects her and isn’t intimidated by her skills and praises her to others. He is artistic, an incredible public speaker, an actor when he needs to be, selfless, determined, humble, honorable, and kind. That doesn’t make him gay, and perpetuating the stereotype that being a good man is effeminate is an insult to women and only encourages violence towards women. He doesn’t yell at her for choosing someone else, he accepts her decisions and supports her without asking for anything in return. He doesn’t want to kill people, but will defend the ones he loves and help those in need.
This should be the straight male role model. This is the sort of man a strong independent woman needs and deserves. He has a strong moral character. He took a beating at age 11 to save a girl’s life! We should be encouraging such role models instead of making such men in society feel like there is something wrong with them for not fitting the absurd ‘macho’ expectations of our society.
I’ve been attacked for my review from the shallow-thinking right. Well, here’s a silly piece from the humorless left. When I suggested he might be gay, who says that I was upset with the idea? On the contrary, how great if Peeta would come out in Part 3, and that would be seen by fifty million people. I’ll say it again: I think he might be gay because he seems far more of a pal than a hot lover. Perhaps a reason he gets along so well with Katniss is that he’s not conflicted and wants to bed her. I agree that he has strong moral character and is a strong male model. But he could be those whether gay or straight. Who cares?
What the heck is “an outdoorsy gay man”?
Gerald Peary wrote:
“I’ve been attacked for my review from the shallow-thinking right.”
Thinking people should oppose tyranny regardless of the color box it comes in, Red or Blue. Are all of the world’s tyrants right wing in your view? What if Dictator Kim Jong Eun declared support for gay rights and abortion rights for women, would a little “Blue” packaging make North Korea’s leadership more palatable for you?
If North Korea supported gay rights and abortion rights that would put them, on those issues, ahead of the American Republican party. But I am opposed to tyranny of both the left (North Korea, China, Cuba, Putin, etc.) and the right (militant pro-lifers,the Tea Party, the KKK, etc.)
Oh fun. A feminist – once again – drawing absurdly far reaching consequences to a stereotype that negatively affects MEN, concluding that its *women* not rather than men who ultimately suffer the most from the stereotyping. Lovely. I can tell you’re totally not favoring one sex over the other. First off, unless you’ve got a pile of academically viable evidence PROVING that boxing men into gay/straight stereotypes ultimately “encourage violence against women” then stop peddling that cheap Sarkeesianesque logic around as if its as observable a fact as the color of the sky.
Secondly, considering that the author here actually considered Peeta’s potential homosexual orientation a POSITIVE idea, your attempt to frame it as negative is pretty silly. If Peeta did turn out to be gay, I’d doubt the *male* gay community would be particularity upset with his character seeing as how it would go a long way toward defying a lot of Hollywood stereotypes imposed on gay male characters. Thirdly, half of these “great” traits you praise peeta for having amount to little more than the typical chivalry clap trap that feminist claim to be against unless – of course its a case like this and Peeta is such a shallow 1-dimensional nice guy character that its impossible for him to offend.
Peeta exist for one reason and ONE reason only. To be at the beck and call of Katniss. A perpetual “Anti-Edward” of modern literature, to be stalwartly hold up in the friend zone until Gale (a farm more complete character despite a fraction of the screen time) is not around or Pisses Katniss off. Beyond Katniss, Peeta’s existence in the Hunger Games universe serves little purpose. He has no development, no goals of his own, no character flaws, no real personal conflicts, and NEVER challenges Katniss in any significant manner until the third book. But that has less to do with him growing as a character and more to do with a really off the wall plot twist. Peeta’s the chipper, happy go-lucky answer to the cold, bleak, sourness of Katniss – nothing more. He’s the male equivalent of a Manic Pixie Dream girl with typical “must-defend-purty-gurl-I’m-crushing-on-at-all-cost” chivalry replacing the outgoing spontaneous nature of the former. He’s a supporting character – a pretty poor one at that. Yet, you’re telling me that he’s a character worth looking up too. No, thank you, ma’am. We’ll stick to characters who are actually written like real human beings.
Gerald Peary: thanks for your patience here.
And “maddeningly bored” is perfect for the Ring movies (and for so many others. So many….)
Thanks for a kind word for my soundly trashed reading of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.