The Hunger Games (2012) - ****

Now this is what I was talking about with my rant about women characters and Hollywood. This was a monster hit ($400 million grossed in America alone) and based off a similarly successful book series. I think it's pretty obvious two-fold why teenagers (specifically young women) really reacted positively to this and I assume the source material (which I've obviously never read) too:

(1) Teenagers love reading/seeing teenagers in adult situations, having to more or less fend for themselves. It's why HARRY POTTER and (the idiotic) TWILIGHT were so popular, among other reasons.

(2) The protagonist (played here by the talented newcomer Jennifer Lawrence)is a young girl, who you immediately rally around. She's resourceful, she's intelligent, she's likeable, we relate to her troubles more or less running what's left of her family, we follow her complicated relationship throughout the narrative with local boy Josh Hutcherson, she's a human beacon which we see this horribly dystopic future (or wicked alternate reality?) from her perspective.

See Hollywood, how hard is that?

That scene with her showing off her archery skills to the oligarchy's amusement (but more like indiffernece) was magic. The way it's paced and develops you know what will happen but man it's wonderful when it does unfold exactly as you hoped for.

(I do think it's odd how Lawrence here is a master archer, as was the female protagonist in BRAVE. Then you have Hawkeye in THE AVENGERS. Did archery become popular with the hipsters without me being aware?)

That "perspective," director Gary Ross here does in costume deisgn, art direction and other aesthetic detaild that Ridley Scott did with BLADE RUNNER, informing and educating you about everything about this ficitonal universe with the technological disparity between the impoverished powerless masses and the self-enclosed oligarchy not really in touch with reality, all without being being spoonfed with dull, insulting exposition. HUNGER GAMES the movie is more intelligent and superbly crafted than I think most of it's fans give it credit.

The opening with Lawrence in her home "district," I thought it looked quite like southwestern Virginia/West Virginia and looking up on wikipedia, what do you know that distrct is supposed to be set in the Appalachians. I even liked President/dictator Donald Sutherland's speech about that part of the world being full of underdogs. "If you knew them, you wouldn't cheer for the underdog." Brilliant.

I'll tell you what I honestly enjoyed most about HG, and it's Woody Harleson. He can be such a great actor, scoring two well-earned Oscar acting nominations over the years, yet he's still remarkably underrated in spite of all that. To some folks, he's still fucking Woody from CHEERS. He deserves more credit, specifically what he adds to HUNGER GAMES.

He's introduced before appearing as only the ex-champion of these Hunger Games, a gladiator deathmatch spectacle held by this dictatorship with kids sent to kill each other until one is left standing. Then Woody appears, and his demeanor with those eyes tells you everything you need to know about him. Yes he won, or the last survivor where he assumingly did kill other kids to save himself. And that thought has haunted him, and he tries to escape with booze and cynical indifference but with no success.

That's how dictatorships stay in power, dehumanizing the population and making such horrible shit the accepted status quo. Woody is like the masses, he knows these Hunger Games are savage and horrible, but what he's helpless. There is nothing he can do, right I like the impression given only the lunatic cabal at the capitol city are the only ones who "enjoy" this violent circus, everybody else is horrified and put in their place by this these Games.

Yet when Harleson grows some sort of friendship/mentorship with Lawrence, fire returns to those eyes and she forces him through smarts and admiration to care about her, makes him give a shit again and try to help her anyway she can during those Games. I suppose if the two upcoming movie sequels (according to wikipedia) are about the growing revolution against this society, then Harleson gives a great microcosmic demonstration of why this happens.

I have only one severe reservation about HUNGER GAMES: The fucking post-action cinematography, or as better known (or better scorned) as "shakey cam." You know where action scenes are now usually filmed with a camera tossed around back and forth, and you the audience are disoriented with no sense of geography (i.e. what the fuck is happening.) I was so capitvated by this movie, but those scenes did take me out of that spell.

But I guess I give Ross credit in one way: He doesn't sensationalize the violence with the scenes of kids actually killing other kids, he denies people a chance to enjoy that juvenile violence. And quite frankly I appreciate that because I had no appetite for it. (Yet I had no qualms with KICK ASS and the cursing/murdering 11 year old girl. Go figure. )

I suppose going in I expected THE RUNNING MAN with teenagers, an adventure thriller or something. Instead I got ROLLERBALL with teenagers (the James Caan movie, not that dumbass Chris Klein remake.) Yes it's "entertainment," but along the way you're provoked to think about certain things larger than your popcorn that only good movies make you comtemplate.