iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Emma Gray

GET UPDATES FROM Emma Gray
 

The Hunger Games: Why Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss Is A Little Too Likeable

Posted: 03/23/2012 6:09 pm

Spoiler Alert: This piece discusses key plot points of both the novel and the movie "The Hunger Games."

Katniss Everdeen is deep in the woods, surrounded by greenery that in any other circumstance would be considered beautiful, but in the novel and new film "The Hunger Games" is only menacing. She's just watched her only ally die and has subsequently shot an arrow straight through the killer's chest. She sits on the ground in a pile of leaves, holds her head in her hands and sobs. It's a devastating moment, but as I sat in the theater screening the film, which premieres March 23rd, all I could think was: "This isn't the Katniss I know."

From the minute I flipped open the novel "The Hunger Games," the first installment in Suzanne Collins best selling three-book young adult series, I was absorbed into its post-apocalyptic world. The setting is the totalitarian state of Panem (what was once North America), where 24 boys and girls compete to the death on national television each year, and between the poverty-stricken Districts, the anxiety-filled battle scenes, the stirrings of adolescent love -- it's not surprising that the book was hard to put down. But more than the dystopian landscape or any of the plot points, what hooked me was the series' protagonist, Katniss Everdeen.

Reading "The Hunger Games" I kept wishing it had been around when I was 12. Katniss is someone I hope I would have admired and related to, a diversion from the almost uniformly bubbly, bland female characters I encountered in "The Babysitters Club," "Sweet Valley High" and "The Saddle Club." Katniss Everdeen is an imperfect heroine, which makes her all the more compelling to me now. She's conflicted and often selfish; she loves but resents her mother; she has reservations about marriage and children due to the harsh reality of the world around her; she has complicated feelings for the men in her life; she makes rash decisions and sometimes they're the wrong ones. In short, she's a human being. And thus, as Katie Roiphe put it in her review of the novel in The New York Times, this character who is "both murderer and victim, somehow representing female strength and female vulnerability all mingled and entwined," is "mesmerizing" and "sweepingly sympathetic."

While Gary Ross' film was a highly enjoyable distillation of detail-packed source material -- and one that I believe won't disappoint even the most hardcore fans -- some of Katniss' complexity gets lost here. She's warmer, more overtly emotional, even a bit maternal -- all in all more conventionally likeable, but it made me like her less. I kept wishing that she would be a little more manipulative, a little more callous with others' feelings, a little more unsure of what the right and "good" decisions were. In the novels, you're forced to wonder -- along with Katniss herself -- what her motivations are for an act of apparent compassion in the end, and for a split second you wonder whether she'll go through with it. The film doesn't raise those questions.

When I was discussing the movie with a colleague, she mentioned that at the end of the film, you feel that Katniss won the games because of her innate goodness;in the book, she won because her will to live in the face of systemic terror and cruelty had pushed her to become a ruthless warrior. Though Jennifer Lawrence still delivers on the promise of an on-screen woman who trades on her skills more than her looks, ranks romance below other concerns in her life, and pushes the boundaries of traditional femininity, she falls short of really challenging the audience. This isn't her fault -- she didn't write the screenplay and did a generally fabulous job in the role -- but rather a byproduct of turning a beloved series into a mega-franchise, which requires a lead character the masses will love.

Questionably likeable on-screen protagonists are few and far between in Hollywood -- especially if they're female. Three recent examples that spring to mind are Charlize Theron's character in 2011's "Young Adult," the women of Leslye Headland's upcoming "Bachelorette," and Lisbeth Salander of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo." Neither "Bachelorette" nor "Young Adult" were intended to have the widespread appeal that "The Hunger Games" trilogy does, while "Dragon Tattoo" was a financial disappointment. This film is expected to make over $100 million at the box office in one weekend, potentially outpacing "Twilight: Breaking Dawn." And to do that, Katniss has to be universally palatable -- you don't take chances with a 100 million-dollar payday. After all, she's following in the footsteps of Hermione Granger, who's annoying know-it-all personality and conventionally unattractive buck teeth were considerably toned down in Emma Watson's on-screen embodiment of the character.

Leslye Headland directly addressed the issue of female likeability in feature films in an interview with IndieWire in January:

In my experience in the studio work for the very first time, I was really surprised about how intense they were about likeable female characters. I never thought of my characters as unlikeable. Ever. I thought I was writing women and that was that, you know? And then it just became this thing where they would say, "It makes her unlikeable if she does blank." I don't understand that.

It's this narrow definition of what makes a woman "appealing" and "likeable" that limits the range of women we see in Hollywood films, and that's unfortunate. As an audience, we're not always innately good or kind or selfless, so why should our heroines be?

LOOK: Scenes From "The Hunger Games" Movie

 

Follow Emma Gray on Twitter: www.twitter.com/emmaladyrose

Spoiler Alert: This piece discusses key plot points of both the novel and the movie "The Hunger Games." Katniss Everdeen is deep in the woods, surrounded by greenery that in any other circumstance...
Spoiler Alert: This piece discusses key plot points of both the novel and the movie "The Hunger Games." Katniss Everdeen is deep in the woods, surrounded by greenery that in any other circumstance...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 71
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
05:00 PM on 03/26/2012
I completely agree with this! The first words out of my mouth when the movie ended was "That is not the Katniss I know!" I think the problem they had was the book was told through Katniss' thoughts- how she dealt with the problems, how she thought each action through. She even developed the other characers more in her thoughts than through their actions and words in the books. I don't think they knew how to get that all across and in turn they made her a typical girl, without all the self-doubt and selfishness that makes her who she is. I'm sure some of the changes were made for a more "likeable" character but I tend to think it was how they chose to deal with the translation from book to screen.

I also wanted to point out that in the book, Katniss moves on after Rue's death and breaks down into sobs later after she sets up camp for the night. It is part of who she is to mourn her friend and taking a life. But when you add that into all the other changes i get why you say she was changed.
04:31 PM on 03/26/2012
Sadly, I felt that we lost this same thing with ALL the characters. Even after 2.5 hours fo film, we got NONE of the humanity of the characters or the community they lived in. There was so little depth to ANY of them. We lost Peeta's depth of character. We lost the mother's DEEP inability to cope with the loss of her husband and her depth of ability to heal others. We lost the way the coal community took care of or did not take care of each other (just hints). We lost Gale almost completely. :( Prim was just a scared little girl and we lost her other special attributes and what happened with the cat?!! ARGH!

I lejoyed the movie on some levels. It was well-made but the characters fell flat from the outset. It was so sad to see that the life of the story could not be replicated into this movie. They could have made a trilogy of short movies just from the first book. The first movie could have been about her early life. The second movie about Her and Gale and the Reaping and the 3rd movie about the Games. It would have given them more time to develop the characters and explore the whys of the government.

I only wish that we could hold out hope that the other movies will stand up better, but I am sure that they will be no better.
04:16 PM on 03/26/2012
I so totally agree since seeing the movie I could figure out what bothered me about it, although I liked it. I blamed it on them not taking enough time to set the environment: fun & entertainment for the capital...oppression for everyone else. I blame the fact that you knew what vehicle Rue was too easily. Don't get me wrong it is still a GOOD movie, COULD'VE been better and no, on-screen can probably never be as good as the book..but YES I think what unsettled me most about the GOOD film was how muted Katniss became...but I'll still take film Katniss over every version of Bella any day :)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
thejadedentrepreneur
Keeping it real since 1981.
11:09 AM on 03/26/2012
This is all fine and well but can we pause for a second to talk about how incredibly sexy/gorgeous/hot/amazing Lenny Kravitz is?
photo
madame fate
The ego shouts. The higher-self whispers.
09:35 AM on 03/26/2012
Men, in movies, get to be complicated characters. Look at Bogart in "The Maltese Falcon" for example. You are never quite sure what game he's playing with the people he interacts with. You hope he's a good guy but he's been cheating on his partner with the guy's wife. So, he's not such a nice guy. He's complicated.
Women, on the other hand, are either sympathetically written or they are without redemption. Apparently Hollywood has a great need (and fear) to portray their heroines as likable. I wonder why? IMO, I think women are much more complicated then men.
09:23 AM on 03/26/2012
I read the books a couple of weeks before the movie came out and really loved them. Unlike Bella, Katniss is self sufficent and a bit nasty in her attitude, rash and holds grudges. So when I heard the movie was coming out I was intrested in seeing Katniss on screen. I was totally disapointed, this movie was boring and Katniss was watered down. The special effect were not that good either. There is absoluetly no chemistry between, Peta, Cinna, Rue, when dealing with Katniss, in the books these people you care about them, in the movie I did'nt give a hoot about any of them. Bad casting in the part of Haymitch did'nt help, I love Woody but he's not what I pictured Haymitch to be. I curious to see how this movie does as the word of mouth gets out.
photo
BlackJAC
It's better to be a black king than a white knight
08:16 AM on 03/26/2012
You're upset that she felt immediate remorse about killing a person whose sole crime was being picked at random to participate in a televised all-child gladiator fight for the entertainment of a decadent despotism?
photo
french queen13
my beloved is mine and I am his
08:49 PM on 03/27/2012
No, that it wasn't true to Katniss' character in the book was how I read the article.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
sabelmouse
i love to tumble , ask me why .
07:22 AM on 03/26/2012
why ever was this comment removed ?
eborah Beck Commented 21 hours ago
"I don't care if they made Katniss into Shirley Temple. There
is an important message in this trilogy for young people and I
felt the film was on point and did what it had to do to get the
message across. For 74-years the 'sins of the fathers' were
paid for by the children, there is poverty, want, need,
ignorance, political repression, the many laboring for the
benefit of a few (rather the realization of Ayn Rand's
disgusting utopia) and the cynical use of children to drive a
political message across in order to maintain that status quo.
You completely miss the point of the story and that is to
awaken, provoke thought and awareness."
photo
michelesda
My micro-bio is empty.
05:54 AM on 03/26/2012
It's the inevitable problem in trying to make a book into a movie; the limitations of the filmic medium. Film, especially in color, is inherently saddled with massive (visual) information overload, and has no way of efficiently showing us a character's inner life.
photo
LMPE
I connect the most dissimilar things
11:17 PM on 03/25/2012
(Full disclosure: I haven't seen "The Hunger Games", and in fact hadn't heard of it before Friday)

Too likeable, you say.

Are Beavis and Butt-Head too likeable?
photo
french queen13
my beloved is mine and I am his
08:50 PM on 03/27/2012
They're boys. They're allowed to be less than likeable.
07:43 PM on 03/25/2012
FIRST BOOK SPOILER:

How is a Katniss that's crying over Rue's death an unrecognizable one? Rue reminded her of Prim, so there's a pretty palpable reason why she'd mourn the fatality of such a pure soul.
08:12 AM on 03/26/2012
You only know that rue reminded her of prim if you read the book. They barely focus on the relationship between katniss and prim in the movie. you see that she loves her sister but if you have not read the books, you have no idea that their dad has been dead for 4 years and katniss kept them alive after that. The little backstory they give makes it appear that it could have happened 3 months ago for all we know.
07:24 PM on 03/25/2012
The problem lies in the medium. In the books the first-person narrator tells us what Katniss, a person of few words, is thinking. We thus know that she's always doing whatever she needs to do to survive, regardless of how she feels about it, and intelligent, able not only to analyze a situation quickly but also to look steps ahead like a chess player and anticipate consequences. It's the latter quality that Haymitch responds to, realizing that for once he's mentoring someone with real survival potential.

In the movie, we don't have the benefit of internal monologue and must depend upon facial expressions and gestures to convey nuance. The book Katniss doesn't give away much on the outside; that won't work on film - she would just seem cold. This will present real problems in the sequels, where her decisions often are manipulative because she sees clearly how the Capitol and the rebels are both manipulating her. How are they going to do the vote scene, where only Haymitch can follow her Machiavellian thought process?

Also missing is any sense of how traumatized all Games survivors are, how they have to come up with coping strategies for PTSD. This becomes immensely important in 'Catching Fire,' when Katniss must ally with Finnick, Beetee and Johanna. Personally, I think that toning down the violence to get a PG-13 rating diluted the story's message. It's meant to be a dark, disturbing, political cautionary tale; instead they gave us a heroic adventure.
photo
french queen13
my beloved is mine and I am his
08:51 PM on 03/27/2012
The loss of narrative voice reminds me of what's wrong with so many Sherlock Holmes films, especially the Rathbone ones - Watson's authorial voice is lost, and he's too easily reduced to a dopey sidekick.
03:38 PM on 03/25/2012
The reason why I loved the books was because Katniss kicked ass
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
gulopartisan
My micro-bio is still empty.
12:34 PM on 03/25/2012
I see your point, and I may agree with you after seeing the film. But I just finished The Hunger Games, and Collins' Katniss is never "a ruthless warrior" in the first book. She kills, by my count, four tributes -- two by accident, one for revenge of another killing, and one as a mercy killing. The "ruthless killers" are Cato, Clove, and Glimmer, and things turn out badly for all three.

I think it's almost inevitable that the intellectual content of a good book is submerged in the film adaptation. My complaint about the LotR film was that Jackson reduced the story to the D&D adventure many took it to be. It made for a good film, but no replacement for the depth and breadth of the books. Experiencing a film is different from reading a book: faster, more physical and visceral, and in some ways constraining to the imagination. Gandalf is not Ian McKellen, Ahab is not Gregory Peck or Patrick Stewart, Medea is not Maria Callas. I don't expect Jennifer Lawrence to be MY Katniss (or Collins'); but I'm willing to consider hers.
08:10 PM on 03/25/2012
"I see your point, and I may agree with you after seeing the film. But I just finished The Hunger Games, and Collins' Katniss is never "a ruthless warrior" in the first book."

Exactly. She's a hunter by nature, and she wins by her cleverness. The only argument that it has to do with goodness is that she teams with Rue, but even then she is doing that not just out of inherent goodness but because Rue can climb better than anyone.
04:39 PM on 03/26/2012
Your point is not true. She is not ruthless. She does not want to kill. She does because she has to. Period. She does not need to kill Rue so she does not. One reason she teams up with her is because Rue offers the opportunity for her to keep her humanity and not lose herself to the killing. She teams up with Rue because Rue is vulnerable, is not trying to kill her, reminds her of Prim, has no ill will toward Katniss. There is a MILLION reasons she teams up with Rue. She trusts her. She mourns her passing. She makes her a symbol to their world. In the book, you get much more of a sense of this. You lose all the depth of character in the movie. Sorry you missed out an the complexity of the story.
relevancematters
You're so full of what's right, you can't see what
12:12 PM on 03/25/2012
Our view of literary characters is often formed through the prism of our own self-image.

Years ago, my sister and I were discussing her favorite book, which was Gone With The Wind. Her favorite character was Scarlett, because she was a woman ahead of her time, a woman who got what she wanted no matter what, a woman who was willing to break every rule in the book, who was physically brave and who always got up again when she got knocked down. This, to my sister, was what a woman should be. My favorite character was Melanie, whom my sister despised as weak and girly. But to my mind, Melanie actually saw the reality of every situation and acted in the context of her core belief system. She had faith and purpose in the context of her life. And while she was the supposed stereotypical wife and mother, that did not take away the fact that she had a spine of steel, and when it was absolutely necessary, she could and did do violence. And her surface softness--so anathema to "strong women"--somehow mirrored the strength and depth of her character.

It's not always a bad thing to be a girl. I'm not sure the relentlessly bad-assed Katniss being mourned here would be sympathetic enough to garner great ratings for her dystopian reality show.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Aitch Cee S
Hello Darling
05:34 PM on 03/25/2012
Great example though, of a not very "likeable" female protagonist: Scarlett O'Hara!
relevancematters
You're so full of what's right, you can't see what
10:58 AM on 03/27/2012
I found Scarlett quite unlikeable, but my sister loved her, and to a certain extent lived her life with the same approach; needless to say, she's acquired a lot of the same baggage. My impression of the author of this piece here was that she was another admirer of the Scarlett template, and my impression of Katniss is that she's a lot more realistic in her understanding of how the world works.