"What's the appropriate soundtrack for kids killing kids?" Entertainment Weekly asks in regard to the soundtrack for the highly-anticipated movie The Hunger Games that premieres in the U.S. on Friday, March 23. If you're a grown-up, maybe you're appalled by that question. And maybe you'll be even more appalled to know that millions of young people are so excited about the premiere that they've already made the movie one of the top-selling films ever on Fandango.
But before you choose to be appalled by a work of fiction or by a film adaptation, it's probably good to know that the concept that fuels The Hunger Games is both unthinkable and ever-thinkable, since it's a story that seems to get told over and over again. Equal parts dystopian classics like 1984 and Brave New World and pop-culture barnburners like Death Race 2000, The Running Man, and the Japanese kid-slaughter Battle Royale, The Hunger Games reflects our secret and not-so-secret fears, which helps explain why it has captured more young readers than any recent books that don't feature Harry Potter or sparkly vampires -- 16 million books in print, 133 weeks and counting on the USA Today bestseller list.
What does all this popularity mean? In my work as a cultural critic, I am often asking that overarching question: Why do so many people get drawn to a particular artifact of culture at a given time? Setting aside whether something is good or not so good (Twilight in my estimation is not so good, and yet there are screaming audiences for it), people are often drawn to a work at a given moment because it exudes a peculiar relevance for them and in their culture. Aside from universal themes -- the things William Faulkner said all writers addressed -- there are three big topical themes that help explain why Publishers Weekly called The Hunger Games "the right book at the right time."
The Hunger Games is a powerful metaphor for the Great Recession, for this moment when even younger readers may be aware that their parents or older siblings are struggling to make ends meet in an increasingly dog-eat-dog economy. It's only a slightly-exaggerated look at our "reality TV" culture (what I call today's "bread and circuses" culture in the book I'm finishing on post 9/11 America). And it reflects our long-running military adventures and our subsequent losses of freedom and totalitarian excesses: surveillance, rendition, torture, preemptive war, and a tiny percentage of citizens who suffers while the vast majority watch it all on TV.
Some of the early reviews from England tell us what the book and the previews have already shown us: that, as The Guardian put it, "the America of The Hunger Games looks a lot like the 30s Depression." And that vision of economic hardship is as it should be -- a narrative that shows young people competing to the death against each other so that those they love can have enough to eat is just a more-violent version of the Ayn Randian laissez-faire capitalism shaping our economic life now.
When you listen to the Republican debates, what we often hear audiences and candidates saying is that we are all on our own. If we're fast enough, tough enough, work hard enough -- and don't befall some accident in the woods -- we should be just fine.
But God help anybody who falls under the wheels, because nobody else will.
Panem, the nation where The Hunger Games takes place, is the Latin word for "bread," and clearly related to the Latin phrase "panem et circenses" -- "bread and circuses." Author Suzanne Collins intended that The Hunger Games satirize our culture, where we watch "real life" on television and are thus distracted from our own real lives. As the Romans knew, if the people are entertained, they are less likely to rise up (as the people of Panem did in the not-too-distant past), and we've bought into this entertainment paradigm too. The spectacle of kids killing kids is only slightly more awful than the spectacle of Snooki with a kid. As The Hollywood Reporter notes in its review, "contemporary reality shows and televised competitions differ from this extravaganza only in their lower mortality rate."
So long as we are distracted -- and even, God help us, entertained -- we may forget for a moment about our own lives, our own hunger. We may forget that we live in a nation that is less free than it was a decade ago, a nation with fewer societal safety nets, a nation with fewer opportunities for young people. We should be outraged -- and yet most of us manage to sleep at night, thanks to The Bachelor and America's Got Talent.
The great irony of even a powerful dystopian story like The Hunger Games is that, if we're not careful, it could serve the same function in our lives as it does to those debased viewers of the Games. If we allow the story of The Hunger Games to do what it should -- that is, if it provokes us to ask hard questions and demand change -- then it is a valuable cultural artifact, despite its central concept. But if it only anesthetizes its audiences to watch quietly and demand the next installment, then it's a cruel joke.
The Guardian's review tells us that the lesson of The Hunger Games is "the game is rigged and the banker always wins." Let's hope that after watching this film, we'll remember that lesson -- and demand a fair deal for ourselves and all who hunger the next time we sit down at the table.
Hunter Stuart: How The Hunger Games Is A Mostly Faithful Adaptation Of The Book
The Hunger Games (2012) - IMDb
'The Hunger Games' Movie Guide: 5 Things You Need to Know ...
This is great. The Hunger Games has been my summer reading for two years now. I am truly hoping the Hunger Games movie will be as good as the books. I am most interested in seeing the costumes designed by Cinna. Thanks for sharing this post.
"It's a story of adolescent boys and girls being randomly pulled into a filmed game show of a gory deathmatch in an arena filled with natural and artificial hazards set in a dystopian society with a totalitarian government that likes to show the people that they're still in charge. Some of the contestants embrace the opportunity to cause mayhem; others try to navigate the situation with diplomacy, only to be ruthlessly murdered by more vicious players. The story ultimately focuses on a trio of protagonists, one slightly older and embittered by loss because he has played and won the game before; the other two are younger and more innocent, and turn to their more mature peer for guidance and inspiration. In the end, instead of the usual one winner, there is a plot twist and the two younger players become lovers and end up winning the game in the end. Then they go on in the next story to try and overthrow the totalitarian government."
What gets me the most is that Suzanne Collins said she's never heard of BR. I can only guess why though, the reason being she would probably get sued.
And wouldn't Hunger Games be more about the evils of statism (the opposite of capitalism) since the antagonist, the Capitol, represents an oppressive government? This film/book is clearly not a call for a larger state apparatus as you would prescribe, but a call for a more libertarian revolution against the growing threat that is our own government.
But God help anybody who falls under the wheels, because nobody else will."
This can only be written by someone who believes that the government is the only way to get anything done. Some of the better Republicans do argue for abolishing the wlefare state, but they NEVER argue that you are or should be on your own. Ever hear of something called a private charity? United Way, Harvest for Hunger, the Little Sisters of the Poor? Passing the hat?
My brother is a big fan of Ayn Rand, and very libertarian. The last few Christmases, he has thrown a Christmas party and asked guests to bring a non-perishable food item to donate to Harvest for Hunger.
There are other ways to do things besides the government's guns.
And what we have now is NOTHING LIKE laissez-faire capitalism. We have massive deficit spending, a welfare state, an ever growing regulatory state, more and more and more rules and regulations being imposed all the time, minimum wage laws, antitrust persecutions, er prosecutions, a government takeover of health care, central bank inflationary policies, a progressive tax system, bailouts, subsidies, price controls, land use regulations, government guaranteed loans, and so on and on and on.
People trying to blame our present economic problems on laissez-faire sound to me like Bart Simpson saying "I didn't do it".
"When you listen to the Republican debates, what we often hear audiences and candidates saying is that we are all on our own. If we're fast enough, tough enough, work hard enough -- and don't befall some accident in the woods -- we should be just fine.
But God help anybody who falls under the wheels, because nobody else will."
I haven't read it but a group of 12-yr olds said as much when I asked what was so great about the book. To be more specific their words were something like:
"If you think about it that's the way things will probably be in the future. It's everyone for himself it this world anyway, you hear it on the news or from politicians anyway everyday. (laughter) Most adults won't like it I think because they don't want to believe how ugly selfishness can get, but that's just reality. It starts with the little things then boom 30 yrs from now we're shooting each other for food and medicine."
Made me want to read the book.
If you believe that ultimately it is an emotion from the kids on republicans povs then perhaps you should gather a few children that like the book and share your views on charitable giving, lackluster participation & how the hunger games doesn't reflect what the GOP is arguing for.
I've not read _Hunger Games_, but in the book _Battle Royale_, the game is explained as a way to maintain distrust amongst the youth and prevent them from forming another revolution. Would that reasoning work for _Games_ the same way, or is it strictly punitive?
Yep, another liberal movie critic. You hated Atlas Shrugged Part 1, too, didn't you.
just fyi, there is NO "laissez-faire capitalism" in "our economic life now." Anything you can claim that is "free market" can be easily shown to be subject to myriad government regulations.
But you can't see that, and I'm not surprised.
Greetings from Galt's Gulch, where I live.
However, the kids have been reading it for a while now, the older ones - the ones who can register to vote - are starting to make the connection.
If they do, then there is hope.
What %&$#@ laissez-faire?
such a shame.