Let’s be honest, The Hunger Games is as similar to Battle Royale as Star Trek 2011 was to Bambi, or as Twilight (guh) was to Interview With A Vampire.
Please Note: This article MAY contain spoilers.
Is it just me? I'm sure I can see something wrong with this collection of characters?
The hype, the weeks of waiting, the rave reviews and the record breaking box office: The Hunger Games has arrived. Not only is ‘The Girl on Fire’ at the box office, the reviews and the film itself burn with excitement. Oh, and of course, the inevitable internet controversy that precedes and follows the release every hyped up, teenage aimed and slightly ‘cult’ film.
ARGH! I see it now, BLACK characters! I'm outraged, I'm shocked! I'm... oh wait...
Firstly we had the fact that apparently, the film was racist, by casting black actors as secondary characters Rue, Thresh and Cinna (portrayed by newcomers Amandla Stenberg and Dayo Okeniyi and Lenny Kravitz respectively). There was outrage at this fact, apparently according to more than one movie goer blog; it ‘ruined the film’.
Now, I’m not being funny, but please read the following passages that are the descriptions of both Rue and Thresh the first time we meet them in the capital Panem:
Rue: “And most hauntingly, a twelve-year-old girl from District 11. She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that, she’s very like Prim [Katniss’, the protagonist of the film’s, sister] in size and demeanour.”
Thresh: “The boy tribute from District 11, Thresh, has the same dark skin as Rue, but the resemblance stops there. He’s one of the giants, probably six and half feet tall and built like an ox.”
Cinna: Throughout the book is simply described as having green eyes and closely cropped hair: no skin colour is mentioned.
Now, call me a cynic, or call me whatever the hell you like, but 2 things strike me from the above 3 paragraphs taken from the source material that the film is based on.
Number 1: the source material states quite clearly states that 2 of the 3 characters that are causing this outcry are in fact black.
Number 2: What exactly does a characters skin colour have to do with a story in which rich members of a world force the poor to kill each other for entertainment? Also, the fact that members of our own society have a problem with this (baring in mind that not only is this story not real, it is a send up of western civilization and it’s values) simply puts into perspective the problems within our society that this film highlights. Seriously guys, it isn’t the 16th Century anymore, we’ve moved on. Why is this even remotely an issue in the modern world, let alone a piece of modern cinema, that isn’t even original! It’s based (rather accurately) on a bestselling and critically successful novel. To claim you’re fans of the source book, and are annoyed with the adaptation, because the correct ethnic origins are followed? Hmm, doesn’t really ring true somehow does it?
Another point: surely the fact that Lenny Kravitz is fantastic in this film; strong, confident, heart-warmingly compassionate; basically, everything his character is supposed to be, is again, more important than his skin colour? His performance is outstanding.
My own personal thoughts on this response from the… younger members of the audience, really shows up the ‘Twilight’ generation for
Ah... miserable bitch and a shite vampire. I'm sure i've seen this before... but with better actors and storyline...
what they are and for their values, which ironically, is my second grievance with the reaction to this film: More bothered about the attractiveness and physical image of an actor/character, than with the actual depth brought to said character by whom-so-ever has been chosen to play them. I am so grateful that no one was contracted to walk around looking moody whilst topless in this film (yes, you know who you are toothy and hairball spewing dicks). This film has brought teenage films back up to a successful and recognised standard; something that manages to portray emotion, and engage with audiences on different levels, not just rely on people stripping off to pull in ticket sales. The fact that the characters in The Hunger Games not only fail to strip, but also present falsified feelings, lies within a relationship, betrayal and a slow growth of emotional attachment to one another, is a credit to the author and the screenplay adaptors. This film is a truer representation of teenage relationships than any I’ve seen for a while. I applaud those who took the decision to trust in the acting talent of these youngsters to carry the film, not strip off and hope torsos and waists would distract from wooden delivery and dodgy lines. Bravo guys. Seriously, bravo.
...Ah yes, yes i have. What's that? Twilight isn't fully original either? You lie!
For those who are intending to see Hunger Games because you’re expecting something similar to Twilight; (apparently, in Twilight, there is a love triangle also?). Please don’t, if you enjoyed Twilight on an obsessive level, you won’t enjoy this, it’ll go over your head, it actually requires the audience to engage on an emotional, not just physical level… something that, knowing some fans of these ‘films’ (and I use that word very loosely) you would very much struggle to do. In case you hadn’t noticed, I really struggle to engage with shallow and pointless cinema.
Now, that’s part 1 and part 2 over, and I hope, settled as well. My 3rd issue is one that is perhaps slightly more complex: A lot of people left showings of The Hunger Games saying one thing: “Well that was just an edited 12A, American version of Battle Royale” [Battle Royale was a 1999 novel (oh yes internet fanboys, it was a novel) and 2000 film in which students of a school are dropped on an island to kill each other].
Now. I will give you a response to this, and then an explanation for that response:
You’re idiots. You’re idiots jumping on an internet bandwagon very much similar to the ‘Anti-Twilight’ campaign. You think it’s cool to hate this film because it’s based on teen material much like the emo saga that came before it. My final point: Critics, love this film. If it was similar to Twilight or Battle Royale in anyway; either in calibre, storyline or standard, don’t you think this would have been mentioned by a more recognised and a respected mind than Japanese-cinema loving fanboys on the internet?
Now, spot the difference. No, seriously, it IS that easy to do.
Firstly, the fact that so many hate this film on the basis of Twilight infuriates me. For those still questioning these 3 books and 4 films about dogs and chaps with dental issues (and also a girl who finds them attractive? Necrophilia and bestiality anyone?) (wtf?!) this is what it has done to modern cinema and audiences: it’s dumbed them down so much they hate critically superior films on the basis of ‘unattractive’ leads (on a side note, Jennifer Laurence? Unattractive? Please!).
Secondly, I have to ask, how many of you have actually seen Battle Royale, and how many are simply jumping into the mob, wielding your pitchforks and torches, because it’s currently ‘cool’ to hate anything or anyone popular? Hmm? As the title of this piece states, it’s like saying Star Trek is to Bambi because Spock’s mum died.
Storyline for Battle Royale: In the future, the Japanese government captures a class of ninth-grade students and forces them to kill each other under the revolutionary “Battle Royale” act.
Storyline for The Hunger Games: Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister’s place for the latest match.
Now number one, I’m not naive, I can see similarities. But that’s it, they’re similarities. It’s like saying Twilight is the same as Interview With A Vampire because they both contain the dentist-needing blood suckers. (Twilight fans, watch Interview With A Vampire by the way, that is a real vampire film).
Firstly, Battle Royale is not a contest that is televised to an entire nation, The Hunger Games is. Secondly, the government in Battle Royale capture the class quietly and without publicity. The whole idea of the event in The Hunger Games is that is such a publicised and widely broadcast event. It is meant as a show of dominance from ‘The Capital’; to show that the other districts within the story have no power to stop them. Not really seeing that many similarities so far… other than the very broad premise.
Thirdly, the books that each film is based on (Battle Royale by Koushun Takami and The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins) were published in 2 different countries; Battle Royale in Japan in 1999 and The Hunger Games in the Western World in 2008. Now, Battle Royale was released in English in 2004, however, 4 years is a very long gap between publications for there to be cries of plagiarism called from the angry internet dwellers. On that note, I have to say guys, Battle Royale; great film, but not that mainstream. I have to ask again, how many of you have actually seen it? And do you think that Suzanne Collins (see picture), a nice 49 year old lady from America has sat down to watch it? Or even read it? And how many are just jumping on the bandwagon? Seriously? Because if you have seen it, then you’d know that Battle Royale is a standalone film, that didn’t need (and actually in my view was hampered by) a sequel.
The Hunger Games is the story of a rebellion, an uprising against a dictatorship. It has more in common with the first Star Wars trilogy than with Battle Royale. The Hunger Games themselves, and the defiance shown towards Panem’s leaders by 2 of the contestants, is merely the beginning. The second 2 stories tell of the uprising and rebellion the actions of the contestants of the 74thannual Hunger Games cause. It is the basis for a much larger and destructive story. Difference number four; it requires the subsequent novels to complete the story. Left as it was, it would have felt incomplete.
That's right illiterates, elements from this can be seen in BOTH Battle Royale AND The Hunger Games! Who-da-thunk?
I submit, there are similarities, as I said earlier. But you could say that of any novel and of any film. It is completely unfair to say that The Hunger Games is a rip off one other film/book. It contains elements of several films, think about it: 1984, The Lord of the Flies, Survivor, The Truman Show, Zoolander, Metropolis, Blade Runner. For crying out loud, the list could go on. It is the nature of the entertainment media to take elements from successful sources and use them as inspiration. It is practically impossible to claim divine and purely original ideas; they don’t truly exist, you have to have had your idea from somewhere, or something. Collins says herself, that her idea came from watching the BBC News channel’s coverage of the Iraq War (note: the most successful and watched News channel in the UK) and reality TV: The only thing watched en mass anymore (sadly).
And EVEN this! I know I know... I couldn't believe it either! *sarcasm*
The point is that to claim The Hunger Games is a rip off of one source is ridiculous. Academics and critics all agree that “common for artists to borrow from and improve on many sources, most times without fully realising it. Quentin Tarantino has built his career on this principle.” (Jonathan Looms, writing for The Oxford Student).
Overall, the criticisms of The Hunger Games are rather stupid and pointless. It cannot be denied that not only is it a fantastic book; I would have to make a case for it being the next Generations Harry Potter for getting kids back into reading, but it really is a fantastic adaption. And here, I would argue it surpasses the Harry Potter franchise for how true an adaptation it is from its source material. It brings teen films and young adult films back into the public eye. Something I never thought would happen. It has given them back a respect and stature stripped from them by previous, shall we say lesser films. It deserves its praise and it does deserve to be seen.
Well done Hunger Games:
Yes… The World will be watching.
thethoughtsofjamie 