The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
Directed by Francis Lawrence;
Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth
Rating: 4/5
The best dystopian fiction
holds a mirror up to our own society, extrapolating current trends to extreme
endpoints. Here, in a grim future America, the gaudy citizens of the Capital lead
lives of leisure amid the glittering spires of their neo-classical metropolis
while the Appalachian miners of District 12 carve a meagre living straight out
of the Great Depression. Every year, they are forced to participate in their oppressors’
sadistic version reality TV (with brilliantly over the top X-factor style commentary): the titular Hunger Games, an annual gladiatorial
combat between children, in which the sole survivor emerges as victor.
The face of the revolution is
the teenage Katniss (Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence) whose strong performance
drives a film which is otherwise far from subtle. Yet there’s no doubt that
this film is thoroughly exciting and engaging. For a start, the young actors here
are miles better than the cast of the cheesy ‘80s slasher flicks I’ve been
watching lately.
The visuals are fantastic and
the cast is rounded out with both old and new blood, including Woody Harrelson
as Katniss’ grizzled mentor, and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the smooth talking
new games master. Donald Sutherland returns as the villainous President Snow,
his soft spoken exterior belying the brutal stranglehold he maintains on the
populace.
One year after Katniss and her
fellow ‘tribute’ Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) won the last Hunger Games, the
president decrees that this year’s competitors will be drawn from the existing
pool of victors (who believed they had earned their freedom); as if to deny
that the games are anything more than a ritual execution.
So Katniss and Peeta must head
back into the arena for a second round, facing twenty five years worth of combatants
who’ve murdered their way out once already. While more time is devoted to the Games
social impact and the brewing rebellion, there is a feeling that Catching Fire treads familiar ground. Much
of the thematic material held true for the first film, and this instalment is
little more than a continuation of the narrative. The biggest difference is
that the battle is between veterans and not children.
Gary Ross hands the
directorial reigns to Francis Lawrence, whose back catalogue, including Constantine (2005) and I am Legend (2007) suggests a darker
sequel, though Lawrence inherits much of the design and atmosphere directly
from his predecessor. This is ultimately delivered, yet we are treated to the
inevitably unsatisfying cliff hanger as the narrative heads towards its
presumably epic conclusion in next year’s Mockingjay.
The weakest part of the story
is the attempted love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Gale which started in
the last film. It pales in comparison to the wider struggle of the story and is
perhaps wisely downplayed. Gale (Liam Hemsworth, who somehow has third billing)
is a childhood friend of Katniss, but feels like a redundant character,
appearing in very few scenes to give the TV a jealous glance whenever he sees Peeta,
who has infinitely more screen time, but says and does less than he did in the
last film.
The new police uniforms, a
departure from the more standard half-visors seen in the first film, are a
little too much like Star Wars storm
troopers crossed with The Stig, and look downright bizarre when worn without a
helmet. This undermines some of the intensity of the new police chief of
District 12, who is otherwise brutal and intimidating.
As far as run time is
concerned, so many of these epic fantasy novel adaptations are a little on the
long side. At 146 minutes, Catching Fire is only quarter of an hour shorter
than the somewhat bloated The Hobbit: The
Desolation of Smaug, the other film I saw this week. How much of a problem
this becomes depends on your investment in the source material.
I've not read any of the novels, so as a casual viewer, this felt a lot longer than The Hobbit, but I can imagine a lot of people feeling the opposite. That’s fine, but it can alienate those on the periphery of the fan base.
Alternatively, while I felt that some of the Harry Potter films had the potential to flash past in a series of semi-confusing vignettes for anyone unfamiliar with the books, I never felt lost in the narrative of this film, or the one that preceded it.
I've not read any of the novels, so as a casual viewer, this felt a lot longer than The Hobbit, but I can imagine a lot of people feeling the opposite. That’s fine, but it can alienate those on the periphery of the fan base.
Alternatively, while I felt that some of the Harry Potter films had the potential to flash past in a series of semi-confusing vignettes for anyone unfamiliar with the books, I never felt lost in the narrative of this film, or the one that preceded it.
Comments
Post a Comment