‘Catching Fire’ soars and skewers at the same time

Boston Globe ^ | November 21, 2013 | Ty Burr

[Truth29]

Mission accomplished, and with the sequel, the gloves come off. “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” is a muscular, engrossing, unexpectedly bleak epic of oppression and insurrection, directed with dramatic urgency and a skilled eye by Francis Lawrence (“Constantine,” “I Am Legend”). Set in the fascist future state of Panem, the movie takes pains to show its young mass audience what living under a totalitarian dictatorship might look and feel like. But the sharpest aspects of “Catching Fire” — the parts that sting — play as an allegory for today. Very few people will take in this spectacle of a society amusing itself to death, of “reality games” and the vapid media hysteria that surrounds them, and not draw a parallel to our own televised bread and circuses. At its best, “Catching Fire” is a blockbuster that bites the culture that made it.

[Farnsworth]

It has enough “ambiguity” for me to it from a conservative perspective.

I like V for vendetta, clearly a hard left movie, but in my perspective, I see some conservative message in the movie.

[wideawake]

The message I derive from the movie is “competition is evil and unnecessary.”

[AppyPappy]

Oh no. It’s the world that would come if the Tea Party got power. Stick to the narrative.

[nonsporting]

The Hunger Games is no conservative manifesto

It does not have to be. When the obvious parallels can be drawn, even if it's riddled with agitprop, the reachable millenials will see the implications of big government [fascism] which robs them of the" freedom to choose healthcare." (And by logical extension anything else)

[IYAS9YAS]

poor and middle-class people, dooped by faux patriotism,

Not duped. The back-story is that they rose up against the all-powerful government, lost, and were broken into districts. The districts were forced, at threat of destruction/death, to send a male and female child between the ages of 12 and 18 to the games each year as retribution for their uprising and failure. The ultimate story is, they rose up against this oppression and fought back because one person showed them how.

If you haven't read the series, then I don't want to spoil the story about district 13.

[wideawake]

Okay. I guess you have more confidence in this film being misinterpreted by its target audience than I do.

I hope you're right.

[FrdmLvr]

They’re counting on the viewers not making the connection, or blaming it somehow on the capitalist system.

[Mears]

I liked the first movie and the books also.

We are going to see this one tomorrow.

My grand kids got me hooked on the books but I never expected to enjoy the movie as much as I did.

.

[Truth29]

"The Hunger Games is not a conservative manifesto."

It may not have started that way, but the comparison with the present government seems obvious. It is about rebellion against a tyrannical oppressive government and the price that must be paid to resist. I am going to see the movie later today and see if is close to the book in its portrayal of resistance to a dictatorial degenerate government

[joethedrummer]

Thank you!!! I just watched that YouTube clip - Gave me a GOOD LOL this morning!!! :-D

[Yardstick]

Yes, all of that is laid out in the preamble at the beginning of the movie. But when we join the story, most of the districts have bought into the patriotism and honor themes that the rich district has wrapped around the games. They have bought into the system, and that is the problem to be solved. Hope resides in the people of the poorest district since they have the least stake in the system. Their participation is mainly the result of compulsion by the state and economic desparation. This makes them ripe for rebellion if they can only gain consciousness of their own strength and the tenuous nature of the exploiter class’s hold on power.

[IYAS9YAS]

most of the districts have bought into the patriotism and honor themes that the rich district has wrapped around the games.

I thought only two of the districts did that. The rest were just trying to survive, and showed considerable disdain for the procedure. They were compelled to do so at the threat of death. There was no mass celebration when the names were picked in 12, just silence.

[discostu]

There’s a classic example here about messages really being in the mind of the audience. Collins has said any political references are against Bush (the first one was written before Obama was even elected). But a conservative reader will see it the other way. It’s a tale against oppressive government, the question boils down to what the reader considers oppressive.

[MrB]

“not paying for birth control” = “oppressive”...

[Yardstick]

Okay, two districts duped and the rest compelled. The theme is still one of class exploitation.

[heartwood]

I found the economy of Panem and the Districts preposterous - that a city that could build an arena far beyond anything the present day could achieve, could also be dependent on the raw materials produced by depopulated hinterlands with early twentieth century technology at best. All right, that kind of thing bothers me, like the lack of cultivated fields and herds around Rohan in LOTR. But I digress.

In the supposed criticism of our celebrity-worshipping culture, the book fails completely. Katniss has a makeup and wardrobe team, luxurious quarters and food before the games - that's not criticism, that's pandering to girls and women who want to have their cake and eat it too - who want glamor and acclaim and to be treated like princesses, and yet to be at heart something better, a deadly competent, noble Artemis, worshipped by two men. Would the book have been so popular if Katniss had been simply dropped grubby and unpampered into the arena? Absolutely not.

[IYAS9YAS]

The theme is still one of class exploitation.

Yes. And who is it that exploits classes the most? It certainly isn't conservatives.

[Truth29]

"In the supposed criticism of our celebrity-worshipping culture, the book fails completely. Katniss has a makeup and wardrobe team, luxurious quarters and food before the games - that's not criticism, that's pandering to girls and women who want to have their cake and eat it too - who want glamor and acclaim and to be treated like princesses, and yet to be at heart something better, a deadly competent, noble Artemis, worshipped by two men. Would the book have been so popular if Katniss had been simply dropped grubby and unpampered into the arena? Absolutely not."

Of course the book and Katness would not have been as popular; just as TV presenters and personalities are better turned out and more attractive than the average viewer. For the second book and movie, however, it is explained that the winners are granted these perks and more in their District for life.

[Yardstick]

Well yeah, of course. That’s what makes this movie leftist agitprop. It basically casts conservatives as the class exploiting bad guys or their dupes. That’s why we should be criticizing this movie, not praising it.

[discostu]

I don’t think the book would have been less popular if she’d have been dropped grubby into the arena. It just wouldn’t have setup an important plot point in the 3rd book. The fact is all that “luxury” the gamers get to “enjoy” before the game exists for 2 reasons: TV and guilt. The Hunger Games are a media event and they want to show the glory of the Capital. But also people in the Capital, especially people associated with the Games are starting to question the whole setup especially the Games. Year after year after year they get to meet these kids, then send them to their deaths and it’s starting to wear on them, which (SPOILER) becomes very important in the 3rd book (and really the end of the 2nd) when the rebellion gets going a lot of the people that are driving it are people from the Games.