'The Hunger Games' ' bread and circuses

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 4/5/12 | Debra J. Saunders

[Yardstick]

Yeah, I have a hard time believing the ALA would endorse even a responsible libertarian message. I think they’re reading the book, seeing that the government bad guys are one percenter aristocrats who oppress non-unionized pre-New Deal appalachian coal miner types, and finding themselves quite satisfied with the implicit (really pretty explicit) class message. And I doubt they’re missing the analogy between the oppressed, manipulated lower classes sending their sons and daughters to die in the Hunger Games under auspices of patriotism and honor and the American lower classes sending their sons and daughters off to die in Iraq under auspices of patriotism and honor (as the left sees it). And of course there’s the feminism, with the strong female lead and the weak and unreliable male characters, and the pro-gay thing with Katniss’s “stylist” being her behind-the-scenes moral support throughout the film. And isn’t it true that in the book the stylist (I can’t remember his name...in the movie he’s played by Lennie Kravitz who really should stick to playing guitar) is tortured to death by the government for his subversion? Do you think there might be a leftwingy message there about the whole “torture” issue, just maybe?

[ctdonath2]

The book makes clear the Games are a sign of oppression: “we can destroy your children at random and make you celebrate it; we can do far worse if we choose”. Nothing like sending voluntary soldiers off to war (though Iraq reportedly inspired the author); nobody in the story views this as a “cause” (good or bad), save only a way to increase meager rationing deigned from a tyrant.

Nothing per se wrong with a strong female protagonist. She wins her battles by cunning and care, not by brute force (a la Charlie’s Angels and other improbably action-heroine films). As a father of a daughter, I’d like her to achieve such cleverness and self-sufficiency.

Strong males could drown out such a character; author weakens them thru other means that the lead may stand out. The male protagonist is injured near to death, not merely a weakling.

The stylist’s, um, preferences are not indicated, and have nothing to do with the reason for his vicious demise. (Admittedly, most male stylists exhibit certain traits, but the book does not enunciate them, and I assume the movie depicts what most viewers expect of a character of that occupation.) He’s tortured to death because he embarrassed the government and encouraged the opposition in an extremely high-profile manner.

Can’t yet speak to any nuances of the movie, but that’s my take from the book. If the ALA is endorsing it for the reasons you impute, it is because they are imputing their preferences upon the neutral story. I find it an inspiring depiction of fighting for freedom against an active and powerful tyranny, one which many on FR think is on its way now.

[ctdonath2]

improbably = improbable

Point of parenthetical is she’s not winning straight-up hand-to-hand combat against big burly tough guys.

[Jim Noble]

Of course, in a real world like the one in Hunger Games, girls would not be warriors and heroines.

They’d be traded like poker chips (the lucky ones), or used and disposed of.

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

I’m also not one who think you can fairly draw a leftist tilt from it, though of ocurse that’s the message Sutherland would prefer. Having read the entire series, I think subsequent events make it clear that the evil being opposed is totalitarianism in general, and not just one that protects some wealthy 1%.

[Yardstick]

Yes, the games are a means of oppression and exploition used by the upper class government aristocrats against the poor coal mining lower classes. They embellish the games with notions of honor and patriotism, but everyone except for the jingoistic toadies of District 4 and 6 (or whatever they are) realize it's manipulative BS and don't buy into it. They only participate in order to put an extra ration of food in their hungry bellies.

If you can't understand the analogy that's in play here, then you really might as well stay on the sidelines of the culture war as a naive bystander.

The same goes for the rest of the film, which is nothing more than a bundle of not particularly subtle, but also not quite in your face, lefty overtones and analogies. I'm actually surprised they didn't include the Cinna's death by torture in the film. Maybe they thought that would be too overt, or maybe they're saving it for the sequal.

[ctdonath2]

Not sure how you’re deciding to make such demeaning comments. Every “lefty overtone” you presented I exposed as imputation of your own prejudices, and as not inconsistent with conservative principles. The “embellishments of honor and patriotism” is no different than other real-world left, right, or center oppressors: every such government uses the same techniques, all of which are anathema to our conservative/libertarian principles.

As for Cinna’s death in particular: Katniss sees him brutally beaten for a brief period. There is no more organized torture applied beyond mere brute force. Nothing in the book alludes to what you’re implying (though the reader may with ease impute such views upon the characters).

I’m waiting for some solid basis for the accusation of leftism, but I’m not seeing it. Again, the story isn’t left-vs-right, it’s tyranny-vs-freedom.

[Yardstick]

I’ve already given you the basis for the leftism. It’s in the film’s basic theme of class exploitation. Look at who the bad guys are. They’re not leftwingers. They’re powdered fascist aristocrats. The hostess lady is literally done up as a kind of Marie Antoinette, just to make sure you get the point.

And the message about manipulative patriotism is so obvious that it really shouldn’t have to be explained. Were you alive during the Bush years? Do you remember how angry the left was at the very notion of patriotism? They accused the Bush administration of using the public’s patriotic instincts to make the sale for the Iraq war. The left always accuses the right of doing this sort of thing, and this movie is part of the pattern. The fact that the Hunger Games was conceived during the Bush years is all the context you need to understand the leftist intent of that message.

According to the info here, Cinna is indeed tortured to death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Hunger_Games_characters

There also is a character named Lavinia is tortured to death during interrogation:

http://unknowneverdeen.weebly.com/avox-girllavina.html

Also it is telling that the movie is being embraced by hard core lefties like the communists over at Socialist Worker. Here is their review:

http://socialistworker.org/2012/01/26/hope-and-the-hunger-games

Meanwhile perceptive conservatives like Ed Morrissey at Hot Air are seeing the same stuff that I’m picking up on:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/24/film-review-the-hunger-games/

[Yardstick]

And I do apologize for the demeaning comments. It’s just that it seems to me like a kind of wishful thinking by conservatives not to see what’s going on in this film. There’s this great Bible verse that says something like we’re to be “as shrewd as serpents and as innocent as doves” but to me this is a case of conservatives coming up short on the shrewdness part.

[PuzzledInTX]

While Big Government was the bad guy in this movie, what was more appalling to me was the acquiesence of the population! When I heard that the Hunger Games were the 75th annual contest, I was overwhelmed with sadness that the people would stand for this for so long. All I could think of was American Idol on steroids. Big Government is our enemy, but so is an uneducated populace. Get government out of the education business.

[ctdonath2]

Should be able to get a used copy cheap. Lots were sold. Good story, worth buying (at least at discount/used).

Got my copy of the trilogy as e-books for $3 (special from Kobo.com).