Tuesday, December 17, 2013

Saw Catching Fire over the weekend...

The thing about The Hunger Games is that they're conceptually interesting and have some great images, but are not actually at all well-written on a technical level. The films, on the other hand, take those same concepts and images and add a stellar cast and excellent cinematography, creating an adaptation that is far superior to the books it's based on.

Catching Fire is the best of the books, and looks likely to be the best of the movies, as well. Happily, the film was able to capture the idea, very prominent in the books, that revolution is not necessarily a matter of violent uprising; it is a matter of clashing ideas and ideals, of swaying enough popular opinion to undermine the control of the powers that be. A revolutionary act need not be a bombing or a battle; it can be a clever engagement with the media or a subtly subversive popular entertainment.

You may have noticed that same idea here and there elsewhere on this blog...

1 comment:

  1. I think the Hunger Games trilogy is actually better written than most people give it credit for. The elements that most people tend to criticize the most (the odd descriptive language and Katniss's straightforward bluntness) I think are very good reflections of her POV. If the book was in 3rd person, I would agree that they don't work, but I think they're perfect for the 1st person. I think the 1st person perspective is especially powerful in Mockingjay in terms of her PDST, which is almost visceral to the reader. I'm curious and a little nervous about how they will portray that in the movie.

    ReplyDelete