The Hunger Games

I'll start by dealing with the elephant in the room; I have not read the book. Or indeed books, plural. None of them. In no way can I comment on how faithfully this film transfers the story from page to screen (although by the relatively reliable accounts I've had so far, it would seem pretty accurate). Instead, I shall deal purely with the film itself. For those in a particularly disagreeable mood, it could be said that 'The Hunger Games' is not necessarily that original a concept. Playing out much like a 'Twilight'-style, teenage themed hybrid of 'Battle Royale' and 'The Truman Show', we are greeted by a dystopian not-so-distant-future, where public obedience is ensured by an annual televised deathmatch pitting 24 teen 'Tributes' against each other, with only a single victor. Simples.

Though quite a brutal sounding concept, the final execution has been kept unashamedly teen friendly. No real surprise since the book series was very purposefully written with that audience in mind, but it did mean that several last minute cuts (including digitally removing blood splashes) were made under the guidance of the BBFC to bring the film in line with a 12A certificate. Personally, I don't think the film looks any the poorer for it; it is still able to realise enough drama and violence to appease even the most ASBO ridden of audience members, and yet is now able to tap into the lucrative adult-accompanied tween market, before they spend all their pocket money on the final Twilight film (cynical twenty-something reviewer alert).

Critical praise has run high for the cast, a view which I very much echo. There are some excellent performances from the relatively unknown leads, who more than competently avoid being upstaged, despite the slick roles for the seasoned pros; Stanley Tucci's chillingly detached reality TV host and Woody Harrelson's alcoholic mentor being of particular note. Donald Sutherland also stands out as delivering an effortlessly sinister performance as the oppressive President Snow, though it comes with a sense that it's a role he's been perfecting for the last couple of decades.
 

They managed to invent a revolutionary new coat-hanger technology, but couldn't think of a way to improve the humble desk chair...

However, and it's a big however, with all that said, 'The Hunger Games' is an object lesson in how an excellent cast and a compelling story can be let down by what seems like such a minor element in the making of a film; the camera work. Right from the beginning of the film, some shots are presented uncomfortably close to the action, looking like the director just kept forgetting his glasses, and making it impossibly uncomfortable to watch and actually focus on any critical part of what's going on. Coupled with the continual and insistent use of shaky camera shots (especially during action sequences), it becomes very difficult to follow or engage with key moments in the story, breaking any kind of drama or tension that had been building to that point. The director has come out and defended his use of the shaky camera work, stating that it "had a lot to do with the urgency of what's going on and to reflect protagonist Katniss Everdeen's point of view". As justifications go, I completely buy that. But my advice to him would be simple; as a storytelling device, it works, but use it sparingly. Unless of course your aim is to end up with scores of cinemas full of people suffering from motion sickness. Sadly, as intriguing as the storyline and acting is, the footage resulting from those decisions becomes really quite difficult to watch.

Aside from that, there are very few other gripes. At a little under two and a quarter hours, I would have said the film has ended up about 20 minutes too long, and is quite slow in some places as a result, but as grievances go, that's pretty minor. There is also a small sense of visual fatigue by the end, as at that point, we've seen an awful lot of forest. Not a lot that can really be done about that given the confines of the storyline, but it would have been nice to see some small attempt to do something, besides the short (and relatively pointless for those who haven't read the books) flashbacks.

In all then, 'The Hunger Games' is an extremely good film, backed by a very likeable cast, but (in my opinion) sorely let down by some poor choices in cinematography. The shaky style does drive some pace into the action sequences, and is of course a useful tool to obscure violent elements that would otherwise rob the film of it's targeted 12A certificate, but it does make it very difficult to hold focus during some really pivotal moments of the storyline. Either that, or I'm just getting old.