Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Over at Strange Horizons, I review Catching Fire, the second film in the Hunger Games series. I was quite excited going into the movie, since while I'd read the first book before seeing the film based on it, and have picked up the major events of the third book, Mockingjay, by fannish osmosis, I went into Catching Fire "clean," knowing nothing about it. In hindsight, I probably should have wondered about that, since Catching Fire turns out to have little reason to exist as a story in its own right, and in that absence ends up drawing attention to the Hunger Games series's core flaws. A lot of the complaints I raise against the film are therefore probably problems with the book, but where The Hunger Games managed to address a lot of the weaknesses of its source material, Catching Fire hasn't done so--or perhaps the problem is that, not having read the book, I'm less aware of how the film alleviates its problems, and thus less inclined to excuse its flaws.
Comments
Honestly, I adore the book series, and I loved this movie, too, but there is no denying that it's a natural stand-alone story being artificially expanded into a trilogy and that it shows. I am willing to go along with that because the characters are cool, the action is cool, and it's got a strong liberal vibe to it that's a breath of fresh air, but no, neither of the two sequels has much reason to exist except to give us more of the stuff we liked in the first book.
I would say that you are right, and that is very much the point of the story: Katniss isn't that special, isn't that heroic, isn't that important - except as a symbol. It doesn't matter what she is and what she did, it only matters what she becomes perceived as.
The series is all about the glitz and glamour of artificial celebrity contrasted with the real humanity of the people who have it forced upon them. The rebellion turning Katniss into a heroine is no different, in that respect, than the Capitol turning Katniss into a gladiator. It's all propaganda. The reason why Katniss is important isn't that she's a dashing rebel crusader, it's that she - due to a combination of her actions, her particular brand of charisma, and of the circumstances she got thrown into - is very easy to spin as one.
This is not to say that Katniss isn't very brave and very compassionate. We have every reason to like her. But the story isn't about her rising up and overthrowing the Capitol, it's about how a bunch of very clever and ruthless people use her as a tool to overthrow the Capitol, and how she deals with being used.
(whether a charismatic frontal figure is ever as powerful and important as the series makes it out to be is a bit dubious, of course. That is one of the iffy parts of the series. But part of the premise is that PR and celebrity worship really is a powerful force in Panem, and that the winners will be the ones who succeed in harnessing it)
neither of the two sequels has much reason to exist except to give us more of the stuff we liked in the first book
I think what most frustrates me is that, though I enjoyed the first book, there's clearly so much stuff in it that could have been built up into a much more interesting story without going back to the games well. There's a scene in The Hunger Games where Katniss realizes that even if she wins the game, all she has to look forward to is turning into Haymitch as she watches her future proteges struggle in the arena and, in all likelihood, die. I think having Catching Fire be about Katniss in this situation could have been brilliant - it would have taken her out of her comfort zone and given us a better look at the Capitol - but you may be right that Collins didn't have enough of a sense of her world and story to take the series in this - or any other non-repetitive - direction.
Dragonchild:
As baeraad says, the fact that Katniss's heroism is accidental and contrived, and that her positive qualities are insufficient and maybe even counterproductive to fighting the system she's trapped is, is the point of the books, even if I don't think that it's a very well handled point. Like you, I think that both the first book and the first two movies have found themselves torn between making this point and just wanting the audience to root for Katniss (though in fairness to Catching Fire, it's certainly more willing to highlight Katniss's pawn status than The Hunger Games, and my main problem with it is that it does so while still allowing her, instead of the characters who are actually doing something, to dominate the movie). That strikes me as a problem that will prove all but insurmountable in the third chapter, and may be the reason that the third book garnered such angry responses from fans.
I think having Catching Fire be about Katniss in this situation could have been brilliant
Hmm... I disagree, but I am having some trouble explaining why. The thing is, you're thinking in terms of Literature. You want the emotional journey and the in-depth exploration of the human condition to continue. Yes?
But this series isn't Literature, it's a genre piece - it's entertainment. Smarter entertainment than we usually get, yes, but entertainment all the same, and all that meaty social commentary and psychological character development is not the heart of the story. At its heart, it's an action thriller. It's about Katniss being put up against lousy odds and beating them, and looking damn cool doing it. If it had been more high-brow than that, it would not have turned into the phenomenon it has.
What I'm getting to in this roundabout way is that I think that putting Katniss in a position of political maneuvering wouldn't have worked, because that's not the story Collins wanted to write, it's not the story her readers wanted to read, and it's not the story that Katniss is suited for. That last part in particular is important, I think - so many of Katniss' skills are physical and outdoorsy, so having her deal with purely political challenges (with, at the moment, maybe an assassination attempt from time to time?) would have wasted a large chunk of what makes her cool in the first place.
So... I stand by my opinion that there was no way to write a sequel that fit seamlessly with the first book. The first book is just too self-contained, with Katniss perfectly tailored to function as the protagonist in that story and that story only. Your idea would have made sense as a naturalistic extension of the situation at the end of the first book, yes, but it would have been even more unsuitable from a story perspective than Collins pulling a rebellion out her sleeve was.
(though again, I'm actually glad she cheated and gave us two more books! I wouldn't have wanted to be without them. But she did cheat, and it does show)
So I'm going to bite the bullet here and state it for the record: I do not blame E. L. James for writing a weird sadomasochist wank fantasy, because that was clearly what she wanted to write. I might feel that she could have written a better sadomasochist wank fantasy if she had applied herself a little more, but to be honest, I am not really the best person to judge that, not really being into that sort of thing.
Second, this is in regards to sequels. I'm saying that having written Hunger Games the way she did, Collins were working under some restrictions for how to write a sequel to it. I suppose you can wish that she had written Hunger Games differently - though I don't - but this is about Catching Fire, so the question is where she could reasonably have gone from there.
While you're obviously right that there's an element of wanting Collins to have written a different, better and smarter series to my criticism of both the books and the movies, I don't think that your defense - if it can be called that since you're basically saying that The Hunger Games is fundamentally incapable of being good art (because of its genre? Because of its author? I'm not sure) - really holds water. You can't seriously argue that the first book is only an action story, much less that it is self-contained. Dragonchild and I may agree that neither the book nor the movies fully acknowledge how problematic Katniss's heroism is, but they do problematize it, and the action component of the story, to some extent, and of course The Hunger Games doesn't think of itself as a self-contained story - the scene I mention, in which Katniss wonders about her future as the mentor of the tributes to follow, disproves that, as does the book's open-ended, downer ending.
You're right that leaving Katniss out of the arena would have short-circuited the action narrative, and that is presumably why she ended up back in, but it's not as if that choice resulted in a great story, or even one as engaging as The Hunger Games. Your argument seems to be that it would have been impossible to write a good sequel because The Hunger Games was so inherently flawed and limited. I agree about those flaws and limitations (though I get the sense that we don't agree on what they are) but I don't think you can let Collins off the hook by saying that she never planned to make her story into a trilogy - rather, I think the truth is that she never planned out how that trilogy was supposed to work (on the argument that a genre exercise in YA dystopia can't address serious questions of character, or deal with complex questions of politics and complicity, I'll answer by simply pointing at Patrick Ness's Chaos Walking books).
Dragonchild:
I don't actually have a problem with Katniss not being heroic or even the most sympathetic character in her story. Someone has to be the protagonist and they don't necessarily have to be the nicest, kindest, smartest, or bravest person around. The problem - and here is where I think Baeraad does have a point when he talks about how the series's genre works against it - is that Collins has written the books as if Katniss was the most heroic and sympathetic person in them, and then, as you say, manipulated readers into failing to notice that she isn't those things at all.
Eh. Define "good." Define "art." I would call it both, actually. But I don't think it is capable of being as much purely high-brow social commentary as you want it to be without being an entirely different story right from the start.
the scene I mention, in which Katniss wonders about her future as the mentor of the tributes to follow, disproves that, as does the book's open-ended, downer ending.
I didn't see either of those scenes as sequel hooks. The first one just acknowledges the situation as it is, and as for the downer ending, it was still happier than I expected. In a world as dark as the one Collins paints in the first book, just surviving and managing to hold on to your soul is a victory and a miracle. As for it being open-ended, the big theme of the book is contrasting the way the media forces everything into a neat, orderly narrative with the messiness of real life - things ending on an uncertain note fits perfectly with that.
Collins may have meant them as sequel hooks, of course. I do think that she was planning a trilogy when she was finishing her last draft, if not when the idea for the story first occurred to her. But I don't think they need to be.
but it's not as if that choice resulted in a great story, or even one as engaging as The Hunger Games.
No, I agree. I just don't think that any other choice would have yielded a better result.
Your argument seems to be that it would have been impossible to write a good sequel because The Hunger Games was so inherently flawed and limited.
See, you see flaws and limitations, I see symmetry. I would say that The Hunger Games is exactly what it should be, no more and no less. You can't add to it, because the story is already done, the actors have played out their parts, the themes have all been revealed, and there is nothing more to say.
If I were to make my own backseat-writer suggestion for how to write a sequel, I'd have wanted it to take place years later, feature an entirely different set of characters (with maybe cameos from the cast of this one) and explore the setting from a different perspective.
I don't think you can let Collins off the hook by saying that she never planned to make her story into a trilogy - rather, I think the truth is that she never planned out how that trilogy was supposed to work
Oh, I agree. She's still on the hook, definitely. I'm disinclined to be too hard on her, because I enjoyed all three of the books, but she certainly failed in her task to extend the first book to a trilogy. I just can't think of any way she could have done it that that wouldn't have been a horrible letdown.
on the argument that a genre exercise in YA dystopia can't address serious questions of character, or deal with complex questions of politics and complicity, I'll answer by simply pointing at Patrick Ness's Chaos Walking books
I feel that you are being a little overly black and white in your thinking here. The Hunger Games does in fact address serious questions of character and deal with complex questions of politics and complicity. But it does them within the format of a dark action adventure. And it worked fine, I would say.
My point is, when you call for a full-out psychological/political sequel, you are ripping out the dark action adventure part. And that, I would claim, just can't work. That's part of what the book is all about, even if it's not a part that you, personally, seem to find very engaging.
Collins, instead, tried to continue the "dark action adventure dealing with serious issues" in the sequels. We agree that that did not work out so well. I am just at a loss for what else she could have done that could have worked better.
Post a Comment