To get the scholarship, he will have to take a role behind the scenes at the prestigious competition, the Hunger Games…
My history with The Hunger Games is brief: I read the first book and randomly watched the second movie.
Technically a prequel, this film seemed a little intriguing.
I liked the new cast, and my curiosity was piqued by how split the critical consensus was.
Maybe it would be more obvious if I had watched the rest of the series, but it never felt like the movie was referencing things to come.
This film feels completely self-contained. It does not end on some kind of cliffhanger.
I could track where the character ended up, and the 158 minute runtime never drags.
Having the lead character be someone outside the games makes for a different dynamic.
Lead actor Tom Blyth is a little too malevolent, but it works for the characters’ descent.
He is introduced with a wing down, piecing together an outfit that will not betray his family’s former position. Even before we meet his classmates, Snow is positioned as a familiar underdog - the outsider trying to infiltrate a world he is not allowed into.
That initial grounding provides a brief sliver of sympathy that the film breaks down: Snow’s hunger to survive ultimately overwhelms any of his positive qualities.
It never feels like he will convert to the side of the angels, but the film manages to remain compelling as our protagonist tries to convince himself that his selfishness is actually altruistic.
While I think the movie has a decent handle on the character, I was a little underwhelmed by Blyth.
He is not bad, but there is a slight monotony to his approach that almost works against it. He almost feels like too good casting for where Snow ends up - not to play with words, but there is a chill to Blyth that works for the character’s final form. It just feels a little too preordained.
But then again Titanic works even if you know the ending, so maybe his performance is not as much of a flaw as I think it is.
Blyth might be a little one-note, but the film is bolstered by the rest of the cast.
Even for an outsider, the cast of previous Hunger Games have been impressive - and that threshold is upheld here.
Peter Dinklage (as the creator of the Hunger Games) brings a pathos and haunted sense of humility that is more horrifying than the more overt villains of the piece - he is the one person who recognises the monster that he has become.
Viola Davis has fun as Dr. Gaul, the head gamemaker of the 10th Hunger Games and the person who first implemented them. I am not sure I have seen her play so big before, but she is effective as an over-the-top villain.
Jason Schwartzman plays the cheesy host, Lucretius "Lucky" Flickerman, his self-involvement is hilarious (he is the one real source of humour in the film) but also used to highlight the callousness of the society. It is a sliver of sub-Verhoeven satire in a film which is mostly successfully - trying to present its version of dystopian politics.
The film’s secret weapon is Rachel Zegler as Lucy Gray Baird. I cannot speak to her accent work, but she brings empathy and a flinty self-reliance as Snow’s potential love interest.
She is an effective counter to Blyth’s chill, and the movie even takes advantage of her singing talents.
One of Zegler’s co-stars from West Side Story, Josh Andrés Rivera, is also effective as Snow’s one friend Sejanus Plinth.
There are so many songs in the movie, and - most surprisingly - they are not in the style of Zegler’s breakout. The movie’s songs are a collection of roots/country analogues, stories of lost loves, hard living and endurance.
It is in aspects like this that the fact that this movie is part of an established brand is a blessing. The filmmakers have the licence to break from the formula.
The movie is partially premised on Lucy’s singing, to such an extent that the movie starts to function as a musical, even down to the narrative structure (you can imagine a stage version of this movie - Act 1 the Capital and Games; Act 2 in District 12).
There is a specificity to choices like this that kept me interested.
The best compliment I can give the film is that it is earnest, and avoids undermining elements like Lucy’s songs with self-defeating humour.
None of the set pieces are particularly original, but director Francis Lawrence shoots the games with a sense of geography.
The filmmakers are also not interested in being an action movie.
The game sequences are horrific, with the tension based around whether people will avoid dying horribly.
The second half of the movie makes a hard pivot away from the Games, as Snow’s strategy for winning the games is rendered meaningless and his exile from the Capital gives him an opportunity to be deprogrammed.
This section is fascinating but on reflection feels somewhat compressed compared with the more expansive Games subplot. In a way, the reduction in scope benefits the characters, as the film foregrounds Snow’s increasingly focused willingness to bring down those around him.
Shot in middle European locations, the film boasts some suitably brutalist settings, and the filmmakers make effective use of natural landscapes in the third act. After almost two hours of claustrophobic rooms and mazes, it feels like the characters - and the movie - has a chance to breath.
This is also the section where Blyth’s performance finally jelled. Maybe it is down to the runtime, but the smaller scale third act feels more effective as a record of the central character’s downfall. The suspense shifts from when the character will turn, to when will his friends realise their days are numbered.
An effective thriller, with an epic scope that never out-stays its welcome. Maybe I will check out the other Hunger Games after all.
If you enjoy something I wrote, and want to support my writing, here’s a link for tips!
No comments:
Post a Comment