.:. Hunger Games .:.
May the odds be always in your favour.
The movie, I would say, is very well shot. The scenes, the shots, the costumes. It all merges together to tell the story. It's one of those movie that's quite worth watching in the cinema for the experience. Granted I didn't read the book. I only came to know about this movie afew months back when I saw it's trailer in the cinema. I had the impression that it was a more action-packed movie. But who would've thought it was very thought based, telling the story very heavily through the people rather than the action.
As mentioned I didn't read the novel, so I have no clue what the writer's inspiration was for the stoyline (neither am I hardworking enough to go and google it). So I'm speaking from the point of my opinions alone after watching the movie.
I feel the movie is based on numerous number of happenings that are actually occuring around us, just that because we're in the midst of it we take such things for granted. All blended into a movie which seems based on medival as well as futuristic (familiar subjects that we're used to already in the movies)to help lessen the burden on the viewers on the impactful "in-your-face" facts.
Status. First thing I noticed, was the stark difference between the people of the 12 districts as compared to in the capitol. Simply look at the colours. In the 12 districts everything's so dull coloured, their clothes and food, the sandy dirt environment, paired with the rain that only seems to dampen the atmosphere more. While in the capitol, it's as aptly as how my friend described, it's what would happen if Lady GaGa takes over the world. It's colours everywhere, high risen modern buildings, and the food is definite more spectacular than in the districts.
Comparing that to the here and now. Aren't we, the ones who have the opportunity to seat in the air-conditioned cinema and watch the movie while munching popcorn, like the ones in the capitol. Wheareas somewhere on this planet there are people who are dying of starvation and diseases because they are poor. And the fact that we can watch movies that regard the theme as poverty is because there really are other people out there who are affected by it.
Human rights. Based on the background story, whereby the suriving district(the capitol) rules over the other 12 districts, as a "memorial" for the war fought back then each district is send 2 representatives to compete in the Hunger games, where there will only be 1 winner. From the very start, the fact nobody would willing volunteer and they had to resort to drawing lots is already a definite sign of no rights being given. It just shows how an oppressive government can rule, simply ignoring the welfare of the people, and only caring about themselves. Look at it this way. No doubt they are the "prisoners", but is that necessary. Why don't we experience this in real-life, is because it is now being recognised that even prisoners have rights. Regardless of the who wins or lose a war, in the end we're all humans, with our rights, no matter how limited to decide.
You might say that well the tributes have certain rights, in the sense that by "selling" themselves to the sponsor they can get advantages over the rest by receiving supplements. Also the fact that each of them are trained in their own special fields, and get to choose their own weapons/equipment(if they were to survive taking it) is a right in itself. Yes I agree, they get to choose, but only on the grounds of those of others. The sponsors who decide who to support purely for entertainment. The organisers who place all the weapons and supplies in the middle from the start so that the audience can experience the excitement of the killzone. Isn't that a lack of human rights?
Rules. Everything in the Hunger games is controlled via the organisers. There will be 24 tributes. Only 1 winner. The tributes are taught how to survive by instructors provided by the organisers. The environment, which seems to be a tropical jungle set inside a dome. They can simply grow a tree here, fast-forward the day to night, or as in the case of Katniss set fire to contain the tributes from escaping. They can even change the rules as and when they want(like when they decided to have 2 winners, then revoke it back to 1 again). Or end the game faster simply by creating the Boss monster(big fat bull dogs in this case). This game, or war if you want to call it, everything seems so well controlled.
Now look at the wars that are fought nowadays. It's not all out wars like those fought in medival times, where masses of army jus en masse charge and clash, until the last person survining is the victor. With no rules or what so ever. Anything counts, as long as you win. Now there are rules to follow, like the Geneva Convention. Which I believe was proposed to stop any senseless killing during war, or to say the loss of innocent lives. And not only that. The rules are upgraded as well to keep up with technology too. For example the use of UAVs by US in Afghan is being contested, seeing as it's seen as inhumane to use un-manned bombers to kill, until now there are suggestions to draw up rules regarding the use of UAVs. Yet you think about it, isn't it ironic. If there are so many rules set up to prevent the tragedies of war, why not not have it in the first place. Everybody knows no matter how controlled wars are, in the end deaths still occurs, sometimes outside the boundaries of the rules even. After all there so called rules are set by us. Like in the Hunger games. The rules are set, for the purpose to kill.
Children in war. This is a very glaring fact in the movie. Look at Rue. The tributes are aged from 12 to 18 if I remember correctly the range. And these kids, mind the fact they are under 21, are sent to a war, where chances of them surviving isn't exactly very optimistic. And such is also the case for wars now fought. Apart from the military personnels that chose to be in the military, conscription in different countries mandates people to be in the army (specific ages varies). Also, I'm pretty sure in countries (which I shouldn't mention) there are kids perhaps even younger taking up arms to fight for what they believe, or have been taught to believe is right. And while we all think that there's a need to defend the nation (which I agree there is such a need), but isn't it a startling fact that we're sending people around these ages are out there holding guns and out to get each others' throats. Yes there has to be someone to defend their homeland, the place where their family lives. But isn't it just kinda sad that these young people are out there fighting, not only causing, but also facing death at any moment.
That's about all I've gotten from this movie. Spending most of my 2 hour in the cinema in deep thought. It's a movie that I think the novel would've brought out even more of the themes. But like I mentioned above, I didn't read the novel at all. So for all you know the writer might not even be thinking about these topics when it was written. Maybe I'm just thinking too much.
The above comments are of my own opinion and in no way directed at anyone/country in particular. Any mistakes in facts I apologise for it here.
Revealed on [7:10 PM]
_____________
