First-The Hunger Games is a fine movie. It isn't the disaster that Twilight is, and it wasn't horribly made. It is nice knowing that Suzanne Collins helped with the screenplay. This post isn't going to totally blast it out of the water, so if you are insisting that it was the best movie you've ever seen, just hear me out before you shoot an arrow through this post.
Being a high school English teacher means I've read the books multiple times and love them. However, I like to think I have realistic expectations when books are transferred to film. Therefore, I approached the movie theater with cautious excitement. I also had the benefit of seeing this film with my husband who has yet to (and probably won't) read the books. That brought an interesting perspective that actually reinforced my own.
The main issue with the film is that the movie makers assumed that everyone seeing it has read the books. I get that a majority of people have, but that doesn't mean it is a good idea to leave out significant character development or symbols.
Looking at character development first, I realize that there are quite a few characters throughout the book and eliminating some of them is necessary if the movie is to stay under five hours long. I can live with no Madge and barely glimpsing at the prep team. What I cannot live with is the lack of relationship development between Katniss and Rue and the underdevelopment of Haymitch. Like my husband said, "Why do I care that Rue dies?" I know why he should care because it broke my heart when I read it in the book. As a first time watcher though, it just seems like Katniss and Rue ate a quick meal together and then there's a riot in District 11? Hmmm...there's a gap there.
What did they do to Haymitch, glorious Haymitch? Although well played by Woody Harrelson, the depth of that character is revealed so much through his relationship with Katniss in the book but not in the movie. He may be her greatest antagonist, but they understand each other on a whole other level. I can't even put into words my disappointment in the non-relationship between Cinna and Katniss. I adore Cinna, but it's hard to feel that way about a character who shows up for three minutes in the film.
Then there's Peeta's stalker response of how he watched Katniss walk home every day. Uh, okay creeper. I LOVE PEETA! I fell for that boy the very first time I read the book (Gale is a child killing jerk). Peeta's innocent love that builds in the cave that Katniss has to pretend to reciprocate makes my heart ache when he realizes at the end that it is all a show for her. Not to mention that not having Katniss narrate this story leaves out all the conflict she truly feels about killing Peeta and then the betrayal when she sees him with the Career Tributes. These are the kind of details that make the story worth telling but are left out of the film.
Need I mention they completely neglect to explain the significance of the Mockingyjay?! How do you let that go Suzanne?
The cinematography is definitely something to note. The costuming and set design is phenomenal. Yet, I really wanted someone to invest in a damn tripod. I get the rough, hand-held camera bit at the cornucopia so that the violence feels more chaotic and you can't really see it happening. But to keep using that method while running through the woods or just standing still mostly gave me a headache.
In the end I decided the book is a quicker read than the first half of the film. And even though the movie started to pick up and get really good towards the end, the absence of a lot of detail and character development leaves The Hunger Games lacking. Will I own it? Probably. Will I see Catching Fire? Of course. No matter where the movie makers failed, one thing's for certain: Jennifer Lawrence is one hell of an actress!
Friday, March 23, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Big Brother Isn't Interested, I Promise
My absence in posting is credited to a number of things. For starters, November through January had me in the first trimester of my second pregnancy. The exhaustion alone was a beat down not to mention the nausea and hormone insanity. Then there was my deep contemplation of the purpose in bothering to post on social media sites because my life isn't that fascinating and I know how irritating the "over-share" has become with regards to Facebook, Twitter, and some blogs. Finally, I had to determine if I actually had anything worth posting. There are far more entertaining bloggers out there (KHam and Grouchy Muffin being two of my favorites). Then a friend of mine on Facebook declared his desire to leave the site because of the useless postings made by thousands daily.
As it is many people, including my mother, refuse to embrace Facebook because they believe if I was truly interested in my "friends'" lives, I would pick up the phone and call. The reality is that life happens and most of the time I simply cannot spare the 10-15 minutes for the a phone call that could have the potential to become an hour long. I'd rather check in on my close friends' pages, and when we finally find time to meet up, we can take all the time we want to chat in person about the goings-on we've either posted about or have happened since the last time we met.
All the things I love about Facebook are quickly being outweighed by the things I find the most annoying. For starters, I am determined to keep my friends under 300 which I still find to be a number too large to call them all "friends." Therefore, knowing some people have 1, 000+ friends is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. There is no way one person has an interest in that many people. It is a shallow statement of how friendship is now regarded. (And an accelerated path to digital voyeurism that's been affectionately labeled "Facebook stalking.") Next is the information being shared by my friends that is beginning to become inappropriate.
Facebook isn't the place to unleash an uneducated/unresearched political opinion. Just because a video exists on YouTube doesn't mean it needs to also go viral on Facebook (think recent Kony2012 nonsense). Also, the annoyingly long posts proclaiming that if I love my husband/brother/son/mother/soldier/Christ I will repost are out of control. Really? Not reposting means I have no care or concern for these people? How absurd.
Then there is the disturbingly candid looks into the more intimate parts of peoples' lives. I was one of them. When I finally became pregnant with my son, William, I did it all. I posted the news to Facebook with a picture of my first sonogram containing my son's eerily alien-like profile. I am sure I even updated my condition during the pregnancy more than many of my "friends" deemed necessary. Even now, I see so many posts that expose those parts of life that really have no business being permanently (nothing EVER leaves cyberspace) shared like the amount or color of bodily fluids exiting someone's child while ill or a quick poll about the best type of birth control for a relationship or a person's own personal battle with unidentified body oddities (I itch just thinking about it). To me, there are just some things that I don't need to learn about while simply scrolling through daily posts. How is it these people are so comfortable about sharing such personal problems?
All of this is what led me to keeping my posts shut about my newest pregnancy. I am overjoyed that I am even able to get pregnant a second time, but this time I wanted to keep this to me. This is MY pregnancy. It doesn't belong to people who check in on me once a month. I also wanted to give Baby Ben some of his own privacy rather than upload his first "picture" like I had his brother. I actually did call/text/e-mail my family about the news and allowed that grapevine to circulate before really talking about it openly. I wanted this to be truly joyous news and not more noise in the Facebook over-share chaos.
I am hoping this is more the direction people choose to take with Facebook. I love seeing pictures of families (especially kids) growing and changing. I do enjoy witty posts from some of my more entertaining friends. I have also invested so much time into maintaining a Facebook that people CAN and WANT to check that I shudder at the thought of deleting it all. (Maybe I should give that Google+ thing a try?)
As it is many people, including my mother, refuse to embrace Facebook because they believe if I was truly interested in my "friends'" lives, I would pick up the phone and call. The reality is that life happens and most of the time I simply cannot spare the 10-15 minutes for the a phone call that could have the potential to become an hour long. I'd rather check in on my close friends' pages, and when we finally find time to meet up, we can take all the time we want to chat in person about the goings-on we've either posted about or have happened since the last time we met.
All the things I love about Facebook are quickly being outweighed by the things I find the most annoying. For starters, I am determined to keep my friends under 300 which I still find to be a number too large to call them all "friends." Therefore, knowing some people have 1, 000+ friends is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard. There is no way one person has an interest in that many people. It is a shallow statement of how friendship is now regarded. (And an accelerated path to digital voyeurism that's been affectionately labeled "Facebook stalking.") Next is the information being shared by my friends that is beginning to become inappropriate.
Facebook isn't the place to unleash an uneducated/unresearched political opinion. Just because a video exists on YouTube doesn't mean it needs to also go viral on Facebook (think recent Kony2012 nonsense). Also, the annoyingly long posts proclaiming that if I love my husband/brother/son/mother/soldier/Christ I will repost are out of control. Really? Not reposting means I have no care or concern for these people? How absurd.
Then there is the disturbingly candid looks into the more intimate parts of peoples' lives. I was one of them. When I finally became pregnant with my son, William, I did it all. I posted the news to Facebook with a picture of my first sonogram containing my son's eerily alien-like profile. I am sure I even updated my condition during the pregnancy more than many of my "friends" deemed necessary. Even now, I see so many posts that expose those parts of life that really have no business being permanently (nothing EVER leaves cyberspace) shared like the amount or color of bodily fluids exiting someone's child while ill or a quick poll about the best type of birth control for a relationship or a person's own personal battle with unidentified body oddities (I itch just thinking about it). To me, there are just some things that I don't need to learn about while simply scrolling through daily posts. How is it these people are so comfortable about sharing such personal problems?
All of this is what led me to keeping my posts shut about my newest pregnancy. I am overjoyed that I am even able to get pregnant a second time, but this time I wanted to keep this to me. This is MY pregnancy. It doesn't belong to people who check in on me once a month. I also wanted to give Baby Ben some of his own privacy rather than upload his first "picture" like I had his brother. I actually did call/text/e-mail my family about the news and allowed that grapevine to circulate before really talking about it openly. I wanted this to be truly joyous news and not more noise in the Facebook over-share chaos.
I am hoping this is more the direction people choose to take with Facebook. I love seeing pictures of families (especially kids) growing and changing. I do enjoy witty posts from some of my more entertaining friends. I have also invested so much time into maintaining a Facebook that people CAN and WANT to check that I shudder at the thought of deleting it all. (Maybe I should give that Google+ thing a try?)
