Review:
The Hunger Games:
Catching Fire is entertaining, but feels incomplete. The film picks up
where its predecessor The
Hunger Games left off: Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark won the 74th
Hunger Games, which has incited a swelling of rebellion in the twelve districts
– especially those in constant strife. Katniss is now under pressure by the
President to act her part and not encourage further revolution. But the
president soon realizes that she is far too dangerous to live, as are the other
former champions. Thus, for the 75th Hunger Games, he decides that the
tributes from each district will be made up of former winners, as a means to
eliminate their threat to his power.
While I liked The Hunger Games
overall, much of my problem with the film came from Katniss never really being
faced with a truly difficult choice. Narratively and dramatically speaking,
everything was just too easy for her (and on her). And more or less the same is
true in Catching Fire. Katniss is still the main character, but much of the
more interesting narrative elements seem to be taking place behind the scenes
without her involvement or knowledge, which leaves the film feeling like just a
basic remake of the first film (only, supposedly with higher stakes because
this time all the tributes are trained killers).
Overall, Catching Fire does have
more dramatically poignant moments, however. This is true particularly of
Katniss’s visit to District 11 to pay tribute to Thresh and Rue. The
relationships between characters feel more organic and steeped in reality than
just emotionally dramatic for the sake of appealing to their targeted audience
of youth adults (which has certainly grown substantially to include mostly all
filmgoers). This is something that works well for the film. The audience
actually cares about these characters this time around, which only heightens
the tension throughout (though, the writers still clearly do not really know
what to do with Gale and his relationship with Katniss – the audience sees them
kiss and so on but really there is nothing of substance for them to care about in
the actual narrative, while Katniss’s relationship with Peeta is much more
developed and believable). In the first film, all the other tributes were also
basically throwaway characters, with only Rue meaning anything – and that is
solely due to Katniss caring about her. This time around, a number of the other
tributes are actually given their own dramatic character moments that the
audience can latch onto, take stock in, and relate to. Again, what works much
better in this film is that outside of Katniss the audience is actually
invested in other characters this time.
And yet Catching Fire cannot
overcome its big story flaws to be something great. It is a good, entertaining
adventure/action drama with a social message (which can be somewhat extrapolated
in comparison to the world’s own current wealth distribution inequality).
Katniss is a very likable character, even if she is basically left out of the
primary narrative of the film. And that is the problem. Because Katniss is left
out, so is the audience. Director Francis Lawrence
does this because he wants the big reveal (that is not really that big a
surprise for anyone actually paying attention) for Katniss to also play for the
audience. Thus, the audience is saddled with pretty much the same film again:
Katniss is a heartbroken tribute. She goes to the capital, where she is paraded
around, trains, makes allies/enemies, all before being dropped into the arena
to fight to the death. Lawrence does give the audience better and more exciting
action this time (as he clearly also has a bigger budget and skill for the
genre), but still the audience has already seen all this before in the last
film.
Worst of all, just when the
narrative starts to get interesting and Katniss is finally let in on the
primary plot (which is all behind the scenes in the film, as the audience is
fixed to Katniss’s perspective), the film ends. This leaves the film feeling frustratingly
incomplete, as effectively Catching Fire is nothing but act one for the bigger
narrative that plays out in Mockingjay –
a big tease for better things to come. While Catching Fire is better in almost
every way in comparison to The Hunger Games, at least that film has a
satisfying narrative and character arc.
Narratively, Catching Fire is not
a feature film, rather merely part one of a three part story structured
similarly to a television miniseries. It
is common in Hollywood for series to be split into multiple films (often one
story being split into two or even three films), but so far writers have done a
good job structuring the breaks so that each part in a way tells its own story
and the character(s) grow, develop, and change from beginning to end, while
also having a goal or dramatic journey. Catching Fire seemingly has no real
narrative structure – and if it does, it is essentially the same as the first
film. The film essentially is about all the chess pieces being organized into
their strategic positions in order to strike at their opponent, but then the
film ends before they can make their move. And, on top of that, the audience is
not even involved in their positioning; rather they sit on the sideline while
things happen around them, only clued in once they are on the board (but by
then, the film is over). Katniss’s dramatic struggle in the film (trying to
survive yet another Hunger Games, while primarily trying to keep Peeta alive)
is completely undermined by the reveal at the end, because really her struggle
was just a place holder until the real narrative was ready to begin (which we
will have to wait a year to see the first half of). This whole film could have
easily been condensed into act one of the next film (book) because that is
essentially what it is. Therefore, while the action is bigger, the stakes
higher (I guess), and so on, the narrative that the audience is a part of is boring
(as they have already watched this film last time), plus Katniss does not
really have a character arc (because she is essentially sidelined). The viewer
is only engaged because of their investment in Katniss and she is in peril, but
again from a story perspective this leaves a lot to be desired and is almost wholly
unsatisfying (as a standalone film).
Now, in the scheme of the whole
series, Catching Fire might end up working quite well as a companion piece to
the Mockingjay films, but as a standalone film it just does not have a strong
enough narrative to warrant its existence, at least in the framework of a
narrative feature film. And yet, it is entertaining and enjoyable for what it
is and it does leave the audience ready and excited for what comes next – and therefore
one could say it does its job.
Technical,
aesthetic & acting achievements: What a difference a director makes.
The Hunger Games presents a strong female character in Katniss and a compelling
idea of a society that celebrates the spectacle of its youths fighting to the
death, but Gary Ross
took this material and delivered a rather dull film that is really only good
due to its lead actress and the strength of its story and world. Francis
Lawrence does a much better job with the look and action. Catching Fire is much
more fluid and exciting, if only it had a strong narrative too. Despite its
flaws, it very well might be Lawrence’s best film (edging out Constantine
and I Am
Legend). I do look forward to seeing what he does with the finale two
films, which likely will actually feature a full story and a real dramatic arc
for Katniss.
Composer James Newton Howard
already had a strong foundation with his music for The Hunger Games, thus his
work on Catching Fire was more or less already done for him. Some composers
take their music to new heights with each sequel (like Hans Zimmer with
his phenomenal The
Dark Knight Rises score), while others rest on their laurels. Howard’s
score for Catching Fire works well with the drama on screen, and thus does what
it needs to do, but it does not really bring anything dynamic or new to the
film (and yes, Howard did work with Zimmer on Batman
Begins and The
Dark Knight scores). Meanwhile, the soundtrack
inspired by the film is probably better this time around. Production designer Philip Messina
again does good work on the film, which takes full advantage of the stark
juxtaposition between the poorer districts and the rich Capital. Costume
designer Trish
Summerville also does standout work. In taking over for Ross, Lawrence
brought in cinematographer Jo Willems,
who provides a much richer look for the film (accentuating what appear to be
greater production values).
Catching Fire also features what
feels like a much better, fuller cast this time around, especially in the
smaller supporting roles. As far as returning supporting characters, Stanley Tucci
and Elizabeth
Banks are again fun in their outlandish roles, but this time they get to
play with some emotion as well. Donald
Sutherland does a good job playing what is essentially a snarling role as
the President. Despite his appearance, he seems menacing. While barely in the
film, Willow
Shields actually has some strong moments as Katniss’s sister Primrose. Liam Hemsworth
has the difficult job of playing a character with no development – Gale – who exists
seemingly to be handsome and likable. Woody Harrelson
is very good as Haymitch, but as he is primarily involved in the main behind
the scenes plot that is kept secret from Katniss (and the audience, though
poorly) he has little screen time. There is a lot of good work from the new
faces. Patrick
St. Esprit is strong as a ruthless soldier (in a very small role). Amanda Plummer
plays crazy in an ‘I am actually really smart’ way quite well, while Jeffrey Wright
plays smart in a fun annoyed genius sort of way. Jena Malone
is fantastic as Johanna Mason, a former champion who feels very put out by
having to compete again and is not afraid to vocalize it. She, more so that
most of the other former champions (that are not just balls of muscles),
actually is able to be very intimidating without seeming physically imposing. Sam Claflin
is strong as Finnick, as he is able to play things close to the vest. The audience
is not really sure if he is a hero or villain (even at the end, when it seems
clear). Much like Harrelson, Philip Seymour
Hoffman who just commands the screen is desperately short on screen time,
because he is involved in the more interesting narrative that audience is not
involved in (but will likely play a bigger role in the upcoming films). Josh Hutcherson
is much better this time around. His Peeta seems to have discovered himself and
is not afraid to actually try and put himself out there. His acting was timid
in the last film, he seems much more confident, allowing himself to actually
take on a character this time. Jennifer Lawrence
is again the main reason that the film succeeds on any level. She brings so
much to Katniss. The audience seems to forget that this is just a film and Katniss
is not real. She plays her so naturally that it feels like Katniss is a real
girl facing horrors, which pulls the audience in and has them glued to the
screen.
Summary
& score: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is better in almost every
way to its predecessor, but it is also essentially the same film rehashed again
with the far more interesting narrative played behind the scenes and left for
later films in the series. 7/10
