Jill and I went to see Hunger Games last night. It was excellent. I would even describe it as a work of art. However, like some good art, it was quite disturbing. In case you aren’t familiar with the plot, Hunger Games takes place in a dystopian future in which the United States of America has been replaced by twelve districts ruled by a totalitarian regime. Every year, each district contributes two children between the ages of twelve and eighteen to compete in a fight to the death. The fights are called “hunger games,” and the movie Hunger Games is about one of these fights. As you would expect, the movie contains many scenes of children killing other children. At this point, you might want to skip the movie. I know how you feel. Hunger Games is based off a popular book series, and whenever I heard someone praise the books, I thought they must be mad. How could any book about children killing other children possibly be worth reading?
Well, the movie is certainly worth seeing, and I am sure that the books are worth reading as well. I don’t think that Hunger Games is for everyone – I’m pretty sure Jill should not have gone to see it – but I think that it is a powerful movie that addresses some important themes in a way that few other movies have managed. I want to focus on a few of these themes. If you haven’t read the books or watched the movie, you may want to stop reading here.
One important theme of the movie is that human beings often respond very badly to injustice. The society of Hunger Games is loosely modeled on ancient Rome, and the hunger games themselves are clearly inspired by ancient Roman gladiator fights. In the movie, children are selected for the hunger games through a lottery. Once chosen, they are sent to the capital, where they are showered with luxury and greeted by legions of fans. They train, they give interviews, and the whole process is televised. When they eventually fight to the death, that too is televised. The hunger games are the biggest thing on television, the hottest bit of pop culture. And nearly everyone (at least in the wealthy capital) is a fan. The children are being forced to kill one another, but their society treats the games like they are just another piece of entertainment.
I was outraged by the way the society regarded the games, but I also had to ask myself – is my society really so different? We don’t force children to fight one another to the death on national television. In fact, we don’t do anything like that. But we are addicted to bad reality television and celebrity news, and we often turn real human suffering into entertainment (think of Charlie Sheen). Moreover, we are willing to spend a good portion of our lives watching bad television, but we are unwilling to spend any time addressing and combating the massive injustices that are being perpetrated around the world. How many hours of news coverage were dedicated to Kate Middleton’s dress last year? How many were dedicated to Darfur in the last five years? I don’t know, but I bet all the money in my pockets that the ratio was heavily lopsided in favor of Middleton’s dress. Yes, we need to live our lives. Yes, we are very busy. Yes, it often seems like there is little that we can do. But terrible atrocities are being committed throughout the world, and we have become largely indifferent to them. We have convinced ourselves that we can’t do much about these injustices, so we shouldn’t get too worked up about them, and we certainly shouldn’t feel obligated to do anything about them. One of the most powerful things about Hunger Games is that it reminds us how very wrong all of this is. In fact, Hunger Games suggests that we may actually be complicit in some of the great injustices that we ignore, and I am inclined to agree.
Another important theme of Hunger Games, one that is much more positive, is that human beings can find hope even in the darkest situations. A related theme is that human dignity is very difficult – perhaps impossible – to extinguish. Both before and during the game, the children were in an extremely dark situation, to say the least; in effect, they had been sentenced to a violent death. Nonetheless, many of the children found the courage to accept their fate, and they soldiered on. Some found friendship, and some even laughed from time to time. Of course, they were under no obligation to do any of this, and it would have been entirely understandable if some of the children had simply collapsed from the pressure. But they didn’t, or at least many didn’t, and I think this showed something of the spirit of human beings. Moreover, the children were treated like animals, and their deaths were pointless, but they never lost their humanity, and they never lost their worth. They mattered until the very end. This reminded me that while we can speak of people being dehumanized in some sense, we can never truly lose our basic human dignity. We are still made in the image of God, and nothing can rob this from us.
I think that Hunger Games had to be about children. We have become too inured to the deaths of adults, and of people generally. They have largely ceased to matter. When we hear about the hundreds of thousands of men and women who have been killed in Darfur the last several years, we are scarcely moved. If we hear that many thousands of children have been killed there too, we are still unmoved – they are just more people. But when children and children alone are targeted, then at least we may feel something. Hunger Games deals with important themes concerning the value of human life, the atrocities humans perpetrate against one another, and the moral complicity of those who witness these atrocities while doing nothing. If the movie and books had used adult victims, these themes would probably have been lost. I believe that this fact alone speaks volumes about the brokenness of our society.
I was in my local workout room exercising on a stationary bike watching a talkshow yesterday. One of the topics of conversation was this film. They mentioned that what is not clear from the film and is better depicted in the books is the fact that the games are played to give money and food to the district of the winning children. These children are in essence giving their lives for their families and neighbors, so they can have a better life.
ReplyDeleteInteresting.
Not sure I want to go see it, though...
I think that the movie needed to be as challenging as it was, but it's definitely not for everyone. If you think that you may find it too disturbing, then you probably will. Jill wasn't happy with me for deciding to go. And I only decided to go because I have heard many people rave about the books.
ReplyDeleteYou know, I think that there may have been a small hint that the district of the winning child benefited financially, but it must have been a very small hint, if it was there at all. It certainly adds a new dimension to the story.
I had never heard of all this until the movie came out and everyone started blogging about it lol:)
ReplyDeleteI have a soft spot for dystopian movies and stories. I watched 1984 (the one with John Hurt)back when I was a teen and it really upset me.
I saw that too, Ma, although the book is MUCH better, but disturbing, yes...and I love Animal Farm too. I read that in paperback, and more recently, online.
DeleteAlso liked Logan's Run, and Soylent Green (going way back, lol)
The movie makes a pretty strong indictment against reality TV, but I don't hold out too much hope of that catching on in the public conscience. The fuzzy nuances (even when they are front and center, like The Hunger Games) of the message are usually forgotten in favor of something more obvious.
ReplyDeleteThe lesson of 1984 is usually recalled as Big Brother and his invasive recording devices that watch your every move. It's always brought up when police departments install new surveillance cameras. But that was hardly the overall theme of 1984. The theme was rather that, in a perfect dictatorship, not even your thoughts are your own. It was a rejection of the notion that "nomatter what they force me to do, my mind will always belong to me". To me, that's a much starker, and more powerful idea to come to terms with, than merely a loss of privacy. But a little to hard to digest for public consumption. So it got a little watered down in our collective memory.
Ancient Rome is kind of a pet subject for me, so the comparisons to it in the Hunger Games are like catnip for me.
Even more than the gladiator comparison, the neatest thing that I saw was the use of hope and degradation as a means of control. Like Rome, the Capitol is utterly dependent on the Districts (ie Roman provinces) for resources.
The Capitol imports everything from districts and exports nothing. Around the time of Caesar Augustus, agriculture had declined in Italy to such an extent that even the City of Rome alone could not be adequately supplied with domestic grain. All of it had to be imported from provinces. The army and other mechanisims of state was absolutely dependent on the taxes from provinces to keep things moving. Provincial magistrates like Pilate were tasked with keeping the peace, and squeezing the provices for as much coinage as they could safely tax.
Like the Capitol in The Hunger Games, they used a combination of hope and degradation to keep provinces subservient and docile (albeit not as dramatically as the movie). In the film (and I presume, the book), the possibility of producing a victor in the games was just enough hope to distract citizens of the districts from their real problems. In Rome, every foreign province had the hope of eventually gaining full citizenship. This hope was deferred over many, many generations. But it came gradually (sooner for the rich), and was real enough to prevent many from rebellion. It was a clever way of exploiting people for decades, or even centuries, without wasting resources on expensive wars and genocides. When rebellions did happen (like in Judea), they were isolated enough to be put down without too much fuss.
Of course, in the movie Katniss inspires uprisings by treating her opponents with respect and grace, and rejects the dehumanizing nature of the games. This breaks the control of the Capitol by making the viewers in the Districts dare for something more than just a victor. I can't really find a comparison for that, it didn't really happen in Ancient Rome :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRemoved the previous post because the wording was awkward... the edit:
DeleteThe "Thought Police"...
"They" (the infamous ptb) are coming close that sort of thing, having decided to make some crimes "hate crimes". Crime is crime, so they need to just punish the crime, not what thinking they conjecture to be the motivating factor(s).
Thanks for your comments Dungy, but I would say that Christianity did provide many people with a vision of a better future during Roman times. I don't know too much about the early history of the Christian church, but I have read in a number of sources that many Romans were amazed by the fact that early Christians often disregarded death and placed themselves in great danger through exposure to plagues and other dangers in order to tend to the poor and the sick. Again, I don't know much about the history of the period, so I can't generalize, but I think that at least many ancient Romans did see something better in the Christian faith. I think that you probably anticipated this response, but there it is.
DeleteYour point about the economic exploitation of the provinces was interesting. Susan commented on it earlier too. The movie contained a few shots of the working poor in the provinces, but I'm not sure there was anything about the financial benefits that accrued to districts whose tributes won the games. I don't know anything about the political or economic details of the world described in the books, and those details were largely omitted from the movie.
"I have read in a number of sources that many Romans were amazed by the fact that early Christians often disregarded death and placed themselves in great danger through exposure to plagues and other dangers in order to tend to the poor and the sick. Again, I don't know much about the history of the period, so I can't generalize,... "
DeleteWe do get hints of the situation in the Roman Empire being very anti-Christian during the New Testament times (not sure if Dungy considers the New Testament a reliable source for information), and that the Apostle Paul wrote many long letters to churches which included encouragements to face death by remembering that anyone in Christ has a better hope and remind them to learn from seeing others going through conflict (Paul giving himself as an example) as further evidence of the hope they were to attain to, and that their suffering was for a good purpose:
Php 1:28 And in nothing terrified by your adversaries: which is to them an evident token of perdition, but to you of salvation, and that of God.
Php 1:29 For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;
Php 1:30 Having the same conflict which ye saw in me, and now hear to be in me.
Susan - I agree with your critique of hate crime legislation. Motive shouldn't factor into how punishment is meted out for a particular crime. But I wouldn't go so far as to compare it to Orwellian crimethink (Yay, I get to break out the latest edition of my Newspeak dictionary!).
ReplyDeleteLeslie - I didn't mean to imply that districts got a monetary compensation for a victory in the games, because I didn't see any evidence of that either. But the President made some sort of vague implication of a morale boost from gaining a victory (hollow though it is).
As for the Roman stuff, I wasn't really trying to lead you anywhere. Mostly just grabbing the opportunity to geek out :)
You're right about some pagans converting due to Christian disregard of fear. There was one case I remember reading about where a Roman soldier charged with torturing some suspected Christains ended up converting because of how stoicly they treated the likelyhood of their own death.