Catching Fire - not really a review, so much as a musing..

[shadowkat]

Finished watching Catching Fire, which was a whole lot better than both the book and the first film The Hunger Games. It was tighter.

It also reminded me why the other YA dystopian novels don't work for me. They miss the point of Suzanne Collins series. Collins' series focuses on the effect of violence on children and innocence. Her series is in some respects an allegory on the horror of war and violence on society and humanity. Also how a society that gets off on watching violence and lives off of the deaths of others...will eventually collaspe in on itself, until it just repeats the same pattern again and again.

The other YA dystopian series seem to lose track of that - as far as I can tell. Her story is steeped in metaphorical allegory - most of which are about the horror of violence and torture. And it does not end happily. Katniss and Peeta, and all the others are forever damaged by it.

In addition - Collins series parodies the societal obsession with celebrity, while depicting how the celebrity culture lives an absurd life of luxury and excess, while millions starve.
The emptiness of a culture that worships money, fame, and physical beauty...and craves stories of star-crossed lovers, even if they aren't true. To fill that empty pit.

Its those aspects that set Collins novel apart from all the rest. What the others have in common is the fascist society and the political upheaval, and the lone rebel kid who fights against the horde. Or the poor kid who fights against the privileged. What they appear to be lacking is the theme of anti-violence, and the critique of the societal worship of celebrity and fascination with series such as Fear Factor, Survivor, or other reality series - where people are pitted against one another.

Reminds me a little of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and how it distinguished itself from the series and novels that followed. Buffy was about a young woman confronting demons, bullying, authority, and in a way girl-power or equality of gender. The series that follow it, Vampire Diaries, Twilight, Vampire Academy, etc ...seem to lose track of that aspect, and focus on the star-crossed romance or the male vampires. It's why that show stands out.

It's hard to articulate. And it's late, so I'm not sure I did it well. But watching this movie reminded me of why The Hunger Games series interested me, while I have not been able to read any of the others. Mileage probably varies on this.

Comments

[sophist.livejournal.com]

YES!!!

Thank you, this is exactly right. I've been thinking about this a lot lately because (embarrassed) I just recently read Harry Potter. While I liked the books in many ways, I absolutely hated the epilogue. And the reason is exactly the one you give: these were child soldiers in a war, yet we see no consequences in the epilogue.* The specific contrast I made (to myself) was to Katniss and Buffy.

Very much agree on the movie too. I was kind of disappointed in the first movie, but this was much better.

*Not saying Rowling had to spell out those consequences, just that she needed to either (a) not write the epilogue and let us imagine the consequences; or (b) show some consequences.

[liliaeth]

Except that the epilogue is perfect exactly because it shows Harry getting the one thing he's wanted. Not a big love story, or a career, but a family.
And showing the themes of acceptance, of Harry growing up and teaching his son that he wouldn't judge him, regardless of what house he ended up in and that Slytherin was nothing to fear

[sophist.livejournal.com]

I think Harry can still get there, just not without a serious struggle. He, Hermione, Ginny, Neville, and Luna all suffered pretty significantly (as did some others like Andromeda Tonks). Harry may get to that point, but not without a lot of healing. I don't object to the message of the end point so much as the fact that Rowling elided the process of getting there.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Not sure I'd compare to Harry Potter, just because I think JK Rowlings had a different purpose in mind. She was less interested in critiquing violence - and more interested in critiquing the British caste system, and British politics. Her plot isn't all that interesting if you think about it. Sort of paint-by-numbers: Boy's hero journey. Done a million times. And the villain?
Eh, not that interesting either.

No, what made her books stick out is her world-building, and sly sardonic political commentary on both the school system, sporting events, racism, and how the government was run. She also is quite deft at describing the various layers of bullying and its long-time effects on everyone involved. (James Potter relentlessly bullies Snape but Lily Potter is kind to him.) In this respect she reminded me a lot of Ronald Dahl, except not quite as misanthropic.

Susan Collins in contrast is a better plotter, and not quite as good a world-builder. She's more interested in delving into the effects of violence on children. And less interested in political commentary (the politics in The Hunger Games is fairly simplistic). And in critiquing our society's obsession with reality stars and celebrity, as well as one group living an insanely lush lifestyle, while another is incredibly poor. Which is an American theme, more than an European one. Particularly the one relating to the cult of celebrity. For Americans, our celebrities are our royalty or aristocrats.

So...I'm not sure it's fair to compare those two? I was comparing, perhaps unfairly, The Hunger Games to its copy-cats: Divergent et al...there's a huge genre of YA dystopian novels.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

No doubt Rowling and Collins had different goals, and I agree that they both met theirs well. I just think it wouldn't have been that hard for Rowling to at least recognize the likely consequences of what the kids had been through.

I've only read the first 2 Divergent novels, so I feel like I shouldn't comment on that without knowing the ending.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I admittedly haven't read the Divergent novels - but the description feels...sort of lacking, hence the reason I haven't bothered.

[sophist.livejournal.com]

They aren't great, but I did read them. :)

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

I keep hearing that Catching Fire is better than the first movie. I'm really not sure what I missed. Does it help if you've read the book? I thought the second movie felt very much like an adaptation of a book, as if all the events would work better if I'd already read how they were supposed to fit together. But as a newcomer to the story, I just found that I was entirely uninterested by anything that was happening.

I actually really liked the first movie too.

There was a point where I was quite keen on reading the Hunger Games books, but as time goes by I'm finding myself less and less keen. While "Hunger Games" peaked my interest, "Catching Fire" has rather put me off. I don't really have time to read right now, but in the summer I expect my time to open up. Presumably you'd recommend the series (like, as a book series in itself, not just as a superior alternative to all the other YA fiction, right)?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Eh...I wouldn't say it's superior, because I really haven't read that many YA novels, to be honest. Like all other things? I think it really depends on what fits your mood and what you personally like. Or mileage varies?

The only current YA novels that sparked my interest were:

The Harry Potter Series
The Hunger Games Series
The Fault in Our Stars

The reason? They were different. And they dealt with themes and characters that worked for me.

I'd heartily recommend all three of the above, for different reasons.
Of the three listed above, John Green's The Fault in Our Stars is most likely the best written. It is not a fantasy novel, but a novel about two kids dying of cancer who fall in love while pursuing an author of their favorite novel. It has some interesting things to say about fandom and obsession with stories.

The Hunger Games - I found to be different for the reasons I stated above. It's told in first person - you are in Katniss' pov throughout.
Which is limiting, because Katniss has shut herself down emotionally for obvious reasons - she's scared to death. But it is also interesting because it depicts what violence and torture do to a person - how it shuts them down. The movies in some respects are easier - because you are in more than one point of view.

I preferred the novel The Hunger Games to Catching Fire - because Catching Fire spent a lot of time on a train jumping from place to place and with Peeta mooning over Katniss, which frankly got old (particularly if you aren't shipping Peeta and Katniss, which I wasn't.) They managed to cut that bit down considerably in the movie.
Also the book spent more time on side-details like the slaves serving in the Capital, who had no tongue. And the amount of plastic surgery the citizens of the Capital had done. And there was more of the tributes - Johanna, Finnick, Bebe, and the others - descriptions of what they wore and more animosity - the tightened that considerably.

I preferred the movie Catching Fire to the film The Hunger Games, because the first film had a hand-held camera that was frankly jarring to watch, and did not flow well. Also some of the editing didn't quite work. This film flowed better and was less jarring. Also, the characters felt a bit more developed.

But mainly, I liked the second film better because it underlined what I liked in the book - which was the decadence of the Capital, violence and killing as sport, and well celebrity worship or need to know everything about someone's private love life - turning them into an object for your entertainment. Which I felt the movie subtly pulled off without getting preachy. The book gets it across too - actually - but not quite as well, in my opinion.

So, I recommend the books, but with the above caveats.