Film review

The Hunger Games, it’s a harsh and relentless story based upon the first novel out of a trilogy of books by Suzanne Collins. The book is narrated by 16 year old Catkins; a young woman who lives in a post-apocalyptic America divided into 13 districts and ruled by one, the Capitol. In this imaginary future, ruled by the Capitol, an apparatus of their control is the Hunger Games, an event established in the aftermaths of a billion against them, to keep the population in check and remind them whose boss.
The story sets place at one of their annual reaping, where all twelve districts are forced to bring forward one boy and one girl to participate in the games. They are branded as tributes. Participants are selected then given physical training and presentation guidance for the games. The games are filmed and televised and it is mandatory for all citizens from every district to watch. Catkins comes from one of the resort areas, District 12.
It’s a coal mining region, and only two people have ever won from her particular region in the long history of the games. I believe that the people responsible for the Hunger Games tried really hard, not to loiter on the pursuit and the kill but to show the characters using their brains, eluding confrontation as much as possible. The theme of martyr and exploitation is static, and we react to it.

They portrayed the setting-up of the game wisely: resembling the kook, the film lets us understand, very hastily, how manipulative the games are. This is something Catkins discovers early on, but she still manages to remain true to herself as much as possible. The film shows us countless ways to be a spectator: the vain Capitol members are the arch-consumers, but as a spectator, we don’t associate with them. It’s the game, not the Tributes we as viewers are keen to see conquered. May the odds be ever in your favor.