On its surface, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire improves on the original The Hunger Games in just about every way. The film’s bigger budget allows it to fill in the cast with some incredible actors, advance the film’s special effects, and spend more time and resources on the film’s cinematography. These advancements make The Hunger Games: Catching Fire enjoyable to watch and constantly engaging. Who wouldn’t want to watch Donald Sutherland and Philip Seymour Hoffman scheme to destroy Jennifer Lawrence’s Katniss Everdeen? These are actors that can breathe life, energy, and humanity into even the dullest of scripts.
Donald Sutherland, left, Philip Seymour Hoffman, right. Photo Credit: Murray Close, courtesy of Lionsgate
It helps that The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’s script is anything but dull. It is full of constantly evolving political machinations, intense action set-pieces, and steamy romance. Each and every moment ups the shock factor and makes viewers question whom to trust. The problem is that none of these ideas are clever, amusing, or revealing and never make a lick of sense. The film is so caught up in the momentum of its actions and thrills that it never stops to explain or develop the advancements of the plot.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire successfully continues the development of its primary characters, even giving Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) and Effie (Elizabeth Banks) some much needed moments of humanity. This care for the primary elements of the film can be felt throughout, with the society and social structure of the story’s universe taking on a much larger role. The politics are immediately engaging but after awhile it becomes clear that there are very few consequences for any of the actions that the characters make. When Katniss stands up for what she believes in, it is hard to know whether it will spell her doom or be completely overlooked by the alternately all-powerful or inept President Snow (Donald Sutherland). How can the people of the capital be both so incompetent and blind but also so domineering and productive? Where are the unique voices that could help flesh out and define this world?
Woody Harrelson, left, Josh Hutcherson, center, Jennifer Lawrence, right. Photo credit: Murray Close, courtesy of Lionsgate
As the plot unfolds it becomes clear that most of the characters in the film are only there to serve the forward momentum of the story or a growing checklist from the book. Several characters that appear hostile at first are suddenly revealed to be friendly with the protagonists. There is never any satisfying reasoning behind these twists other than to shock audiences and it is a shock that quickly wears thin. By focusing on surprising its audience,The Hunger Games: Catching Fire has sacrificed a great deal of narrative clarity, one that is necessary in a universe this complicated.
That complication speaks to the ongoing problem with The Hunger Games series and how it has been handled. The films feel as if they are caught between multiple different styles and audiences. Are they political or action thrillers? Are they for an adult or teen audience? By never really choosing between the two, The Hunger Games’s ideas are greatly weakened. Early on, a man gets shot in the head for protesting the government. It is a shocking moment, but an entirely bloodless one. A moment like that needs to either go all the way or be more creative in how it depicts said violence.
The same dissonance can be seen in how The Hunger Games: Catching Fire treats its satirical elements, one of the growing highlights of the film. When Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) approach two capital citizens at a party they are offered a drink that will cause them to vomit so they can keep eating. It is a smart piece of satire that highlights just how uneven the economy is, and immediately draws to mind similar sicknesses in our own society. Then a moment later Katniss says out loud exactly what is ironic about a drink that makes the user vomit, as if it needed to be further clarified. The series needs to either trust in its audience and feature fully adult situations or choose not to.
The best choice made with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was the hiring of director Francis Lawrence (Constantine, I Am Legend). Lawrence has always been a fun visual director, who has never had a truly great script, and this might be his most sumptuous work yet. Unlike the first film, the action here is always fluid, discernable, and quite fun (if inconsequential). Lawrence’s beautiful and expansive wide screen compositions are sure to astound, especially on IMAX. He also allows his scenes to linger just longer than a typical Hollywood blockbuster might, which gives the film a wonderful pacing that is sure to entertain and engage.
Stanley Tucci & Jennifer Lawrence. Photo credit: Murray Close, courtesy of Lionsgate
However, the sole reason to see The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is for Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen. Her performance isn’t quite as transformative as her works in Winter’s Bone and Silver Linings Playbook, but it continues to prove just how incredible she is as a young actress. She makes for a great role model for young women, refusing to lose 20 pounds for the role, as someone caught between two tough choices and who doesn’t need the love of a man to define her. What makes the performance even more fascinating is how it so perfectly mirrors Jennifer Lawrence’s publicity tour for the film itself. Both feature an innocent, talented, young woman who has been thrust into the national spotlight and whose image has been twisted out of control against her own will. Just as Katniss and Peeta’s love life is tabloid news for the citizens of the capital, Jennifer Lawrence’s haircut has made the headlines on CNN.
To witness paparazzi bark orders at her on the red carpet as she tries to remain sane and humble is a far more interesting battle and narrative than anything in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Still, the parallels are interesting and showcase that the satire in the film can be quite successful even with a plot that makes next to no sense. Yet, a movie cannot exist solely on satire. It needs consistent tone, characters, and plotting; none of which exist in this series. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire improves on the original in every way but continues to feel like a movie made for those who are already in love with the book series and will likely not convert those that did not enjoy the first outing into the world of Katniss Everdeen.
