Words by Terence Wang
Additional writing by Siangling Tan
When the train carrying three Hunger Games victors and one poodle-like woman exited the tunnel to reveal a panoramic view of Panem, I felt certain that I was in for a treat. And I was right.
Taking place soon after the events in The Hunger Games, Catching Fire brings viewers behind the cameras and into the lives of Katniss and Peeta, victors of the earlier 74th Hunger Games. Without spoiling too much for people who haven't watched the series at all - honestly though, you should hitting Back, Close, Ctrl+W or whatever you fancy right now - they managed to break the tradition of one-winner-per-game in a spontaneous, last-minute move of desperation, but by doing so have forced the powerful hand of the secretive, authoritarian government led by President Snow (played by Jonathan Sutherland).
A little disclaimer beforehand: You can say I'm a fan of the novel trilogy. It was more accidental than anything else, really - a couple of years ago, I selected the first book at a lazy session in my local bookstore and started a read. Before I knew it, several hours had passed, I was walking out of the store in a mockingjay-induced daze and a desire to catch up with the rest of the series. As such, if you're not enamored by the books, you may want to take my review with a bit of salt, or take the comparison of the movie with its book counterpart out of the equation. On the other hand, if you, too, enjoyed the novels and the themes associated with them, then this overview will be for you.
My previous review of the first movie ended on a positive note, but one of biggest gripes I had with The Hunger Games was its lack of a good-looking set. The arena in which much of the second half of that movie was shot in, for instance, was greyish, drab-looking and a letdown in general. The first thought that surfaced in my mind when Katniss was released into it was something along the lines of "that's it?". The Capitol looked a little better, but the use of CGI was too obvious for comfort.
Francis Lawrence, who took up directing duties for this sequel, must have felt the same way, for he (with much help from cinematographer Jo Willems, I presume) has addressed nearly all my qualms in Catching Fire. The country of Panem in this movie is stunning. That includes the Arena, District 12, the training grounds - which to be fair were already acceptable in the first one - and everything else worth beautifying. Lawrence claims to have tried to stay consistent in visual style with the sequel's predecessor, so that it maintains a certain 'feel', but in all honesty while the setting is certainly recognisable, it is leaps and bounds above The Hunger Games.
Another even more notable feat, and another testament to Lawrence's excellent work as a director, is how much the characters in this movie appear to come to life in comparison to the first movie. Jennifer Lawrence plays a cold, distraught and impassioned Katniss like she was born for the role, just as before, while Josh Hutcherson does an acceptable, if not outstanding portrayal of Peeta. What separates this movie from its predecessor is the much stronger performance from the supporting cast. Recurring characters, like Haymitch, Effie Trinket and the extravagant and extraordinary Caesar Flickerman, were already well done and need not be mentioned, but newcomers like Johanna and Finnick are standouts in their own right and can stand alongside the leads for attention. Jena Malone especially plays Johanna to an electrifying mix of strength and seduction, with her elevator scene with the three District 12 victors one of the most memorable comedic scenes in the movie.
Getting the basics right is one thing, though. Where Catching Fire excels is how it managed to latch on to the dystopian themes of the book and transform them into exciting, nail-biting cinema. The first movie made a good effort in this area, but in the end it felt more like gears in a machine, rotating endlessly with the single goal of toiling to reach the end. Catching Fire, in contrast, lives its 146 minute-long running time to the fullest - it spares no comfort to viewers in exposing them to the sheer brutality and iron grip of the Capitol government. In the first movie, the feeling is that of a third person, watching from the safety of the arena sidelines; in this one, you feel trapped in the arena along with all the tributes (I suspect the removal of the hated shaky-camera style played a big part in this). This movie makes you fear, it scares you, even more so than several horror movies. It makes you hate President Snow and his league of Peacekeepers for their actions. In short, the movie gives you a story you can actual care about.
While Jennifer Lawrence already was a natural fit for Katniss, as I mentioned earlier, she pulls out all the stops in Catching Fire, and the writers made good use of that. She becomes more than the girl-in-a-situation, and morphs into a more complex and undoubtedly more interesting personification of a reluctant symbol for the people. It's interesting to me in two ways: the first of which is how close the meaning of a 'symbol' is in the movie as it is in our real daily lives. People who are symbols are usually perceived to be the leading fighters of whatever the cause attached to them, but in reality they are mostly figureheads - their main task is to bring hope, and they matter more as figureheads than actual substance, which can be seen in Katniss' story. She inspires the people to revolt, but the actual 'leaders' of the revolution are the people actual planning the protests, making blueprints, pulling strings...including hers.
Which brings me to the second interesting point of Katniss - throughout the entire series, she is seen as the strong-willed, determined, independent girl. However, in what can be seen as a bout of irony, she is the one that is always being pushed around in the story. She has no free will of who she wants to be - she has to either submit to the demands of the Capitol government and live the pretentious life of a celebrity, complete with an arranged marriage with Peeta, or instead go with the rebels and be their reluctant symbol. Either way, she becomes a puppet, and the movie puts a microscope over her own little struggle against the people using her, which could have been easily overlooked in the process of showcasing the much larger rebellion happening around her.
Complaints? A few, yes. The love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Gale is still not quite convincing, and the chemistry between the first two leaves a lot to be desired. The strong romance between them in the books, especially the first one, simply isn't quite there in both movies. Also, despite having a two-point-five-hour running time, it still occasionally felt a little constrained and rushed. However, on the whole I have to say the movie did a good job of compressing the plot while remaining faithful the the book and adding a few niceties of its own.
It's because of this sort of deft balancing that Catching Fire burns bright, not simply as a good adaptation of its novel origins, but as a splendid movie overall. A sequel that's better than the first, then. How often can you claim that?
Suburban KID score: 8.5
Picture credit: www.partina.ir
No comments :
Post a Comment