Tuesday, March 27, 2012

maria: the girl (who wishes she was worthy of being) on fire.

there's something about seeing a highly anticipated movie that leaves me with an intense desire to talk to everyone around me about everything that i'm feeling about it and otherwise. but since the only person i have at my disposal to talk to isn't exactly fluent in english slash is asleep and therefore not really at my disposal at all, i'm going to have to write about it in here instead. go!

i'm sure i've already made it abundantly clear, either through my facebook activity which you're all subject to or, heaven forbid, you've had the misfortune of actually talking with me from the time i saw this movie until the time that you're actually reading this, i finally saw the hunger games.
let the dissecting begin:
i think i was afraid to let myself like this movie in the beginning. i'd heard enough cautionary reviews from people i trusted that it was like i was almost prepping myself for the worst. consequently, i found myself extremely frustrated for the first twenty minutes, and this is why. i'd been warned about the amount of camera shake they used and so i thought in my readied state i'd be able to look past it. nope. even being prepped for it i found it extremely distracting. and that's saying something. i understand why it was used, most of the movie is shot as if it was reality tv, but the camera shake combined with the overuse of panning-out-of-focus-shots left me bugged and feeling a little out of focus myself. along those same lines, i felt like all of the scene were cut a few seconds too short. i didn't get to absorb or actually take in a scene fully before it cut away. this left me frustrated and distracted enough that i had even less time to take in the next scene before it too, was prematurely cut away. it almost felt as if the director had no faith in his work and therefore wanted all the scenes to cut away before the viewer noticed his flaws. you'd think with such elaborate costumes from the capitol especially, one would want to let the viewer bask in their hard work. guess not. (i'm also now realizing that maybe someone had the brilliant idea that in order to make the film shorter they'd just shave off a few seconds from every scene. and to that, i suggest that whomever's head that idea pooped out of is forced to consume cups of straight sugar, to cut their concentration level in half of course, and then sit and watch a pbs documentary where all the scenes are annoyingly cut a few seconds too short. not so easy to follow the story line now, is it, idea-man? didn't think so.)
while we're still bashing the filmography, the CG seemed really... low budget. you'd think with a movie this hyped they'd have more high quality equipment to work with.

story wise, i was fine with how they adapted the story line. the relationships between... well basically everyone felt completely glossed over though and so i had a hard time buying into every character's actions.

my favorite part of the movie was easily my favorite part of the book as well. i loved the delicate way the balance between the callous and desensitized way the people in the capitol felt towards the hunger games in contrast with the heart wrenching dread for the games and yet inevitable conceit to the capitol's wishes the districts experienced.when effie is drawing the names for the district 12 tributes and she congratulates katniss and asks everyone to congratulate her as well she is met with silence. there are multiple examples of this sort of misplaced excitement that a capitol member feels towards the games or towards a killing while the audience and the district citizens are clearly distraught and disgusted. i can't help but find this juxtaposition of the two different frames of mind to be so disturbing that it becomes enchanting.

well, it's now 2 AM so i do believe that is enough rambling for tonight.

and, i'm sorry, but now that we've all seen peeta and gale in "real life", can we all agree that peeta is a girl, in looks and in action, and gale is actually a man and just plain more attractive and therefore clearly the winner? yes? thank you.

with all this said, i still kind of want to be the girl on fire. or at least learn how to wield a bow like that. hot dang!

2 comments:

Trina :) said...

It's like you read my mind. Like seriously. In the middle of the movie I was beginning to get really frustrated with how I couldn't take in the costumes and scenery and the thought popped into my mind that maybe they did that on purpose so they didn't have to try so hard and draw attention away from their mistakes. And the low budget CGI... lit totes agree. The whole movie just screamed low budget to me which is so dumb because of how highly anticipated this movie was. I'm sure they put tons of money into it (of course, i could look up how much money they put into it but I don't want to)

Also, you couldn't get emotionally connected to the characters. They didn't give you enough time... but then again, I didn't really feel that emotionally connected to them in the book either... but that could have been because I read them so fast. haha And I felt like Cinna and Katniss had much more chemistry on screen than Peeta and Katniss. Specifically in the scene where Cinna is with her right before she's getting into the tube to go into the arena.

I will say tho they they did a pretty good job on the casting. Lenny Kravitz as Cinna - spot on. And Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman.... not exactly what I pictured but Tucci is a brilliant actor and I loved him in it.

I'm with you on the Gale thing. He is totes hotter than Peeta and much more manly. Like when he standing there with Prim on his shoulders as Katniss comes back after winning the games. How could you not be in love with the guy? Come on.

kwattz said...

gale is a dick.
team peeta 4 eva.