Hunger Games: Movie vs. Novel (Part 1)
Here's an extensive excerpt from the interview I did at HungerGamesTrilogy.net exploring the differences between the Hunger Games movie and novel.
What do you think of the changes made from the book to the film adaptation?
Although there are a lot of subtle differences between the book and the film, both forms work really well for The Hunger Games.
In the novel, Suzanne Collins exposes the reader to what Katniss is thinking, so we view a lot of the world through Katniss' eyes. Because the author writes the novel from a very close third person perspective, she deepens the characterization and intensifies the reader's experience. The reader learns more about the characters and what motivates them as well as learning more about the world of Panem and how it works.
In the movie, Katniss' thoughts shift to dialogue and action. It's much harder in film to expose a character's opinions and prior knowledge about situations and other characters. Film makers like to keep the action moving to maintain the audience's attention.
Here's an example, one of many. Early in the novel (page 13), the reader learns how the reaping system works directly from Katniss, who tells us that at age twelve a person's name is entered once, at thirteen his/her name is entered twice, and so on up to age eighteen. In addition, each person—aged twelve to eighteen—can choose to enter his/her name into the reaping pool one time for each family member. Those who are the poorest and most desperate for food tend to enter their names as much as possible. For each additional entry, the Capitol gives the family tesserae worth a year's amount of meager grain and oil for one person.
In the novel, Katniss points out that at age sixteen, her name is in the reaping pool twenty times. Eighteen-year-old Gale's name is in the reaping pool forty-two times. Katniss has entered her name on behalf of her mother and Prim, both of whom she must feed. Gale has entered his name on behalf of his mother, two brothers, and sister, all of whom he must feed.
These explanations are set in the midst of dialogue with Madge, who doesn't have to enter her name more than absolutely required. Gale treats her coldly because Madge is fortunate enough to be the Mayor's daughter and hence, privileged. Katniss' kind personality is revealed when she comments that it's not Madge's fault, and then she goes on to describe the unfair reaping system to the reader.
In the movie, it doesn't happen this way at all. In the forest with Gale, Katniss asks him how many times his name will be in today's reaping. He tells her that his name will be in the lottery forty-two times. She comments that he has two brothers to protect. So here, the audience doesn't know (unless they've read the book, of course) exactly how the reaping system works and why Gale's name is in the reaping pool forty-two times.
I could list a couple dozen additional examples.
On the flip side, the movie would be bogged down and slow if cluttered with a lot of deep thoughts and introspective moments.
The balance of action versus emotion is perfect in The Hunger Games film. By shifting Katniss' nightmares to Prim in the opening scene, the film makers instantly make viewers think of Katniss as strong, assertive, nurturing, caring, and loving. By removing Madge from the stage and inserting a brief scene in which Greasy Sae (we assume) provides her with the Mockingjay pin, the action sequence speeds up compared to the written form. While I missed both Madge and Greasy Sae (otherwise omitted from the film), I figured they were sacrificed in this first movie to keep the action moving.
Again, I could list a couple dozen additional examples.
Another aspect of the film that's different from the book is that the level of violence in the film is greatly reduced. This is because the film is rated PG-13. Had the violence been as horrific as in the book, the film would have required an R rating.
One example is Cato's slow death by mutt at the end of the Hunger Games in the book. In written form, Suzanne Collins emphasizes how slow and torturous his death is, how finally, Katniss puts him out of his misery with an arrow to his skull only to see what's left of him: "the raw hunk of meat that used to be [her] enemy." (page 340)
In the movie, the sequence is much quicker. The mutts—who by the way, don't look anything like the mutts in the novel—attack Cato, and very quickly, we see only his face before Katniss pulls back her bow to send the arrow into him. We don't see "the raw hunk of meat" at all.
Another example is Glimmer's death, again much more graphic in the novel than in the film. In the book, her tracker jacker stings are described as huge orange balls with green pus flowing out of them. Her limbs are bloated, and Katniss barely recognizes the dead Glimmer as being the beautiful, golden girl from District 1. In the film, we see some mild bloating of Glimmer's hand, her blotched dead face, but we don't see the graphic depiction of death that Collins supplies in the book.
On page 143 of the book, Katniss tells us that Titus from District 6 ended up being a cannibal who ate the hearts of dead tributes in the Games several years ago. We don't learn anything this extreme in the movie.
Yet again, I could list a couple dozen additional examples.
On film, it was much clearer just how bizarrely unresponsive the parents were as their children were dragged to the Games. Katniss' mother was like a stone statue, her face unmoving much of the time, no tears and somehow showing no regrets and no remorse. As a mother, I didn't understand her reaction in the film. I would have tried to save my own children no matter what the cost.
Certainly, Katniss' mother is shown in a very similar way in the book. However, because everything is layered deeply and internalized through Katniss' characterization, we also know as readers that her mother is an experienced healer who helps the wounded and sick of District 12. She's not quite as flat as portrayed in film.
In the novel, after Katniss lays Rue to rest with a wreath of flowers around her head and flowers in her hands, District 11 gives her a gift of bread, something possibly never done in the history of the Games: a gift of this magnitude to a tribute in another district. Katniss says, "My thanks to the people of District 11." Later, "conflicting emotions" cross Thresh's face when he kills Clove and doesn't kill Katniss, sparing her from death this one time in thanks for her caring of Rue. As readers, we know that in Catching Fire, Peeta graciously supplies District 11 with a month's allotment of bread each year.
In the film, after Katniss lays Rue to rest with flowers in her hands, District 11 doesn't supply the gift of bread, and while Katniss turns to stare into the Capitol's cameras, she cannot thank District 11 for the gift. In the film, Thresh appears almost angry as he tells Katniss he is sparing her this once, he doesn't come across as conflicted and as tortured a soul as he does in the book. He's a more three-dimensional character in the book. As viewers who have read the entire trilogy, we wonder if Peeta will supply District 11 with the bread in the second film, hence satisfying an important motif and theme of the entire Hunger Games trilogy: bread as hope, bread as sustenance, bread as in Panem et Circenses.
I could probably write 50-100 pages about differences between the book and film. So I'll stop here before I end up writing a sequel to The Hunger Games Companion on the web.
Overall, the film worked, and it worked well.
The amount of graphic detail in The Hunger Games film sufficed. When I saw the movie (twice so far), the audience was packed with people of all ages, ranging from little kids cuddled in horror next to their parents right on up to grandparents and senior citizens. If anything, the film bordered on horror for the little kids in the audience.
The level of emotion was gut-wrenching, and had the movie ramped up the heart-breaking scenes any further, I fear half the audience would have cried through the whole movie. Teens and people in their twenties were glued to the screen, just as I was glued to it. Many of us (including me) sniffled and openly weeped when Katniss volunteered in Prim's place, when Rue died, when Katniss and Peeta snuggled in the woods.
The choice of actors and actresses was perfect.
The interplay of Capitol glitz versus harsh poverty in the districts was portrayed beautifully.
Who do you think has the most impressive performance in the movie?
This is a very hard question to answer. So many performances were so dead-on perfect that I'll have to cheat and discuss all my favorites.
Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss was ideal. Her face showed the perfect level of toughness, intelligence, determination, kindness, and even gentleness.
Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket was ideal. Her face showed the perfect level of hypocrisy, bouyancy, and gaiety coupled with an almost bewildered and motherly tightness. On some level, did she actually care about Katniss and Peeta? Her wild hair, makeup, and outfits were so perfect that a lot of us think that Academy Awards should go to The Hunger Games for Best Costume Design and Best Makeup.
Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy: what can I say? Perfect. He grew as a slobby drunk who didn't care about his district tributes, thinking they were dead no matter what he did, to a still-drunk guy who looked and acted sharp, who thought clearly, and who did everything he could to help Katniss and Peeta win sponsors and come out alive. The evolution of Haymitch as a character was very well done in the film.
Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman: again, what can I say? Again, another perfect choice. The insanely huge smile with the giant teeth! The crazy blue hair! The concerned look on his face, as if he cared, while he talked during the Games as if the whole affair were simply a college football game or a reality show with no serious consequences.
Josh Hutcherson as Peeta surprised me. I didn't like the character of Peeta an enormous amount in the book. He came across as almost too caring and sweet, too soft. But in the film, I adored Peeta. He was strong, intelligent, caring and sweet but not soft. Josh Hutcherson turned Peeta up a notch into a true film hero.
Briefly, I must mention Liam Hemsworth as Gale. Reading the book, I pictured Gale as wiry, tall, strong, and tough. In the film, Gale's part is greatly reduced—that is, he's not on stage much, and all we see of him is a grimace here and there as he feels jealous about Katniss' growing relationship with Peeta. He packs a lot of muscle in the movie, not quite as I personally pictured him while reading the trilogy. But that's not as important to me as wondering whether his role will be greatly increased in the forthcoming films.
Click here to read the entire interview at HungerGamesTrilogy.net.
Click here to read Hunger Games: Movie vs. Novel (Part 2) on this blog.
