Opposing the “Hunger Games”

I recently watched the first “Hunger Games” movie and am as annoyed about it as I thought I would be. Apologies to fans of that movie and its follow ups, but here is why I am pissed at it.

I think it sucks because it is a) absolutely not original and b) because I don’t buy the premise.

First of all the originality issue:

This movie is a lame remake/combination of two other movies: The Running Man from the 80ties, an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie where modern gladiators are fighting to the death in a televised spectacle, and the Japanese movie Battle Royale from the year 2000.

You can read their respective plot summaries on IMDb: The Running Man and Battle Royale.

Battle Royale is in my humble opinion an awesome movie – it caused a bit of a stir when it came out in Japan due to its provocative premise of a group of 40 high school students (teenagers around 15 or 16) being deported to a lonely island where they are killing each other until only one person is left who is allowed to go home. Sounds familiar?

I wonder whether the author of the Hunger Games knows this movie and is thus guilty of plagiarism.

It is quite possible of course that she did not know Battle Royale – I am unsure as to how far this movie made it beyond Japan. However, the parallels are so detailed, that I bet she knows the movie.

Battle Royale stars the also outside of Japan relatively famous “Beat” Takeshi, some may know him better under his real name Takeshi Kitano. He is an actor/director (whom I wrote my master-thesis about) who has quite a number of (rather violent) movies under his belt that made him known outside of Japan as well. He also starred in some Hollywood movies like “Johnny Mnemonic” and others.
So, in Battle Royale Kitano plays the nasty teacher who arranged for one of his classes to be sent to the deadly game.

And here comes in the issue about the premise.

Let’s compare the premises of Battle Royale and the Hunger Games.

Battle Royale: In a near future Japan, youngsters have become more and more rowdy and have no respect anymore for adults and the helpless adults have invented the Battle Royale Act in the desperate try to discipline and scare the students.

With military support, a selected class is deported to an uninhabited island and are given one rucksack each that contains a random weapon and some provisions (sounds familiar?) and they have three days to kill each other until only one is left. If they don’t kill each other all their heads will explode thanks to a neck collar they all received. (Did I miss this detail? Is there a time limit in the Hunger Games? Doesn’t seem to be – the little black girl nurses Katniss back to health after the hornets attack for days. So why do they even play the game? Why don’t they just refuse to kill each other (and sit it out and starve together)? To have no time limit is illogical)

So, the major conflict in Battle Royale is a generation one: adults vs. rowdy teenagers. They attack the teacher Kitano (as a nice piece of spice the name of Kitano’s character in the movie is Kitano) in his school and he’s finally had it with them and invokes the Battle Royale Act.

Now what’s the premise in the Hunger Games? In an imaginary future state a nuclear war has happened (some 75 years ago, more comments on that later) and the 12 “districts” that have lost have to pay an annual tribute by sending one girl and one boy between 12 and 18 to the “hunger games”. Eh? Why?

Why children between 12 and 18? Why not young men who just became fathers? Why not pregnant women? I can find no reason for the age of the contestants (as opposed to Battle Royale where the reason is generation conflict). The only reason seems to be that this was originally a YA book and YA protagonists need to be between 12 and 18 years old so that their same aged readers can identify with them…. dah….

Then why this kind of tribute (sending a teenage boy and a teenage girl to the games) and not any other? What is the motivation behind this “method” of “paying back debts to the victor”? If I was a dictator I’d want goods and money from the people I conquered, which apparently they are getting too, but why this gladiator game on top? To humiliate the districts, yes, but there are loads of “better” ways how to humiliate the people I conquered. The motivation for the teenage gladiator games seems to come out of nowhere.

Then, they are going on for 74 years already? You gotta be kidding me. Why hasn’t anyone revolted throughout the previous 73 years? Okay, the North Korean regime is around now for some 60 years but nevertheless, 73 years and nobody tried to knock out the regime in the Hunger Games before?

Next, the storyline: For me it was as clear as Tokyo on a sunny winter day that Katniss would win the tournament. Zero surprise, zero suspense.

Even though they show the “winner” of the Battle Royale at the beginning of the movie there is suspense, since we don’t know yet what’s going on and we also wonder why the winning girl is so young as soon as we see the class that will go on the Battle Royale = a mystery that needs to be solved.

Finally, the TV announcer of the Hunger Games seems to be a completely lame imitation of the incredible girl who explains to the Battle Royale students via video how the “game” works. This is my absolute favorite part of the movie. There is this silly 20ish fashion girl who explains in a funny, bright and over-the-top happy manner the gruesome rules of the killing game. The contrast between her delivery and appearance and what she says is gob smacking. And the contrast between her delivery and appearance and the reaction of the 40 students is equally awesome. Two die during her instructions. There is real terror and it’s totally believable.

So, the bottom line of these musings is that Battle Royale is a great horror movie, which deserves to go down in the annals of movie history, whilst the Hunger Games is a lame-ass, plagiaristic rip-off of something much better and more intelligent. I have no clue at all why this movie and the book behind it deserve any sort of attention!