Movie Review/Book Comparison: The Hunger Games

Well, after much deliberation, I took the proverbial plunge and treated myself to what is probably the hottest media franchise so far this year. The much-lauded adaptation of the first novel in Suzanne Collins' trilogy, although less impressive than it would be on the big/IMAX screen (do I regret not seeing it in theaters?), certainly delivered not only an accurate adaption of the original material but more than a healthy dose of action, drama and true human emotion.

As far as accuracy goes, I would give The Hunger Games a solid 85% for staying faithful to the book. All the major players were on the stage and delivered their lines beautifully. The most notable, or rather the most consistent, change was what I would call "trimming". In the book, there are significant stretches where the plot line becomes stilted/monotonous and action is at a minimum. Strictly speaking, however, this is probably a true reflection of how the characters actually felt during the competition; alone in the silent wilderness for hours or days at a time, sleeping with one eye open (cliche, I know, but very apt) while physically and emotionally exhausted, constantly on the watch in every direction with minimal food and water; its enough to make anyone anxious. In the movie, much of that slow-moving narrative, as well as sizable portions of general description and Katniss Everdeen's personal musings (the whole book was told in first person), were eliminated. While not seriously affecting the powerful emotional edge of the story, it did remove a good deal of the back story surrounding various characters, especially the more minor competitors. In this sense, if I had not read the book beforehand, I would have had a much more difficult time following the plot.

Another area of alteration that jumped out at me involved the aesthetics of the film (particularly the food, clothing/physical appearances and various physical settings, which Collins describes in precise detail), but this aspect was a bit more ambiguous than the alterations to the actual storyline. Although various aesthetic elements were altered from the book descriptions, the impact of those elements was still just as impressive (my personal favorite was the parade of the tributes, when Katniss and Peeta came blazing in wearing black leather with blue and orange flames streaming from their backs).

The accompanying music was either dramatic or intimate (sometimes both) when the situation required it, and lent a powerful feeling to the already stunning visuals and emotional plot line.

All in all, I believe that The Hunger Games certainly lives up to its monumental pop culture reputation, but I would recommend reading the original book first, if for no other reason than to fully appreciate Collins' skillful mastery of the hero's journey narrative.

SEE MY REVIEW OF THE ORIGINAL BOOK

Death of a Salesman at the Ethel Barrymore

 

These days, it's said that the cornerstone of any successful relationship is knowing how to listen (something a favorite college professor of mine made very clear). While that may be true, apparently Willy Loman didn't get the memo. One of Arthur Miller's most famous works, Death of a Salesmen captures the essence of proud, foolish man with an overblown ego who, in the long run, didn't really deserve the cruel hand that fate dealt him and his family.

Although not very familiar with Arthur Miller's work (the only other play of his I've seen or read is All My Sons), I have always been aware of the reputation of Death of a Salesman. While the magnitude of that reputation is certainly true, the foundation of the play is built on surprisingly simple and easy-to-relate-to themes. Philip Seymour Hoffman and his fellow players bring to life everyday issues such as family quarrels, frustration with routine, a difficult job market and, above all, the dramatic and devastating consequences that can result from failing to communicate properly. The case of Willy Loman's two sons could serve as a model for half of the college graduates in this country; working a series of low-level jobs while trying to find their path in life, yearning for social and financial independence and, more than anything else, the burning desire to make successful names of themselves (all in all, the American Dream, as Willy puts it).

The one confusing part of the performance were Willy's (for lack of a better term) flashbacks. Many of the most significant plot points were related via mental recollections of his "past glory" and conversations with his now-dead brother (the guy definitely had problems, let's leave it at that). Most of the time, whenever these mental episodes came into play, the stage was darkened and covered with a projection of golden leaves, but during the few occasions where this feature was left out, it took some time to realize what was "current" and what was just a memory.

The character of Willy Loman reminded me of personality traits present in two characters from short stories I read in college; Abner Snopes in William Faulkner's Barn Burning and Mr. DiMaria in W.D. Wetherell's The Man Who Loved Levittown. Overall, the show was filled with passionate and powerful performances that make it a worthy addition to the Broadway scene.

A little side note; besides the presence of Hoffman, it was apparently a star-studded night all around. On the night I saw the performance (4/3/12), my parents spotted Ethan Hawke in the audience several rows in front of us, and in the restroom during intermission, I ended up washing my hands right next to Owen Wilson. Who else was there that night, I wonder...?

Movie Review: The Woman in Black

Ever since I stumbled upon the decidedly creepy trailer for this movie last summer, I have been keen to see it (and not just because it was Daniel Radcliffe's first major post-Potter role, the plot line looked intriguing in-and-of-itself).




Radcliffe stars as Arthur Kipps, a young widower lawyer living in Edwardian-era London. Still reeling from the death of his wife four years earlier, Kipps is given a last chance to retain his job at the firm. He is sent to a remote coastal village to settle the estate of a recently deceased client. Unbeknownst to Kipps, however, he is walking straight into a crockpot of unsettling mysteries. The village has been plagued by mysterious deaths of most of its children, and nearly everyone is convinced that the ghost of Kipps' client is behind it all (although considering the woman’s circumstances, she did have reason to exact revenge on the town that scorned her).


I wasn’t fully sure what to expect from this movie, but it was without a doubt the scariest film I have seen in a long time. The individual elements of that fear (ghostly shadows/faces, creaking noises, demonic-looking toys/dolls ect…) were not very scary in-and-of themselves, but combined with brilliant camera work, stunning visuals and heart-stopping music, all the small parts combined to create a darkly beautiful tapestry of spine-tingling thrills (at one point, a woman in the theater let out a very audible scream- the first time I’ve ever heard one during a movie).