Skip to main content

I miss my wigs.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1
(2014)

(SPOILERS) The chief problem with The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was that it essentially reheated the first film, not an uncommon complaint of sequels generally. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 remedies this but in so doing exposes a far greater ailment. Without the central, and unlikely, gimmick (as in, this world is not really any more plausible than that of the much derided Divergent) of this particular totalitarian regime, there is no glue holding the picture together. As a result the entire edifice begins to crumble, and the makers are left clutching desperately at the life raft of propaganda commentary. Of course, cutting the book in half for strictly artistic reasons doesn’t help anyone to tell a compelling story either.


I haven’t read the Suzanne Collins’ novels, and I’m not particularly inspired to, and I’m not going to spoil if for myself by reading a synopsis. It’s quite possible that Mockingjay possesses a rousing, thoughtful and insightful conclusion that justifies all this extra time taken. I’m doubtful, though. Lionsgate (and Warner Bros too) are dab hands at milking bashful cash cows with finite literary lactose on tap. Lionsgate did it with Twilight, and Warner did it with Harry Potter. The end is nigh, and the decision to double up has zero to do with making a coherent or satisfying film. It’s not such a problem ending on a cliffhanger, it is a problem if the resulting story becomes aimless or listless. Breaking Dawn – Part 1 at least boasted the majestically warped horror show of Bella’s pregnancy to hold incredulous attention. And the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, for all its “Let’s camp out in the woods for an hour” rap was much more interesting than the banal big battle conclusion. I fear that is the kind of place Mockingjay – Part 2 is heading. If so, it can’t even claim a fitfully interesting lead-in.


We pick up with Katniss suffering PTS as a result of the climax of Catching Fire in which she lost Peeta (to the clutches of Donald Sutherland’s nefarious President Snow), the most mystifying point in a love triangle since… well Taylor Lautner. Josh Hutcherson can act to some degree, so he’s got that as an advantage over Lautner, but he has no chemistry with Lawrence and he’s an uphill battle (particularly so, given his height restrictions) trying to make a beta male character sympathetic when as a performer he lacks presence (and is unable to impress upon us Peeta’s intelligence, apparently the character’s strongest suit).


Considerably more might have been made of the position of the rebel leadership, that the captured Tributes are traitors, so it’s lobbing a soft ball to establish outright here that Peeta has done his very best while undergoing starvation and Manchurian Candidate-style brainwashing. Despite the gritty action and handheld camera, and the moves to show politics as a murky business no matter which side is talking, there’s never any doubt that our noble and true heroes are noble and true. It might have been more honest to have a central character break under torture, since that would be the response of most of us (the picture is also guilty of continually playing to stereotypes, which is why it attempts to cast doubt on the stalwartness of the not-so-manly Peeta). Peeta’s out of the loop for most of the movie, which serves to reinforce how unlikely Katniss’ affections are; she is overcome with emotion at every sight of paltry Peeta on the Capitol’s broadcast.


Nevertheless, she finds time in her busy weepy schedule to canoodle with manly beefcake, and brother of Thor, Gale. Liam Hemsworth isn’t quite as one-note as previously, since he has considerably more screen time, but Gale is in no danger of being unveiled as a layered character. The more we see and hear of him, volunteering for heroic suicide missions, saving as many townsfolk from a bombing run as he could and then berating himself for not saving more, the more immodestly noble he becomes. Gale’s judgemental traits (of Peeta’s betrayal, of Katniss’ emotional superficiality towards him) may be implicitly criticised, but Hemsworth is unlikely to dispel his rep as an impassive plank any time soon.


This isn’t such a great picture for J-Law either. Katniss is granted a bravura moment with a bow and arrow against some fighter planes (and director Francis Lawrence stages an outstanding piece of action as a chimney collapses, seen through the window of a derelict warehouse), but spends an awful lot of time blubbing, fretting, and being generally underwhelming. I’d go as far to say Lawrence comes unstuck here, buffeted by the demands of having her character doused in despair or subject to the demands of others. She is largely without the contrasting upsides; when she Katniss comes over all spontaneous, her recognised greatest strength, the dialogue and visuals are anything but.


There was surely a better path through this uncertain territory, but Peter Craig and Danny Strong haven’t found it. The ground is fertile enough; Katniss, who has been used and manipulated by Snow, now finds herself used and manipulated by the rebels. To the end that she must inspire all through becoming the symbol of the rebellion, she is done up in superhero duds (X-Men by way of Dark Knight) and sent out to scenes of devastation (a hospital, the scene of the aforementioned bombing). There’s almost a meta-quality to this, but not in a good way; President Coin (Julianne Moore, exuding steely perfection) and Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) mull over what to do to best get the message across and rouse the masses. So too, the writers mull what to do to find an involving storyline and stumble from one site of carnage to another. There’s no tension here, and the results are close to aimless.


Occasional moments are suggestive of the intelligence and perceptivity the picture clearly seeks. Replaying Katniss’ impromptu speech (which itself is astonishingly well-composed, and so entirely unbelievable, for something apparently off the cuff) to stirring music, or doing the same with footage of her fighter-jet take down, adds an another level of reading to what we have just watched. The speech feels even more rehearsed, while the heroic jet-busting now looks fake. There’s also a beautifully observed moment where we Coin gives a stirring speech and we cut to Plutarch in the audience, silently mouthing the words he has written for her. But what are we to make of the en-masse three-finger salutes and the instant anthem sung by Katniss; James Newton Howard’s score instructs the viewer to be as easily prodded into unquestioning reverence. There’s a sense that, whenever the picture is about to say or do something interesting, the trappings of juvenilia resurface and put it in its place.


I’m not sure accounts of real world embrace of the three-fingered salute in any way legitimise the picture as a genuine inspiration for overthrowing the status quo; rather, they emphasise that iconography is easily mimicked (the most obvious of these is V from V for Vendetta, another picture where impact comes from broad strokes rather than great depth) and that, where there is general apathy, something is better than nothing. I don’t see any reason its Young Adult status should give the picture an easy ride; it chooses to go there, after all. But perhaps Part 2 will surprise me, and I will reconsider Part 1 in a different light.


There are several new characters here, but most noticeable is how limited the impact of the old ones is. Hoffman steals the film in his every scene, suggesting an exemplar of craftiness and cunning; Plutarch should have written the whole movie. Harrelson, Banks, Tucci, Banks, all get a moment or two but not so they are memorable; its lip service, really. Claflin, who made a great impact on the previous picture, is reduced to an utterly indifferent presence. Malone gets one scene and is much missed. Robert Knepper, who can be counted on to eat any scenery in his eyeline, seems to get about two lines.


Jeffrey Wright manages to make an inauspicious character seem much more alive and intriguing than he actually is. One wonders if half the grand thesps here are doing it as a favour to their kids, or because, like Christmas panto, it’s an easy undemanding engagement that pays the bills. But this is a picture wasting a huge amount of time doing very little that’s engaging, so it really should be finding time for its most colourful characters (who, like the setting, are now drab and grey).


The exception is the introduction of Natalie Dormer as stylish and sexy media type Cressida, sporting tattoos on her half-shaved head and a hairstyle that must require a lot of adjustment for wind direction (her assistant is covered in piercings and ring pulls, so neither are best set for dirty-shooty-explodey conditions). Like Wright, Dormer has more greater impact than her part on paper suggests.


Following a gratuitous “save the cat” scene (even with its po-faced “This is important” face on, the makers still find time to respect grand movie clichés), the picture stumbles and plods to a non-climax of sorts. Boggs (House of Cards’ Mahershala Ali) leads a daring raid to extract the Tributes. Momentarily director Lawrence strikes two plot threads together and they catch fire, as Katniss attempts to distract Snow while the SWAT team get down to business. We are left wondering what has happened to them, but then learn the mission has been a success. This is despite the fact that the team are baffled. It was all too easy; no one stopped them from escaping. 


So of course, rather than behaving cautiously (because, let’s face it, unless you’re the sloppiest bunch of rebels ever you’ll expect something rum to be afoot) they let Peeta get all strangle-happy on Katniss. It’s the weakest of twists, not just because it is telegraphed that something will go amiss (Snow has dropped such heavy hints, all but the most befuddled would get the gist; “… it's the things we love most that destroy us”), but also because it is logically unsound. And ending on Peeta’s mental malaise isn’t the most must-see –what-happens-next of cliffhangers (I may be mistaken but I don’t think anyone much cares about the half-pint numpty).


Lionsgate may well muster a good showing for the finale, but it’s evident that a good proportion of the great unwashed have already got the message this isn’t all that. Which has happened before. The Matrix Revolutions recklessly forsook the very aspect that sparked imaginations and instead served up a hardware-packed extended battle scene. It was little wonder audiences didn’t care for the picture. An instalment of The Hunger Games didn’t necessarily need to flounder without a game (notably, both this and The Matrix announce the central attraction in their titles, so the studio cannot be too surprised if audiences end up feeling short-changed), but it really does need to have forward momentum, engaging ideas and sharp scenarios. The Hunger Games – Mockingjay Part 1 has sufficient ideas to play with, but it is unable or unwilling to develop them in the face of a severed storyline and a teen romance triangle that musters nary a shred of conviction.






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.