Skip to main content

My dear Miss Everdeen, make no mistake. The game is coming to its end.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2
(2015)

(SPOILERS) Well, it’s better than Part 1. Although not the last YA franchise to dubiously split its finale in two, there’s no obvious inheritor to The Hunger Games’ crown of rampant billion dollar grossing hit. As such, we may see fewer such desperate cash grabs in future (I don’t think anyone’s holding their breath for The Divergent Series: Allegiant and The Divergent Series: Ascendant). Arguably, the bean counter led strategy – whatever lofty notions director Francis Lawrence professes regarding the decision’s legitimacy – has led to an uneven, laborious second half of a movie series that set off at a fair old clip. So, while The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part Deux focuses in on its theme of the moral vacuum that accompanies authoritarian structures reasonably successfully, it finishes up very much lesser to the shamelessly crowd-pleasing first two outings.


Which come down to Russell Crowe’s Gladiator shtick: “Are you not entertained?” Daft as the premise of The Hunger Games is (admittedly, it passes for wholly credible when jostling for space with The Maze Runner or Divergent), it’s essential conceit of gladiatorial combat between bright (and not so bright) young things is an instantly winning formula. It’s no coincidence that, for all its earnest ruminations regarding nominal system change, propaganda and power corrupting absolutely, Mockingjay – Part 2 is at its most spirited when rehearsing yet another (unofficial) games; as Finn (Sam Claflin) even obligingly suggests “Welcome to the 76th Hunger Games”.


Which rather highlights that, for all its ability to communicate worthy themes to a wide audience, The Hunger Games’ aspirations get bogged down in self-importance whenever it opts to acknowledge this head-on. That’s when the commentary feels at its most YA; when calls upon Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) to deliver an impromptu speech (most notably to a would-be assassin), or a character sets out why Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) feels threatened by Katniss’ influence, just like President Snow (Donald Sutherland), rather than letting the audience realise this themselves. 


When it does show, the effects are invariably potent, such as Coin bombing the shield of children assembled outside Snow’s palace in a topical false flag operation (well, topical if you entertain conspiracy theories) or Katniss taking out the incumbent president during Snow’s public execution. As with most big movies with a political bent it tends to deliver when it doesn’t let on that it only has so much to say, actually (see also Captain America: The Winter Soldier).


But part of this is also comes back to allowing itself far too much time wallowing in a mire of introspection of its own making. We already got the message about Katniss as a poster child for the new order, and her mixed feelings about it, in Part Un, so pressing the point during the first half of the picture feels like overkill. This repetition ensures Mockingjay – Part 2 drags for long stretches, to the extent that it frequently feels like an unhurried prestige mini-series adaption, dotting every i and crossing every t of a sacred text.


Such reverence also leads to a number of structurally unwieldy choices (the assault on the palace looks headed for a grand climax, but then Katniss passes out all-aflame and we’re forced to regroup; it sucks all the energy out of the frame). Jennifer Lawrence good as she is, is unable to carry that weight of such pacing problems solo, and there isn’t enough substance in other roles to take up the slack. 


While the “adults” in the cast are generally fine actors, few of them have enough going on to make them truly intriguing. Moore’s Coin proves disappointingly undifferentiated when she goes as far as suggesting a Hunger Games for the Capitol kids (paint her as a baddie, sure, but not quite so clumsily/overtly) and there are too many good actors (Gwendoline Christie, Stanley Tucci, Robert Knepper) reduced to a single scene.


Others stir and repeat (Philip Seymour Hoffman, sadly in his final performance, Woody Harrelson, Jeffrey Wright, Elizabeth Banks – although a little Effie goes a long way) with little of note to show for it. At least Michelle Forbes has a decent role in the mid-section of the picture as a very Michelle Forbes not-to-be-messed-with lieutenant, while Sutherland (who like Mr Bronson in Grange Hill, has to pay) relishes the chance to bring silky menace during the closing sections. In particular, there’s his marvellous reaction on realising who Katniss’ arrow has sought out, a brief amusement before the crowd, baying for blood, descend on him.


There are similar problems of representation with the younger cast. The ones who cause spark to fly, Claflin, Jena Malone and Natalie Dormer (who, along with Pollux decides not to go the distance in getting rid President Snow, which as played is a bit abrupt and possibly chicken livered), aren’t given paltry screen time, and we’re expected to find the inert love triangle between Katniss, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale (Liam Hemsworth) involving. Unfortunately, Lawrence must choose between two guys who don’t exactly bring the charisma, and she opts for the titch with whom she has zero chemistry. 


I wouldn’t be quite so unkind to Hutcherson as to label him the Taylor Lautner of The Hunger Games, since he can approximate a performance – although I’m not sure I could take another scene of Peeta frothing about his brainwashing – but it’s impossible to be invested in Katniss and Peeta luxuriating with their burgeoning brood in a golden meadow come the final scene (which seems to take an eternity to get to; I was half expecting a further cut to Old Gammy Katniss). Perhaps Peeta’s conditioning will kick in once again during the closing credits?


The differing moral philosophies of Katniss and Gale provide a strong enough dividing line for why it isn’t to be between them, but it might have done the picture more of a service to present his case less brusquely. Likewise, the blunt response of Johanna over whether there should be a Capitol games; too frequently the picture takes the easy route of Katniss being all on her own on her moral high ground. 


That’s a failing generally, though; there might have been some agency in charting an ambiguous course we see with the uncertain political future of the districts (people have short memories, we are told; they’re definitely in trouble with Patina Miller’s Paylor, who doesn’t fare well with lines like “the sadistic inventions of game makers meant to make sport of our deaths”). Accordingly, Katniss doesn’t end up with gumby Peeta out of love. Rather, it’s an attempt to find stability between two broken people. If that was the intent, it doesn’t translate because her relationship with Peeta has never been convincing on any level.


The action though, when it comes, is top notch, as you’d expect from Lawrence. Perhaps also as you’d expect from Lawrence (the helmer of I Am Legend) he has a penchant for CGI beasties (and CGI oil), although the Mutts here are rather better rendered than Will Smith’s adversaries. That sequence is fairly intense Aliens-grade stuff for a 12-certificate, although, by this point in the movie, it’s become patently obvious that Katniss carrying a bow around a war zone is about the dumb as, I don’t know, one of the Avengers using it as his weapon of choice. Even stronger is the lack of punch pulling in the aforementioned infant massacre. The picture’s to be congratulated for not making war fun, although alas it’s mostly only really good when war is fun, as the deadly game of booby traps and dismemberments through the streets of the Capitol attests.


It will be interesting to see how studio Lionsgate’s fortunes fare now their half-decade-plus of YA coffers-fillers has run dry. The moderately successful at best Divergent is probably closer to what any studio should expect if they’re lucky, given the copious corpses of failed YA fare strewn across the last few years, rather than the Twilights and Hunger Games. As for The Hunger Games’ legacy, as with Harry Potter it was an error to split its final instalment. Mockingjay – Part 2, and its immediate predecessor, will probably be awarded merit points by devotees of the novels, for whom more is usually more, but the decision has hobbled the potential of what was a naturally cinematic series.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

Sir, I’m the Leonardo of Montana.

The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet (2013) (SPOILERS) The title of Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s second English language film and second adaptation announces a fundamentally quirky beast. It is, therefore, right up its director’s oeuvre. His films – even Alien Resurrection , though not so much A Very Long Engagement – are infused with quirk. He has a style and sensibility that is either far too much – all tics and affectations and asides – or delightfully offbeat and distinctive, depending on one’s inclinations. I tend to the latter, but I wasn’t entirely convinced by the trailers for The Young and Prodigious T.S. Spivet ; if there’s one thing I would bank on bringing out the worst in Jeunet, it’s a story focussing on an ultra-precocious child. Yet for the most part the film won me over. Spivet is definitely a minor distraction, but one that marries an eccentric bearing with a sense of heart that veers to the affecting rather than the chokingly sentimental. Appreciation for