The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

A Partially Educated Review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

In which I see that fire, and piss on it a little bit.

We no longer live in a world where the law of diminishing returns can be instantly applicable to film sequels. Since comic book adaptations developed the habit of producing second instalments superior to the original, worry has instead fallen upon the third part of a film series, as, more often than not, this is where stagnation and declining quality tend to be a factor. Recently though, there have been a number of disappointing second instalments. Thor: The Dark World wasn't awful, but it wasn't a patch on the original. Kick-Ass 2 received a barrage of hatred from many, although I hasten to add that I felt this was grossly undeserved. That's not to say it's all gone to hell. Star Trek Into Darkness managed to keep the flag flying for the superior second instalment, but it's not so much guaranteed now. A change in director is something that can often signal this decline in quality and that is exactly what The Hunger Games series faced with Catching Fire. Now obviously, Catching Fire has been a success, both critically and financially. For me to pretend otherwise would be foolish and deluded. Equally though, for me to say that I am in agreement with that praise would be a lie. Catching Fire is decent and, as a result, disappointing that it's not excellent.

With Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) having been declared joint winners of the previous Hunger Games, they face a Victor's Tour round all the other districts, where they're supposed to smile and wave to the relatives of the people who died so they could survive. It's a cheerful affair. Forced to keep up the façade of their relationship for the purposes of publicity, Katniss has also managed to become a symbol of hope and rebellion for the other Districts. In the eyes of President Snow (Donald Sutherland), this makes her Public Enemy Number One. Convenient for him then, that The Hunger Games are about to have their 75th Anniversary, it's third Quarter Quell, in which tradition dictates they do something a little different. Seizing his opportunity, Snow declares that they will mark this by having a Hunger Games comprised entirely of former victors, guaranteeing Katniss' involvement, due to her status as the only former female winner from District 12.

Catching Fire sees Francis Lawrence taking over as director, as he will for the final two instalments. Lawrence's career has been fairly mixed, ranging from the downright awful I Am Legend to Water For Elephants, a film far better than Robert Pattinson's lead performance indicated. For a man who began his career directing music videos, things could have been a lot worse. When considering the sterling track record of previous director Gary Ross though, Lawrence pales in comparison. Here, he has one huge advantage as he's working with a host of brilliant actors. Jennifer Lawrence's star has risen considerably in the short time that has passed between this and the previous instalment, while the reliable hands of Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson also make their return. His real ace-in-the-hole though is the addition of Philip Seymour Hoffman as a Plutarch Heavensbee, a character that achieves the seemingly impossible, by out-ridiculousing (it's a word) the already strong competition for daftest character name in the series. It appears Lawrence knows that he's struck lucky with this cast and his direction reflects this: keeping things simple and very much focussed on them. There's no rushed cutting to scenes of explosions and desolation, out of some ill-found and incorrect fear that the audience will lose interest. There's also no "Michael Bay arse shots", despite having many prime contenders for providing him with those. Instead, he has remained faithful to the style that was set up in the first instalment, but has somehow made this feel even more character-driven. For the most part, that's a good thing.

For starters, Jennifer Lawrence absolutely nails her performance, moreso than in the first film, able to appear strong when necessary, without betraying the emotional scars that Katniss now has to bear. Thankfully, there's been no asinine complaints over Lawrence not looking malnourished enough this time around. Donald Sutherland also produces one of his best performances in years. Since the first film, President Snow has developed from an unlikeable symbol of the repression of the lower classes into a fully fledged monster. He is hateful in every way that a character like this should be, but fearsome in his willingness to confront his issues head-on. An early meeting between him and Katniss is rife with tension as you wish for Katniss to end him and hate him even more as he rests in the comfortable knowledge that that is the last thing she can do. He is a villain, through and through. The most frightening aspect of him is that he is a believable one.

The real surprise, however, comes in the form of Josh Hutcherson. He wasn't exactly weak before, just a bit unmemorable. Here, he demands your attention, as though he's realised that he's acting opposite Hollywood's favourite new star and ups his game accordingly. The effects of the first Hunger Games have matured Peeta, but he is now facing the brutal realisation that Katniss' affections may merely be for show. Instead of this making him look weak, it does the exact opposite. Peeta brings your sympathies straight to him, by refusing to mope over the undesirable situation he has found himself in, instead doing what he can to make sure that a bad situation will hurt him as little as possible. This is achieved in a performance by Hutcherson that could hopefully ensure he's able to keep his popularity going beyond the series. While he portrays an obvious sadness and disappointment well, he also conveys a believable inner strength that avoids the stock jilted lover template. Unfortunately, through no fault of his own, he's also a major part of one the film's weaker elements.

The reason why Katniss is not with Peeta is because of her attraction to Liam Hemsworth's Gale, hence the dreaded love triangle unfolding before our very eyes. While her mouth says her heart lies with Gale, her eyes suggest otherwise. This element works, mainly due to Jennifer Lawrence being more than capable of handling this through simple facial expressions, rather than awkward exposition. The problems with the triangle begin with Liam and end with Hemsworth. To call Gale wet is to render the Atlantic dry by comparison. In a persistent state of self-pity over how unfair it all is, there's nothing about the character that makes you see why Katniss would ever like him more than Peeta. As a result, the love triangle doesn't work because the film wants you to believe in the possibility that Katniss has affections for both. No amount of puppy dog eyes from Hemsworth can do anything to change that. He had next to nothing to do in the first film, leaving the character feeling undeveloped. Now we've had that development, I'm wishing they hadn't bothered.

Sadly, under-development does rear it's head in a really disappointing way, namely Stanley Tucci's Caesar Flickerman, one of the original's best characters. The annoying thing is that he just picks up where he left off and then stays there. There is nothing new about Flickerman and anything that he does is something that he has done before. I couldn't help but feel like they were squandering the chance to show Flickerman outside of his television persona. It's at this point that the necessity for full disclosure rears it's head. My knowledge of The Hunger Games series practically defines partially educated. I have never read the books and have only the first film to act as the extent of my knowledge in this series. Like further development of Caesar, many of the things that I felt would and, in some cases, should have happened feel like they're being saved for the final two films, leading me on to my next issue. Catching Fire doesn't half feel like a stop-gap.

As soon as the trailers arrived for Catching Fire, I started feeling worried. Again, having not read the books probably served as my downfall here, but the notion of Katniss being involved in another Hunger Games felt worrying to me, even if the stakes were raised and the way in which she enters them feels credible. The first film was unfairly criticised by some for being too similar to Battle Royale. No film though wants to be compared to Battle Royale 2 and that is what I felt was at risk here. Stagnation does happen to a degree, although it's not quite as bad as it could have been. It's helped by the arena in which the games take place. Without giving anything away, the arena is a true high concept, a dangerous strategy that pays off by helping make the games feel different and provides the characters with a completely different aim to just killing each other. It's not quite explored as much as I would like, but this is because they take their time in getting to the games and, to be honest, the stuff that comes before is much more interesting. The biggest problem though is an accentuation of one of the original's. With 24 competitors in the games, it would be a nigh on impossible task to properly develop each one's characters, but, in developing the essential ones, they don't even try to give the others anything remotely resembling a personality. A hefty proportion don't even get a name, turning them into disposable entities on the level of a teenager in a dark, secluded house.

The Hunger Games left things set up perfectly. It was apparent where everything was going and this left huge anticipation for the next film. Catching Fire simply kills time while we await this climax, leaving us in the exact same place as the first one did, with little development, bar a rushed final 5-10 minutes which attempt to up the ante. In a weird way though, they leave it all feeling a bit anti-climactic. I'm both excited and nervous for Mockingjay. It's definitely going to present the story that I was hoping Catching Fire would present some of and I'm really looking forward to seeing that. On the flip-side, I've heard from a number of sources that the book is nowhere near as good as the first two, leaving me to wonder whether I should get on with reading the books in an attempt to suppress any potential disappointment. On it's own merits, Catching Fire would have been an excellent film, with some fantastic performances. It's following The Hunger Games though, a film which managed to break free from the shackles of being "the new Twilight" and prove that sparkling vampires don't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath. While the performances are unaffected by this, Catching Fire does feel like a diminished return.

THREE out of five