It’s Literally Wednesday
Dave | March 21, 2012The Hunger Games!
“The Hunger Games,” the most anticipated film in the history of Little Shop of Stories, comes out on Friday. For the super eager, most every theater, including AMC North DeKalb 16, will be having midnight showings tomorrow night. (Plug: Little Shop is hosting a Hunger Games Party on Thursday at 7 p.m.)
The movie is based on the first book in Suzanne Collins’ young adult trilogy, which has been a publishing phenomena. For the uninitiated, the books are set in a post-apocalyptic future in which the the known world has been reduced to twelve districts. In retaliation against an uprising, the sadistic government invented the Hunger Games, a reality television program in which 24 teenage contestants — one girl and one boy from each district — meet in a fight to the death.
Though this is an undeniably unusual premise for a YA novel — and the books are indeed dark — the series is extremely compelling and the epitome of great storytelling. Scholastic creatively marketed the novel (as has Lionsgate for the movie). I have no doubt that Katniss Everdeen, the series’ narrator, will long be regarded as one of the great characters of children’s literature.
It seems an impossibility for the film to live up to expectations (though early reviews have been almost uniformly positive). While we’re terribly excited, we’re also prepared for a major letdown. Rarely do movies compare favorably with their written counterparts.
One recent exception was Martin Scorsese’s “Hugo,” based on Brian Selznick’s The Invention of Hugo Cabret. The book is essentially an elaborate graphic novel, beautifully and concisely written with illustrations so powerful and so voluminous that it became the first non-picture book to be awarded the coveted Caldecott Medal in 2008. As much as I loved the book, I loved the movie even more.
Another (to be discussed in more detail in two weeks) is “The Natural.” Though the novel and the film are wildly different, both are superb.
Are we the only ones anxiously looking forward to this? What other movies, based on a favorite book, have been at least as good?
This Week
William Kamkwamba, author of The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, tonight at 7:30 pm at Georgia Perimeter College’s Clarkston Campus, Cole Auditorium, hosted by GPC Reads, free.
Anne Lamott, bestselling author, March 23rd at 7 pm, First Baptist Church, Decatur, hosted by Georgia Center for the Book, free.
Jessica Maria Tuccelli, author of Glow, March 26th, 7:15 pm, Decatur Library Auditorium, hosted by Georgia Center for the Book, free.
I have to say the synopsis of the plot of this trilogy doesn’t make me want my 10-year-old to read this. Why don’t we start our young ’uns on Cormac McCarthy’s The Road or Rollerball if we want them to look forward to a dystopian future? Our daughter devoured the Rick Riordan mythology series and loved “Wildwood” but thankfully isn’t interested in these. /cranky old man rant
Yes, Hugo was awesome and I think the Natural was a lovely version although Redford playing a 20-year-old in the flashbacks was, um, a stretch… Alexander Payne makes great movies from books (Election, Sideways and The Descendants), but I haven’t always read the source novels.
The books are classed “YA” or Young Adult. I agree that it is too dark, and perhaps too complex, to be appropriate for younger children. For older kids, though, it is a compelling story with great characters. The middle school girls I know respond really strongly to Katniss and I’m glad to see a literary figure for them that doesn’t revolve around clothes and cliques. The boys don’t seem to identify as strongly with Gale or Peeta but enjoy the action (Dave, I’m curious about the reaction you see overall from the guys.)
The Renfroe kids devoured Riordan’s books when they were at the 4/5, and I think most of them read and enjoyed Wildwood, but Hunger Games has been by far their favorite as middle schoolers, has provided the most fodder for discussion, and is being taught in language arts.
Wait for your 10 year old to get to middle school and then dystopia will seem like a natural state of affairs!
Even though the narrator / protagonist is a girl and it is logical that the reader is going to identify with that character, guys (of all ages) have really enjoyed the books. In terms of action, there is a lot of appeal. The love triangle thing is a secondary theme.
There is much to ponder that is not related to gender: Would I be as courageous, as tough, as Katniss? What are the costs of war and the psychological effects of being the survivor? Does our own reality TV go too far?
The Hunger Games isn’t anywhere near as dark as Cormac McCarthy. However, kid-on-kid violence is central to the plot. On the other hand, Katniss is a strong, female protagonist. Significant moral issues are raised within a serious framework. I wouldn’t normally recommend this series for kids younger than ten; our average purchaser is probably about 22.
I have a relative who is a middle school librarian in a small, somewhat rural town, and she says these are the most popular books they’ve had in her 15 years there.
Based on the trailers and a few early reviews, I’m guessing this movie will be somewhere between awful and mediocre but will get a free pass from media afraid of appearing elitist.
Why down on the series? If it gets kids to read, that’s great.
I read The Shining when I was in 5th grade, so I would have been roughly 10 or 11. Doesn’t seem like an age that is too early to have discussions about violence. More like a good time for a teaching moment.
Wow, I saw the movie the Shining when I was much older than that and freaked out. For some kids, scarey movies are teachable moments, for others they are nightmare-inducing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/movies/room-237-documentary-with-theories-about-the-shining.html?_r=2&hp
Followed the link and now I’m likely to have nightmares again. Your point was?
Have to admit that the NY Times article about the movie’s symbols and messages is interesting but, for me, any such messages were totally overpowered by Jack Nicholson’s acting which made me react to the horror of the protagonist’s madness rather than think about more universal themes.
I always thought that there might be a link between the Eagles’ song “Hotel California” and the hotel in The Shining. But since the song and the book came out almost simultaneously in 1976-1977, not sure how they could be linked.
No real point. I just found the story of The Shining subculture interesting.
The Shining. Now that was probably as good as the book. How about A Clockwork Orange, for another Kubrick example.
I thought The Wonder Boys film was better than the book (Michael Chabon) And I thought Cider House Rules a dead tie between the film and the book but I read somewhere that John Irving spent ten years adapting the screenplay.
Agreed, so it’s funny that King actually despised the Kubrick film. So much so that he played an active role in the ABC mini-series “The Shining” (intended, by him, to correct what he saw as the film’s deficiencies), which was, by all accounts, horrible. Makes me glad King produces books and not movies.
However, I’m hoping his touch for books translates to the stage. Looking forward to Ghost Brothers of Darkland County at the Alliance.
Stephen King was in the audience at Eddie’s Attic last night for “Darkland County” night. We bought our tickets for the the Alliance show, too.
Speaking of Irving, they absolutely destroyed one of my favorite books, “A Prayer for Owen Meaney” with that awful “Simon Burch” film adaptation. As to “The Hunger Games”, I enjoyed the books and am cautiously optimistic that the movie will be good.
I’m still waiting for the film adaptation of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, Chabon’s breakout novel. I agree that Wonder Boys was a better movie than book, but I’m surprised that was made into a movie at all.
Stephen King’s Christine was probably the first book that made me stay up all nigtht reading. That was in middle school and I’d always been an avid reader. Despite the fact I could not tear myself away until my poor little eyes could not stay open one more second, I’m not fan of horror and never read another Stephen King book.
Since we are talking King and adaptations, DePalma’s Carrie: much better than the book. Cujo, the book was much better. And so it goes with King adaptations.
I’m a 5th grade teacher, and I read The Hunger Games series a few years back. I, too, absolutely loved them. They are the best books I’ve read since Harry Potter, and, for me, there’s no higher praise. However, until this year, I only recommended them to a few kids here and there who were a bit more sophisticated in their reading and more mature generally. And I always told parents to preview them to make sure they approved. I’ve never put them in my classroom library, because I do think the violence could be too much for many elementary age students.
However, a movie adaption always changes the game. For the first time this year, the book was widely read by my 10-11 year old students. Knowing that the books would be more popular this year (and they’ve rivaled Rick Riordan, which is saying a lot), I told parents that they should maybe read the books with their students so that they could prepare them for the violence and discuss it together.
I’m taking some students to see the movie, and we all cannot wait. I hope that it does some justice to the book, although I have realistic expectations. It won’t be as good, because the books are too good.
The movie/book that always comes to my mind is To Kill A Mockingbird. My all time favorite book and a truly wonderful movie.
I also think that LA Confidential is a movie that was far better than the book. I like Ellroy, but his books can be a bit much, and the movie streamlined the plot so well.
La confidential the movie was more of a composite/best of from the trilogy involving that set of Elroy characters, so I’m not sure a straight comparison is fair….
The “Hunger Games” trilogy is next on my list, soon’s I’m done with the “Song of Fire & Ice” (Game of Thrones) series…looking forward to it! My younger nephew (just turned 13) remarked that he’s actually going to read these because (and I quote) “they don’t have sparkly vampires in them!”
I taught The Hunger Games to eighth graders this year, although not at Renfroe. It goes over VERY well with that age group, even with struggling / reluctant readers who are proud of how little they read.
Certainly it is a page turner, written in a fast-paced, cinematic style — and most adult readers seem to get hooked quickly. Although it’s about a dystopian future, the book is a critique of our current cultural fascination with violence and of the voyeurism of reality TV. Although I’d not necessarily call it high literature, it definitely raises great discussion topics for middle school. And it’s much more substantive than, say, the Twilight series.
That said, it does have violence / disturbing themes and I do think 10 is probably too young for it — at least for most kids. It’s higher level than Riordan. And the YA market, if I’m not mistaken, is generally taken to be 12 and up.
“What other movies, based on a favorite book, have been at least as good?”
The English Patient.
I have heard an interview with the author about how different the film was, but that it was an entirely different medium and had to be different. Putting it on the mental “read again” list.
Really afraid the HG movie is going to be bad, still disappointed from Golden Compass!
I’d love to discuss: Is the best adaptation of a novel a miniseries or a movie? Pick your sides and we can arrange a debate, With Dave’s approval, of course.