What Happened to Liberty in the The Hunger Games Movie?
By Sam Staley • Friday March 30, 2012 10:07 AM PDT • 14 Comments
As expected, The Hunger Games blasted through doors off movie theaters last weekend, raking in $152.5 million in its opening weekend. That represents the third highest domestic box-office gross in history, trailing just behind the last Harry Potter movie and The Dark Knight. This should have been good news for liberty lovers, as I noted in an earlier post on this blog based on a review of the books. But alas, perhaps not. The pro-liberty theme, particularly the individualist element, was diluted in the movie adaptation of the books. The reasons why, and the implications for future adaptations of books with liberty themes, are important for those interested in seeing liberty play a more prominent role in popular culture, particularly movies.
Movies are a different medium than books, and storytellers have to script their characters and plots to fit the visual aesthetic of conventional film. For commercial films, this appeal has to be broad to position the film for success. Unfortunately, “idea movies” simply don’t fare well at the box office. Atlas Shrugged, for example, grossed just $5 million during its run in the US, about the same as the anti-Wall Street film Margin Call (which featured much bigger name actors). The Adjustment Bureau with Matt Damon did better, breaking $60 million. That’s respectable number, but far short of a box office hit. You get the point.
The core problem is that the trappings of commercial movie production make idea movies a hard sell. Moviegoers are brought in the theaters based on emotional conflict, not grand ideas about politics or economics. These conflicts have to be personal, not abstract. So, it’s not so much the oppression of the State that motivates Katniss in the movie as much as her promise to her sister Prim to win and come home.
In the book trilogy, Katniss Everdeen is almost Randian in her individualistic quest for liberty. Before the Reaping, her biggest source of angst is against the imperialistic oppression of the Capital District. Her relationship with her best friend Gale Hawthorne hinges on a mutual hatred and resistance to the State’s oppression of their community (District 12) as well as themselves as individuals; they aren’t reacting to the oppression of the collective as much as the constraints on their own freedoms of association and economic opportunities.
Notably, a libertarian friend’s teenage child told him she hates it when people bring politics into a discussion of The Hunger Games. For most readers and movie goers, the story is more about personal struggle and survival, not self identity, personal freedom, colonialism, or even economic tyranny even though these themes are very clear and I would argue integral to the storyline of the books. Thus, the quest for individual liberty is reduced to a survival story in the movie, motivated by a sister’s undying love and self-sacrifice. These are certainly noble values, but they fall short of the liberty-laced thoughts and actions of the books. Katniss Everdeen remains very much an individualist in the movie, but it’s her practical side of doing everything necessary to win the games that drives the plot.
This is unfortunate. Most baby boomers have a contemporary understanding of the brutal realities and efficiencies of totalitarian states embodied in the Soviet Gulags, Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Cambodia’s killing fields, Rwanda’s tribal massacres, and the terrorism of dictators such as Uganda’s Idi Amin or Augusto Pinochet in Chile. The terrorism embodied in the intentional cruelty and oppression of the Capital District is not a fantastical abstraction of something left to the stuff of science fiction. For younger generations, however, the brutal efficiency of the totalitarian state is in danger of becoming an abstraction.
Moreover, these oppressive regimes, many of which were responsible for the torture and murder of tens of millions of people, were overturned through the heroic efforts of individual leaders, making individual sacrifices, and putting higher values above risks to themselves. In short, successful resistance to collective oppression has come in the form of the Katniss Everdeens in the books, not the movie. These individuals, like the Czech Republic’s Vaclav Klaus or Poland’s Lech Walesa, were motivated by ideas.
I can only hope that the commercial success of the first movie will give the screenwriters the freedom to complete the arc of Everdeen’s character toward this more even heroic figure over the next two movies.
Tags: Books, Entertainment, Liberty, Personal Liberty, Terrorism, Totalitarianism 
I do not understand why on God’s green earth why teachers are taking preteens and teens to see this movie. It is a horrible movie. Why would anyone write a book with so much killing in it. War is horrible much less because people are hungry and have to be pitted against each other like cock fighters in order to survive. If my children were in school I would not have given my permission for this movie. Did they even ask parents if their child could attend this? Probably not. What is our world coming too?
Sharon | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply
I say we email the producers. I am sure they will respond well to a political movement seeing promise for their message in their (the producer’s) movie.
Marcus | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply
“For younger generations, however, the brutal efficiency of the totalitarian state is in danger of becoming an abstraction.”
An ABSTRACTION?? How about a REALITY! Take a look at the increased controls over the individual by the Federal government...and take a harder look at what is being proposed.
The real deal is not a movie plot.
babs | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply
Sadly, as a late baby boomer (b. 1962), the following is not correct based on my experiences teaching history and seeing how it is presented in textbooks. The Holocaust is played up but these other things: not at all.
“Most baby boomers have a contemporary understanding of the brutal realities and efficiencies of totalitarian states embodied in the Soviet Gulags, Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution, Cambodia’s killing fields, Rwanda’s tribal massacres, and the terrorism of dictators such as Uganda’s Idi Amin or Augusto Pinochet in Chile.”
You are right about this:
“For younger generations, however, the brutal efficiency of the totalitarian state is in danger of becoming an abstraction.”
I’m teaching a course on the Great Depression and not a single student knew of Stalin and the Great Terror! Mao is a t-shirt (although beat out by Che by a long shot).
Jonathan Bean | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply
I agree the history books don’t spend much time discussing non-Holocaust genocides and systemic terror. What I meant by “contemporary understanding,” and may not have made clear, is that baby boomers grew up hearing and reading about these other events on the news and in newspaper. We didn’t have to rely on history books.
I teach undergraduate students at Florida State, and the paucity of historical knowledge of totalitarian states is sobering.
Sam Staley | Mar 30, 2012 | Reply
Having just argued for a strong libertarian interpretation of the book in terms of searching for natural win/win solutions even in the face of state-created win/lose games (at prometheusreview) and then seen the movie, I find the above a good assessment. I was also struck by the replacement of one of the most powerful scenes in the book, a quiet message of solidarity from District 11 to Katniss, by a riot scene that wasn’t even in Volume I! A scene in the book with a profound message of peace that transcends artificial political divisions was replaced by the usual Hollywood explosions. Weak.
Konrad S Graf | Mar 31, 2012 | Reply
I saw it, but didn’t read it. I’m therefore biased toward the movie version, which I thought was quite good. I don’t know if I’d want a more Randian-style heroine, but then again, I’m not a fan of Randian-style protagonists in general. I liked Katniss’s character—interested in self-survival but also self-sacrificing. I also thought it was a strong enough indictment of totalitarianism the way it is.
Anthony Gregory | Apr 1, 2012 | Reply
Where to start....
Look out the window Sharon, there is lots of killing going on out there. That movies sometimes depict this is not shocking. That books depict it is not shocking.
As for the age appropriateness that is somewhat dependent on the child and the parents. I’ve watched movies with my son where other parents might object. However, it isn’t that we just watch the movies, but also talk about them and even the violence. Don’t underestimate a young person’s ability to figure things out.
As for asking for permission, of course they did. Don’t be silly. No school is going to go on a field trip without getting prior consent from the parents. In today’s litigious society they will absolutely get signed permission slips.
And as for what our world is coming to try reading some Mencken (no, not just the quotes). You might be surprised at how little things have changed in some regards. Basically, people were hyperventilating 80 years or so ago about “what our world is coming too.”
Steve Verdon | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply
Because of so much ignorance in America today and indifference to both foreign and domestic policies we deserve the America we have today. Our children and their children will pay the price. America is so easily led to war. http://www.addictedtowar.com judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s book A NATION of SHEEP- does a great job of explaining what has happened to America and why.
Bob Marshall | Apr 2, 2012 | Reply