The Girl on Fire

I have a love/hate relationship with The Hunger Games.  I never read the books, but I saw the first film (for my original thoughts on it, check out my post Two Movies).  I was appalled, but intrigued.  I wasn't planning on going to see the sequel, but I knew that it would probably happen.  Yes, this past Saturday the intrigue won out, and I decided to go see the sequel Catching Fire with my sister and brother-in-law.

Most of the movie, I was chewing on my sweatshirt strings whispering "No, no don't do it. . . This is awful." It's a roller coaster of emotions, supported by incredible acting and a spot-on soundtrack, but then it just ended, leaving us in intense anticipation of the next movie.  As we left the theater all I could say was that it was awful.  

But something about it was good.  I couldn't find the words to express my conflicting emotions at the time, but I have found them now.  [Caution, there may be spoilers to follow!]

These stories are unnecessarily violent and brutal, but the violence isn't glorified.  In the beginning of the film, the "winners" of the previous Hunger Games travel to each of the districts and face the families of the youth who died so that the "winners" could live.  We see the pain on the families' faces, on the survivors' faces.  We hear the remorse in their voices.

Rebellion begins to break out--this senseless killing of children has gone on too long and the people have found the hope to fight against it.  The hope comes from the example of winner Katniss Everdeen (I really hate that name).  Her courage in the face of fear, her sacrifice and love amid the cruelty proves that there is still goodness in humanity.

In a dystopian society of a people afraid who are ruled by phonies, she steps up as a woman who is true to herself.  In a world of imbalance sputtering along in lukewarm fear and inaction, Katniss defies tyranny and fear.  She is her self-sacrificing self, not the fearsome monster the Capitol wants her to be.  She stays true to herself and her family, and her example of simple defiance against the tyranny sparks a movement among the people to make a change and break free from the chains that bind them.  As St. Catherine of Siena said, "If you are what you should be, you will set the world ablaze."  That is exactly what Katniss, the "Girl on Fire," does.

The film was very well done.  The acting was in many cases phenomenal (I'm thinking Jennifer Lawrence, Jena Malone, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland, and Stanley Tucci to name a few of my favorites).  The character development that was lacking in the first film came to be in the second.  The love triangle between Katniss, Peeta (an equally awful name that reminds me of chips--or People Eating Tasty Animals--that belongs to the man who saved her life), and Gale (her childhood hunting partner) becomes deeper and more tangled.  

We see the characters all beginning to realize that their time could be up at any minute, and we see them come to the decision to use their time to fight for what is right, even though it will probably cost them their lives.

So yes, I got sucked into the story and the characters and I love them.  But there's still the violence and the unbelievable setting and I hate them.

Still, at the center is the story of a girl who struggles to be counter-cultural, to break the mold of what high society and politicians believe she should be.  As a young Catholic woman in 21st century America, I can relate to that.  I don't want Katniss's name, but I would take her spirit and courage any day.

Two Movies

There's been a lot going on with not much time left to write here.  No worries--there will be a spectacular guest post here on our return from Baltimore.  Get excited.

For now, all I have to offer are some random nagging thoughts and observations on two unrelated movies I recently watched. . .

I watched The Hunger Games once, and then again with my parents.  Dad, who appeared to be engrossed in it, later said, "That was the stupidest movie I ever saw."  Mom asked, "Where is the entertainment value?"  I didn't have an answer, since Hollywood destroys the value in just about everything it produces these days.  I could tell from watching the movie that the book was probably better at conveying a believable setting, but still, the violence seemed over the top and unnecessary.

The whole movie is a roller coaster of emotions, as we watch the poor and powerless in society forced to sacrifice their children to a "game" where the young will fight to the death for survival (on TV--this is a TV show in their world).  There can only be one winner.  It's gruesome and violent, and so horribly difficult to watch at times, but then occasionally something good happens to redeem it, to intrigue you to keep watching.

Some characters fight only to survive, others fight to win. We see humanity in its ugliest, cruelest state.  We are dragged into the desperation of persecution in a mess of ugly, senseless violence.  In a way, it touches the human center of us all that needs to find hope in suffering.  There must be something good that comes out of this.  There is a glimmer of hope, then Hollywood ties it up in a cheap bow and baits us on for the sequel, but we are left somewhat wounded.

There is so much violence in our world, so much senseless violence and death that I don't need my "entertainment" to echo that.   I don't need a fictional story to glorify the violence, because I know that in real life, not this fictional nightmare, there is hope in suffering, and we find it on the Cross.

My dad has tried to get me to watch A Man for All Seasons for as long as I can remember.  As kids we always poked fun at him because it's not at all an exciting movie, yet he claims it's the greatest of all time.  I finally caved and watched it with him.  It tells the story of St. Thomas More, who refused to accept King Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn after the pope in Rome denied his appeal for divorce.  (This is the king's first divorce and remarriage, the one that led him to split from the Church of Rome and give himself authority over the Church of England.)

The film is witty, intellectual, thought-provoking, a little dry at times, but inspirational.  Sir Thomas firmly stands his ground, refuses to sell his soul to acquiesce the king.  As the Duke of Norfolk tries to convince Sir Thomas to take the oath to the king, he points out all the men who have taken the oath and says, "Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!"  Sir Thomas More replies, "And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?"

In the end, Sir Thomas dies a martyr among spineless politicians who were willing to sell their souls to save their lives.  We are left pondering the question, "Dare we to enter the kingdom of heaven with ease when Our Lord Himself entered with so much pain?"

. . .