"John Carter" and "The Hunger Games"

I've finally seen "The Hunger Games," and came away pretty impressed by it. I don't think that it's a great film by any measure, but it has some very good ideas, and is an interesting departure from most of the other major studio franchise stuff we've been seeing lately. So as a point of comparison, I think I should also talk a bit about "John Carter," one of Disney's most recent attempts to find a new blockbuster franchise that came out around the same time as "Hunger Games." The two couldn't be more different in their material or their filmmaking sensibilities.

First you have "John Carter," which is an old fashioned boys' adventure story that is designed to be epic spectacle. The title character, a former Confederate soldier played by Taylor Kitsch, gets to run around Mars doing battle with hundreds of digital creatures, foil dastardly plots, save the noble heroine from getting married to the villain, and then wed the lady himself. The story is messy, full of wild concepts that are barely explained, and people with very silly names. It fits the pattern of pretty much all the other recent Disney adventure movies, from "Prince of Persia" to multiple "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, to "TRON Legacy." Lots of chases and battles, not much characterization for the leads, a stale romance, and a happy ending, of course. "John Carter" is a bit stronger than the others because it feels much more committed to its concepts. If they're going to give us spectacle, then it's going to be a grand spectacle. So the world of Barsoom is much better conceived, designed, and executed than any of the others. There are multiple characters with major speaking roles who are totally CGI creations. The digital environments look better than anything in the "Star Wars" prequels. You can clearly see where all the money went, and it was well spent. The technical wizardry goes a long way in making up for the muddled plot and mixed performances. If you stop trying to make sense of the story, "John Carter" is a pretty fun, if terribly shallow popcorn movie.

And then we have "The Hunger Games," about a yearly Battle Royale competition put on by the rulers of a corrupt future dystopia. The young participants, culled from an oppressed populace with much pomp and circumstance, are forced to fight to the death for the entertainment of their tyrants. We follow the fortunes of two contenders, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who come from the same poor district. The competition is brutal, but fairly bloodless and non-explicit, which may disappoint some action fans. However, "The Hunger Games" is much better at exploring the ins and outs of other strategies that Katniss and Peeta employ to help them win what is essentially a reality show. They have to find ways to make themselves more sympathetic and interesting to the audience, because popularity gives them concrete advantages in the competition, like medicine and food. The attitude of the film toward media is very cynical, and we spend a significant amount of time behind the scenes, watching the game controllers manipulating many of the outcomes from a control room. The Games are also clearly a tool of the ruling government, designed to sow fear and maintain control, functions that Katniss finds ways to challenge. There is a lot of interesting thematic stuff going on here that I wish the filmmakers had explored a little more in depth.

What really struck me was the gritty realism of the film. There's a lot of handheld camera work, a lot of subdued lighting, and nearly all the scenes during the Games are shot in natural environments. There's heavy use of special effects, including CGI creatures, but "Hunger Games" maintains a roughness and a verisimilitude that is a total break from the polished fantasy worlds of "John Carter" and "Harry Potter." It looks more like one of the "Bourne" films, and the early scenes in District 12 could have come straight out of "Winter's Bone." Even the score reflects this, a collaboration between James Newton Howard and T-Bone Burnett that incorporates a good amount of folk music. I was doubtful of the choice of Gary Ross as director, since his filmography didn't contain much that pointed to him being a good fit for this series, but his choices were very bold, and he succeeded in making "The Hunger Games" distinctive and different from any other current run of fantasy films aimed at a younger crowd.

On the other hand, it's a pretty uneven movie. Jennifer Lawrence's performance is fantastic, and the film benefits from spending most of its time following her. However, several of the minor characters are pretty flat, the Games themselves unfold in a very rote and predictable fashion, and a couple of the most emotional moments don't come off well at all. There's also a sense that the filmmakers were holding themselves back as far as the content, because of who the film is aimed at, which undercuts a lot of the impact. And there's so much left unexplained and unremarked upon. One of the most intriguing parts of the film was the audience POV becoming one and the same with the audience of the Hunger Games broadcast in the movie, so some of Katniss and Peeta's conversations and actions that we see may actually be staged or exaggerated, but we never find out to what extent. The ending is awfully abrupt, and if I didn't know there was a sequel coming, I would have felt much less satisfied with the whole film.

"John Carter," on the other hand, had a strong and solid ending, and though I'd love to see a sequel, it stands perfectly well as a singular story. I think it's a real shame that its release was so bungled, because "John Carter" features a lot of gorgeous work by talented artists, and I think many blockbuster lovers would have fun with it if they gave it a chance. However, it's not the special effects groundbreaker that it was promised to be, and frankly it comes off as pretty lightweight next to the grim sophistication of "The Hunger Games." Looking at these two movies side by side, you can see the divide between the old school of fantasy film, the "Star Wars" style adventure epic, and a darker, sharper fable that feels much more relevant and timely for the kids of today. As much as I enjoyed "John Carter," there's no mystery why "The Hunger Games" left it in the dust.
---