Hannah Notess and Jeffrey Overstreet watched The Hunger Games and talked about it as a film, an adaptation of a novel, and a story in itself. They say it’s fast-paced, touches lightly on disturbing questions, and doesn’t give you time to think about them.
Notess states, “This is one of the biggest questions the book asks: What does it mean for such a violent spectacle to be broadcast in great detail, as entertainment?”
Overstreet says, “The Hunger Games concludes in a very interesting place, one that seems carefully contrived so that those who want a “happy ending” can see one, and those interested in darker possibilities can look closer and see those too.”
Notess also asks how much, if any, violence does God allow his followers to commit in order to survive. I think the answer in the context of The Hunger Games is different than a real world context. Christians will reasonably and honorable die, if necessary, when placed into a totally unjust, deadly entertainment venue. But if the question is whether to use force to defend your village from the viking hoard or to join the army to destroy the raiders from across the sea, then Christians may reasonably and honorably fight and kill. Perhaps Christians in the world of The Hunger Games should storm the Capitol by every possible means to stop the evil madness. What do you think?
Don’t a lot of fast-paced movies touch lightly on disturbing questions and not give the viewer much time to think about them? It’s the nature of the beast.
Then, when we review and discuss the movies and the books they’re derived from, we think about those questions —which is one reason I blog.
Yes, and Overstreet notes that this movie gets a little deeper than most action movies, which ignore the questions completely. Still, don’t you think that some subject matter calls for more time and thought than others? And sometimes when that call is ignored by the filmmakers, viewers hate it mostly for that reason?
Spoiler alert? What you suggest – that they storm the Capitol and stop the madness – is what ends up happening in the last book of the trilogy.
I do think this book takes the question of violence more seriously than most books, and also takes its results more seriously than (the heroine doesn’t end up a triumphant figure, she ends up as someone who finds a measure of contentment, but in a very muted, PTSD-ridden sort of a way).
But it certainly isn’t a trilogy full of answers. I think the question the first book poses is more about the *audience* of the violence than the participants – and that makes it so much more applicable to most Americans, who are more likely to be passive viewers of violence than active participants. In Hunger Game terms: we’re the Capitol, not the Districts.
Oh, really? That’s hopeful. I like the way you describe it, Jessica.
I haven’t seen the movies yet, but in the book, it is clear that Katniss’s attitudes are focused on protecting her family, while Peeta strives only to keep Katniss alive. Thus while both characters begin at least theoretically willing to kill (and Katniss is pretty firm about her willingness to kill, even though she’s very reluctant about the action), they have from the beginning rather selfless motives.
They aren’t motivated out of universal charity–especially at first–but they are not self-centered, either. One of the cruelties of the Hunger Games is that the players are given very good reasons to kill that nevertheless play on rivalries. Even outside of the Hunger Games, the government stirs up hatred between the (relatively) rich and (relatively) poor citizens of the districts by letting the former afford better odds in the games. I think a Christian could certainly be commended for opting out of that system and choosing to get killed in the games, but I also think it’s a complicated decision.
And if you don’t think we’re the Capital, check out this senseless and jaw-droppingly horrific ad related to The Hunger Games. (Summary: You too can dress like a starving third-world girl, just pay $300 for this dress!):
http://www.imdb.com/video/hulu/vi1094951193/
Can you explain a bit more your statement that “Christians will reasonably and honorable die, if necessary, when placed into a totally unjust, deadly entertainment venue”? Do you mean to say that a Christian, put in this situation, would refuse to participate and be shot rather than playing?
While I admire that view (and have thought it would be the ideal ethical/moral approach), I’d be curious to see if this notion is common, especially given the coercive nature of the fight. Is one obligated to uphold the ‘thou shalt not kill’ rule in a context where one will be killed for disobeying, and disobeying will not change the outcome?
That style commercial is twisted. I guess I can understand wanting to wear the dress Katniss wears at the formal, but the Capitol is such a twisted place, how could anyone want to emulate the bad guys except at a costume party?
Brendan, Christians argue about this, so I don’t want to suggest that The Biblical View is the one I describe. We can disagree on this, which is the reason I said Christians will reasonably and honorably die in a colosseum-type death match.
I believe Christians should fight at times, but in the colosseum, we have more examples of martyrdom than resistance. Jesus died at the hands of oppressors. Stephen died and Paul was abused many times, left for dead once. The Bible doesn’t appear to encourage us to fight back in these cases, and Jesus told us that when a Roman soldier presses us by law to carry his armor for a mile, we should carry it two miles out of love for God and the soldier, who is our neighbor.
The time to fight would be to defend the defenseless, which usually isn’t the colosseum. Augustine has spelled out a Just War theory that I believe is biblical, so you can look that up, if you like.