Does "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" Match the Power of the Original?
Sequels to blockbuster hits are always challenging.
Viewers tend to want sequels to match the tone and power of the original films, but filmmakers often want to create a new experience for viewers.
The second film of a three or four movie series presents additional challenges.
The second film must usually expand the universe of the series and end on a cliffhanger, both of which can frustrate viewers.
Based on the second novel in the "Hunger Games" trilogy, "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" has to perform a number of tasks, and the film succeeds on all fronts.
The first "The Hunger Games" movie presented a fairly straightforward story.
After creating an image of the protagonist's life and explaining the nature of the Hunger Games, the film throws her into the arena after a brief period of preparation.
Most of the story takes place during the competition, and little of the movie is dedicated to dealing with the ramifications of the world presented in the beginning.
In the second film, Katniss spends more time in other areas, and the story is able to flesh out the dystopian nature of the new world.
The government was clearly shown to be a menace in the first film, but their terror is made more personal in the second film.
The primary threat to Katniss in the first film was her competitors.
While the government bears ultimate responsibility, Katniss was not directly threatened by government agents.
This changes in the second film, and the president himself threatens to have Katniss and her family killed should her acts of rebellion continue.
After playing along and doing all she could to please the president, including preparing to marry Peeta, Katniss is still thrust back into the arena for yet another showdown.
Here, the film succeeds in fleshing out the inhuman, oppressive nature of the government.
In addition, it reveals the inflexibility of the government and why it must be overthrown.
Revisionist approaches to government reform lack the cinematic punch needed to capture audiences, and the films must make it clear that changes within the system are not possible.
By directly threatening the protagonists, the films force them into the hero archetype.
Katniss is not a natural revolutionary, and she would likely be satisfied with returning home and never speaking about the events of the first film again.
The actions of the President and the rest of the government, however, deprive her of this option.
While the first film showed a clear disdain for the government, the acts of rebellion were fairly mild.
Ultimately, Katniss and Peeta rebelled only to survive, and neither desired to launch a full-scale revolution.
Before entering the arena for a second time, however, they discover that their actions have sown the seed of rebellion, and they have inadvertently inspired many to act out against the government.
The film also makes it clear that no acts of rebellion go unpunished.
Through these scenes, the film sets the stage for a larger rebellion.
The list of characters in the first film is fairly short, and it is up to the second film to introduce new characters who will play a role in fighting the main enemy in the following films.
Cinna changes from a sympathetic but otherwise neutral character in the first film into a character who intends to rebel in the second.
One of the film's great twists occurs when Plutarch Heavensbee, the head gamesmaster, is show to be an agent of the nascent revolution.
Until the end of "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," the "The Hunger Games" series presents a bleak, seemingly hopeless scenario.
Katniss is constantly forced to face a threat with far more power and resources than she has, and it is only through quick thinking and popular support that she is able to survive.
She is essentially forced into rebellion because of the government's actions, and victory seems all but impossible.
It is only at the end of the film the audience is given reason for hope; her acts of mild rebellion have been the catalyst for a latent desire to rebel, and she will be forced to play an active role in seeing this rebellion through to its end.
" The Hunger Games: Catching Fire " is both a critical and commercial success, but the greatest strength of the film may be how it is able to set up the third and fourth film.
The story is inherently bleak, and, until the end, victory has seemed all but impossible.
With the revelation that support for revolution is more popular than anyone imagined, the film shows that there is reason for hope, and viewers will certainly want to come back for more.
Viewers tend to want sequels to match the tone and power of the original films, but filmmakers often want to create a new experience for viewers.
The second film of a three or four movie series presents additional challenges.
The second film must usually expand the universe of the series and end on a cliffhanger, both of which can frustrate viewers.
Based on the second novel in the "Hunger Games" trilogy, "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" has to perform a number of tasks, and the film succeeds on all fronts.
The first "The Hunger Games" movie presented a fairly straightforward story.
After creating an image of the protagonist's life and explaining the nature of the Hunger Games, the film throws her into the arena after a brief period of preparation.
Most of the story takes place during the competition, and little of the movie is dedicated to dealing with the ramifications of the world presented in the beginning.
In the second film, Katniss spends more time in other areas, and the story is able to flesh out the dystopian nature of the new world.
The government was clearly shown to be a menace in the first film, but their terror is made more personal in the second film.
The primary threat to Katniss in the first film was her competitors.
While the government bears ultimate responsibility, Katniss was not directly threatened by government agents.
This changes in the second film, and the president himself threatens to have Katniss and her family killed should her acts of rebellion continue.
After playing along and doing all she could to please the president, including preparing to marry Peeta, Katniss is still thrust back into the arena for yet another showdown.
Here, the film succeeds in fleshing out the inhuman, oppressive nature of the government.
In addition, it reveals the inflexibility of the government and why it must be overthrown.
Revisionist approaches to government reform lack the cinematic punch needed to capture audiences, and the films must make it clear that changes within the system are not possible.
By directly threatening the protagonists, the films force them into the hero archetype.
Katniss is not a natural revolutionary, and she would likely be satisfied with returning home and never speaking about the events of the first film again.
The actions of the President and the rest of the government, however, deprive her of this option.
While the first film showed a clear disdain for the government, the acts of rebellion were fairly mild.
Ultimately, Katniss and Peeta rebelled only to survive, and neither desired to launch a full-scale revolution.
Before entering the arena for a second time, however, they discover that their actions have sown the seed of rebellion, and they have inadvertently inspired many to act out against the government.
The film also makes it clear that no acts of rebellion go unpunished.
Through these scenes, the film sets the stage for a larger rebellion.
The list of characters in the first film is fairly short, and it is up to the second film to introduce new characters who will play a role in fighting the main enemy in the following films.
Cinna changes from a sympathetic but otherwise neutral character in the first film into a character who intends to rebel in the second.
One of the film's great twists occurs when Plutarch Heavensbee, the head gamesmaster, is show to be an agent of the nascent revolution.
Until the end of "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire," the "The Hunger Games" series presents a bleak, seemingly hopeless scenario.
Katniss is constantly forced to face a threat with far more power and resources than she has, and it is only through quick thinking and popular support that she is able to survive.
She is essentially forced into rebellion because of the government's actions, and victory seems all but impossible.
It is only at the end of the film the audience is given reason for hope; her acts of mild rebellion have been the catalyst for a latent desire to rebel, and she will be forced to play an active role in seeing this rebellion through to its end.
" The Hunger Games: Catching Fire " is both a critical and commercial success, but the greatest strength of the film may be how it is able to set up the third and fourth film.
The story is inherently bleak, and, until the end, victory has seemed all but impossible.
With the revelation that support for revolution is more popular than anyone imagined, the film shows that there is reason for hope, and viewers will certainly want to come back for more.
