Five Films Series: The Hunger Games

Five Films Series: The Hunger Games

Smile! You're on TV!

You do not have to look very hard to find real life parallels in this spring's smash hit, "The Hunger Games," in today's oversaturated culture of "reality" programming. (i.e. The sensationalism, the unfair behind the scenes manipulation of supposed fair contests, the shamelessness of it all.) But try not to be too clever about it. In my last five films series I attempted to show the transformation of a topic over the years. In this article I will attempt to show the opposite. I will show a topic, media sensationalism, that I argue has not changed at all, technological advances aside.

This is a provocative topic, especially in the media. You don’t have to go very far to find some TV, newspaper, or radio pundit complaining about how the mainstream media is biased and sensationalized. And they are correct in one aspect; media in general is biased and sensationalized. (They are also very wrong in another when they claim that there is such a thing as a uniform “mainstream” media. If you are a pundit that has a big enough audience, you are automatically a part of the “mainstream” media and if other people in the “mainstream” media do not agree with your point of view than logically the “mainstream” media is not uniform.But that is beyond the point of this essay.) But it always has been and using five great films from the past I hope to at the very least dispel the notion that there once was a nostalgic “golden age” of honor in the press. I also hope to point out some of the inherent idiosyncrasies of the medium of film and television that tend to stray the news to bias and sensationalism even when the people behind the news have the best of intentions. And maybe just maybe I might say something about human nature.

1940 – His Girl Friday, directed by Howard Hawks

A manager of a newspaper learns that his ex-wife and ex-star reporter is engaged to be married to an insurance salesman. So over the course of the day he pulls out all of the stops (legal and illegal) to get her to stay on for one more story in an attempt to break up the engagement and get back his love, and just as important, his best employee. The character of the big newspaperman was rampant in early cinema. They were either adventurous crusaders or dirty sensationalist manipulators or both (Citizen Kane?). Walter Burns is his name in this movie (played by Cary Grant) and he is the epitome of the latter. Whatever he is doing in this story, it sure isn’t ethical journalism. Witnesses are goaded, conclusions are jumped to, and lying and scheming is usual business. When revealed, more lying and scheming comes follows, just in louder shouts and with less shame. In fact, at several parts, in order to delay the departure of the couple, Walter Burns, goes so far as to frame the insurance salesman for several crimes and thrown in jail. Then he kidnaps his mother. Really.

The big newspaper story the movie centers around the imminent execution of a cop killer. The newspaper takes the cop killers side and plays the angle that the killer was insane at the time and that the politicians are ignoring that fact because the cop was a “colored” man and they are trying to capture the “colored” vote. (It is always a sad thing when you watch great old movies and something racist casually pops up.) Was the guy really crazy? Well, that’s debatable. The point of course is that the newspaperman cares less about the story than using the story to further newspaper circulation and get back his girl. It’s all a means to an end to him, and he couldn’t care less if people are getting run roughshod over while it happens. Walter Burns is a big strong confident man that talks super fast and lives his job. He does not have time for pauses and self-reflection. Tomorrow’s paper needs to be done by tonight and it has to be better than every other paper in town.

What makes this movie a great movie is that his ex-fiancé can match the big newspaperman, line for line, and snarky remark for snarky remark. The rapid-fire dialogue in, “His Girl Friday,” is perhaps the fastest ever seen in any movie made then and probably since. (At least I haven’t seen a movie with faster dialogue.) Generally speaking, a page of dialogue in a screenplay represents about a minute of screen time. Reports from “His Girl Friday,” had them fitting four pages in a minute. It is a rather incredible thing to watch. Here is the entire movie, FOR FREE!

1951 – Ace in the Hole, directed by Billy Wilder 

We tend to share a glorified memory of the 1950s built on lots of nostalgic movies made in the 1970s and 1980s, but watching the movies actually made in that decade make me wonder whether it was actually one of the worst decades in our history. You cannot match even today the cynicism and bleakness of an average 1950s movie, the golden age of hard heartless men and loveless untrustworthy women. Everyone smoked and drank nonstop and, let’s face it, was probably suffering from some intense untreated PTSD leftover from two huge wars mixed in with a very present threat of a potential nuclear war.

One of the more cynical movies is “Ace in the Hole,” a story about the disgraced journalist Chuck Tatum, (played by Kirk Douglas) fresh fired from several big papers out east and finding himself in a remote town in New Mexico working for the local rag. He hates it there and hopes for that one big story that will rehabilitate his career and get him the hell out of the dump. Then one day, it happens. There is a cave-in at the local mine and a man is trapped inside and can’t get out. An Ace in the Hole! Chuck Tatum knows exactly how to milk that story for everything it is worth. The only problem is that if the local excavation team does the job properly, the trapped man will be out in two days. Not good. Chuck needs at least a week of fresh sensational newspaper reel to turn the story into a full-fledged media circus. So he convinces the local politicians and police to have the excavation team drill from the top (which will take a week) instead of coming in from the mouth of the cave itself. How does he do this? He promises to right glowing reviews of the politicians and police about their response to the emergency. The man’s wife is in on it too. She hates the small town as well and thinks her husband is a loser for choosing to live there. She cheers up only when tourists start filling up her restaurant as they stop by to gawk at the mine. She starts charging them admission tickets in order for them to park their cars on her lawn. Meanwhile, in the mine, the trapped man slowly starts dying.

Pundits get “outraged” today by simple video edits of telephone calls or YouTube videos that take things out of context. But this sort of thing has been happening forever and it is a curious thing to get angry at what seems to be a natural occurrence. It should be remembered that until very recently in history, newspapers or any other type of media did not even attempt to pretend to be objective. It is said that the entire Spanish-American War of 1898 can arguably be credited to lies perpetrated by the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst. Since this is not a new thing the question of why reporters enrich their stories with unreliable evidence or fabricate them entirely should not be asked without the obvious counterpoint, why are they so continually successful? As Chuck Tatum says, “Bad news sells best, because good news is no news.” Once again, here is the full movie, courtesy of YouTube.

 

1976 – Network, directed by Sidney Lumet 

Howard Beale, the widowed, fatherless, hard-drinking anchor of the UBS news hour has just been fired for low ratings. Since, as he says on air during his next to last night on the program, that he has nothing left going for him in his life, he plans to commit suicide during the next show. “You ought to get a hell of a rating out of that. 50 Share, Easy.” Predictably, the ratings skyrocket, but not before Beale is fired for calling life bullshit (instead of apologizing as he was supposed to do) on his final night. Behind the scenes though is a producer named Diana Christensen, who lobbies to bring Howard Beale back on air to yell bullshit some more because obviously it is what the people want to hear. Think of the ratings! “For goddsakes Diana, we’re talking about putting a manifestly irresponsible man on National Television,” says the head of the news department. She nods. Exactly.

This is the heavyweight movie in this series of films. Network, is one of the best written screenplays ever, the best evidence being that almost every actor that spoke the words ended up with an Oscar  nomination (a record five total) with three winning (Peter Finch for Best Actor, Faye Dunaway for Best Actress, and Beatrice Strait for Best Supporting Actress). The influence of “Network,” can be seen in many news networks today and in weirdly the absolute wrong way it should have been. Howard Beale, the mad prophet of the airwaves, is almost a venerated figure nowadays, with plenty of pundits (Glenn Beck comes to mind) actually seeming to draw on him for inspiration, and at least one recent politician from New York who used his catch-phrase, “I’m Mad as Hell and I’m not Going to Take it Anymore!!!” in a campaign. What must be remembered though is that Howard Beale is quite literally an insane person and he is not on air because suddenly the news division at UBC cares about the “truth,” or “telling it like it is,” but because they have realized they can draw a gigantic profit by putting on a show with almost no production value (basically a guy shouting bullshit with no actual investigative reporting) and selling it to an audience, angry because of a depressed economy and a high crime rate, that simply wanted somebody to articulate its anger.

At the same time, and this I must admit, Howard Beale is almost impossible to take one’s eyes off. He is an unforgettable character with several memorable passionate speeches (Finch won a Best Actor Oscar for what is essentially a supporting role). The sophisticated amongst us will tend to look down upon the sensationalized portion of our media. We will belittle the TMZ’s, the Reality TV shows, and the Angry Talking Heads on the 24-hour networks, but this overlooks the fact that these shows are sometimes genuinely entertaining (not informative, but entertaining). Here’s a good example. Take a morning and listen to AM Radio, Rush Limbaugh, why not? He is after all, one of the best. Notice how he talks with as much fervor and passion during his advertising segments as he does when he talks about politics or the news. This should tell you something about the show. The fact that he is always so provocative no matter what the subject is should be seen as having less to do with his actual feelings than what can be said is a professional style. Words spoken are generally more exciting when spoken with righteous indignation, and his job is to be exciting, not so much to inform. It is okay to enjoy these shows, just as long as you aren't actually relying on them to be informed. No, you should not be watching Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show," for news value. It isn't news. It's entertainment. Perhaps someday I will write an essay on how one can tell which they are watching at any given time.



1987 – Broadcast News, directed by James L.L. Brooks 

But let us stop being so cynical for a moment. How about a movie with nice likable characters that only want to do the right thing. I give you “Broadcast News,” one of my favorite movies and a perfect demonstration of why television probably cannot be trusted with the truth even with the best of intentions behind it. This movie was directed by James L.L. Brooks and is based it on his own experience at a news station. It is about a producer named Jane Craig (played by Holly Hunter) who is fighting the good fight of substantive journalism over flash sensationalism with her colleague Aaron Altman (played by Albert Brooks) a veteran reporter and an expert on everything that reporters should be experts about. Entering the station one day is Tom Grunick (played by William Hurt) who freely admits that he is not a good reporter nor very smart, but is probably the best choice for anchor. What he has people cannot teach. He is good looking, poised, and a really nice guy. Unlike Aaron who is not so good looking, snarky, and increasingly bitter and mean that he is being overlooked and underappreciated.

Admittedly, this is more of a story about people than a satire on the news (there is a love triangle), but what concerns us is the news. There are several things I would like to point out. First of all, the news is a deadline driven business. At the same time is an art form. So it follows that no matter how prepared everyone is, everything is still always rushed, because a news piece can always be made better with the time gained from good preparation. (See clip below of Joan Cusack running through the newsroom to make a deadline with her famous huge 80s hair.) The profession is exhausting and should only be considered by workaholics. Secondly, and here is the tragic thing. It does not matter how hard you work or how well the writing is, or how informative the report is, if it cannot be presented well. The success of Tom Grunick does not come from any scheming of his, but because he is likable. Whereas Aaron Altman fails even though he knows everything and can write anything because he does not like people, and in turn, is not liked by them. When Aaron finally gets the chance to anchor the news one night, he writes a very good monologue about a very important event. Unfortunately he starts sweating profusely on the air. Nobody in the audience even noticed the story. All they saw was a guy sweating a lot. In essence, you cannot present any story whatsoever on the news if you cannot make a good first impression. You need flash without distractions first. Substance comes later. Hopefully you can find a really good-looking person to anchor your newsroom who has the latter. This is presented persuasively in this movie by Oscar nominated screenplay and three Oscar nominated performances (Holly Hunter, Albert Brooks, and William Hurt). It is also a very funny movie and probably the most enjoyable of the five here.


2007 – The Fifth Season of “The Wire,” created by David Simon 

The Fifth Season of “The Wire,” is commonly known as the disappointing anti-climax to what “some people” say (and by that I mean me) is the best thing ever shot with camera. Anti-climax? Sure. But, disappointing? Not so much. To say that would be to glean over what exactly the makers were trying to say about the first four seasons. That would be: if we know what the problem is, why can’t we solve it? Enter the press room of the now defunct Baltimore Sun, facing cutbacks and low morale. It has on staff a couple of producers that are more interested in finding a better job at a better newspaper instead of making the newspaper that they are at competent and functional and a young reporter that is sensationalizing his stories instead of putting in the effort to do real journalism. The ultimate irony: every great story being told, all the important issues, all the fantastic characters in the series are completely missed by the newspaper as they chase a fictional serial killer of homeless people down in hopes of scoring a Pulitzer Prize. I can’t show you any of “The Wire” here on YouTube nor can I really ask you in good conscience to watch an entire TV series in a single article. But here is the creator, David Simon, speaking before Congress about the future of newspapers and his disdain for bloggers. It should be the least interesting part of this article, but probably, by far, the most informative.



I will see you in the dystopic future, where I am sure we will continue to have the same neverending problem with the media.

The Hunger Games (3/5 Stars)

The Reality TV Paradox

Great documentaries are lucky documentaries. The greatness of such films like “Hoop Dreams,” or the “Seven Up” series rely greatly on the unlikely coincidences that somehow were recorded by a camera. Would anybody have cared about the Rolling Stones documentary “Gimme Shelter,” if it did not just happen to accidentally chronicle a murder at a rock concert? Would the mockumentary “Borat” be as hilarious if Sacha Baron Cohen had not coincidentally hitchhiked onto that particular RV filled with those particular outrageous frat boys?

Now at the same time imagine that you were a movie or television studio that is attempting to create a documentary that will be predictably successful. How can you produce a predictably successful product that relies on coincidence? If you don’t do anything you are at the whim of fate and the documentary will either be bad or good depending on what you so happen to record. But if you do things to make sure that dramatic coincidences do occur, you are essentially writing the documentary, which in essence makes it cease to be a documentary. In the end, like much reality TV, you get a product that lacks dramatic effect because unlike real documentaries it is untruthful and manipulative and at the same time lacks the production value and professionalism of a documentary that is sincerely untruthful and manipulative, or in other words, a fictional movie.

I bring this up because, “The Hunger Games,” is a fictional movie about a reality TV show, and as such piles on layers of almost absurd complexity on how the characters are perceived depending on whether it is by us the movie audience, or the TV audience in the movie. In other words, the underlying emotions of a scene are generally undermined by the realization that it is all an act. And how much can you care about a person (even if it was a life and death situation) if you knew they were mugging at a camera at the same time?

I have given this movie three stars because I enjoyed it okay. But I want it also to be known that I have never seen a movie quite like this one, and that affirmation of originality should be seen as a sort of moral victory at least. The story takes place in a future where the United States has split itself into 12 districts and hosts an annual game that pits two randomly selected teenagers from each district into a fight to the death gladiatorial tournament. From district 12, there comes the 18-year-old Katniss Everdeen (played here by the 25-year-old Jennifer Lawrence) who volunteers for the tournament to save her 12-year-old sister from being selected. Also selected from her district is Peeta Mellark (played by Josh Hutcherson). They are whisked away from their poor coal-mining district to the big city where they are mentored by Haymitch Abernathy (played by Woody Harrellson) to be likable, because that is the best way to win these particular games. In other words, the games are not real. They are fake reality TV. Apparently a good old fight-to-the-death would not be predictably exciting enough. There is a whole behind the scenes room of producers here who manipulate the games. This can be done by releasing forest fires or releasing lethal wild animals into the tournament space whenever they feel it will add some spice. The most blatant form of cheating is to get sponsored. If you are “likable” enough, the head sponsors will send you a parachute containing a survival kits that can give you an edge over the competition. In other words, the “Hunger games” are bullshit. And to play into the whole “getting people to like you” survival game, Katniss and Peeta pretend a romance. This is original in that it is the central love story of the movie, and admittedly, I have never seen a movie so willingly and transparently admit that its central love story is contrived bullshit.

I suppose we are now at a point of idiotic media saturation where the only way to seem truthful is to exert the highest amount of cynicism. Everything about “The Hunger Games” is fake. The games are fake. The capital city that the games take place is composed of fake 3D generated architecture. The hairstyles and fashion of the inhabitants are grotesque, garish, and nonsensically exaggerated. (Actually I would admit this is perhaps some of the best effects of the movie. Whoever designed the costume and makeup had a field day with this movie. It is done much better than the action and done so well, that at least three quarters of this movie could be deemed a chick flick.) Every other tribute in combat is a one-dimensional stereotype whether it is the evil Cato (Big Evil Guy) or the innocent Rue (Small Innocent Girl). In fact, the only distinguishable human being seems to be the main character, Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence, who when you think about it, may be the fakest character of all.

Oh boy, what did I mean by that? Well, Katniss is the type of person that does not like to bend toward conformity or try to get people to like her. She just wants to be herself. Now, whom does that remind you of? If you said you and only you, you’re an idiot. That should remind you of everybody. That description describes everybody. In fact, I would argue that Jennifer Lawrence’s best acting asset is her ability to act blank slate and call it individualism. This character has no foibles or eccentricities. It is just Jennifer Lawrence in her plain/beautiful persona having strong feelings for her family and a survival instinct. You would be hard-pressed to find a human being with neither of those characteristics. Do you think it just may be the best marketing ploy ever to take this one-size-fits-all persona and throw it into a story with so much fakery that it seems real by comparison? It would appeal to every person who feels that they are the only real person in a world of phonies (which I would argue is a real cliché way to feel).

The phenomenal success of “The Hunger Games,” should lead to some hilarious movie studio board meetings. I can just see it now: a bunch of middle aged rich guys brainstorming on how they can capitalize on a trend based on the utter distrust of manipulative media because it is ruled by a bunch of middle aged rich guys bent on manipulating people for profit. Vampires were easy. Now I suppose we will have a slew of movies made expressly for profit that aim to expose cliché and promote distrust in manipulative money-grubbing movies. It’s a shame that irony can’t kill.