T he Hunger Games" (2012) went down in the history books this weekend with the highest opening weekend earnings for a non?sequel film, bringing in over $155 million in ticket sales. While it ultimately did not outperform "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" (2011), comparisons are being drawn left and right between the franchises. Since debuting, "The Hunger Games" has been hailed as a skilled and truthful re?envisioning of Suzanne Collins' bestselling novel.
This week, we decided to look at what made "The Hunger Games" such a successful adaptation, particularly compared to the Harry Potter franchise, the standard to which all franchises are compared. We at Sassy Cinema aren't trying to ruffle any feathers - we are Potterheads through and through. Generally, we feel that the team at Lionsgate knew what to improve on when making their film, largely due to the example set by the Potter series.
Among the many challenges faced by book adaptations, taking hundreds of pages and reworking it into a roughly two?hour film is paramount. Suzanne Collins' presence as a screenwriter certainly helped make the transition a smooth one. Conversely, the HP franchise often failed to navigate the series' complicated plot, leaving fans disappointed and newcomers confused. Perhaps with J.K. Rowling at the helm, this could have been avoided.
Additionally, "The Hunger Games" was cast flawlessly. Having demonstrated homespun strength and vitality in her Oscar?nominated performance in "Winter's Bone" (2010), Jennifer Lawrence was the perfect choice for the fiery main character of Katniss. However, the excellent casting extended beyond the film's leads. For instance, the casting director expertly picked Isabelle Fuhrman of "Orphan" (2009) fame to play Clove, one of the film's most terrifying characters. It's these little details that make this film great.
HP's filmmakers definitely cast certain parts right - we can't think of a better choice for Professor McGonagall than Maggie Smith. But they also faced enormous challenges that led to less?than?perfect decisions. Namely, their actors aged. Emma Watson may have been a bushy?headed, toothsome Hermione when she was cast at age 11, but she was too pretty for the role when the last movie debuted 10 years later. For "The Hunger Games," the filmmakers were lucky to have older actors at their disposal, leaving less to chance.
Director Gary Ross took more care when selecting actors for cameo appearances. Notably, the choice for Prim (Willow Shields), Katniss' younger sister, was a smart one. For a newcomer, Shields packed an emotional punch and will surely do well when it comes to the final film, in which she'll likely play a larger role given the plot of "Mockingjay" (2010).
But above all else, "The Hunger Games" worked because of pacing. The editing team of Stephen Mirrione and Juliette Welfling made the two?and?a?half hours spent in the theater feel like the blink of an eye. The combination of quick cuts and handheld filming made for a dizzying experience, but also one that reflected that gravity of the material that Collins originally produced.
The third film aside, the HP franchise took little risk when it came to elements such as cinematography and editing. While there were many moments throughout "The Hunger Games" where the action ebbed, the pacing rarely dragged. For a long film, we were still left wanting more.
All in all, "The Hunger Games" was not a perfect adaptation. To keep the movie to a PG?13 rating, director Gary Ross glossed over the book's guts and gore. While we may have missed little moments here and there, like we did when we watched the eight HP films, we were left satisfied. And honestly, isn't that what you want from a film adaptation?
--
Jacob Passy is a junior majoring in international relations. He can be reached at Jacob.Passy@tufts.edu. Alex Kaufman is a sophomore majoring in sociology. He can be reached at Alexander.Kaufman@tufts.edu.
