Will the violence in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire be too much for viewers?
More of the violence happens off screen for the sequel but the added emotion could make it far more upsetting for viewers
One of the most controversial topics surrounding 'The Hunger Games' films is the use of violence - namely that of children fighting other children. In the first film, a few seconds of blood spatter were removed to allow the film to be released in the UK with a 12A certificate but I was still shocked by one scene in particular, where one tribute snaps the neck of another and he crumples to the floor - and I love horror movies! Here, it just seemed wrong and far too graphic. The opening sequence of the games was also very bloody and there was a sweeping shot of numerous dead bodies.
In 'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire', a lotmore of the violence happens off the camera and there is notably less children-against-children violence too. However, the impact is a lot more severe this time around as the film packs a far more emotional punch.
For those who have read the book, there may well be key scenes that stick in your mind when the violence made you gasp in shock. For me, these include the gun on the victory tour, the lashing in the square and the gas in the arena. When realised on the big screen, these scenes are even more shocking than in the novel and many younger viewers will no doubt find them very upsetting - especially the lashing.
It's also worth considering that one of the more notable shifts in 'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' is that of the arena itself. It is far different here, as - in the wake of new alliances - the tributes fight against the arena more than they do each other. There are a number of surprises in store for them but one particularly graphic and nasty moment involves the previously mentioned poisonous gas. The reactions of those involved - and their blood-curdling screams - are immensely unsettling and what the gas does to their skin will certainly rattle the more squeamish viewers.
Overall, the main difference between 'The Hunger Games' and 'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' - with regard to the use of violence - is that we care. We care about Katniss's allies because she cares about them. We even care about the victors we hardly see because of the whole way the 75th games are approached. They are no longer just nameless faces with no personality or back-story - and in that lies the emotional impact both of the violence and the inevitable deaths which await so many of them.
We learned to love many of these characters in 'The Hunger Games' and in the sequel we have even more characters to care about. We are that much more invested in each of them that any violence, no matter how small, hits us harder than before.
Amanda Keats is an adaptations geek who wants to be friends with Katniss Everdeen and Ron Weasley and adores the two authors who brought them and their worlds to life. Sadly, she would probably not last long in a Hunger Games/Battle Royale scenario. Follow Amanda Keats on Twitter and Facebook.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment