In many ways, Catching Fire is a better movie than The Hunger Games. It does an even better job of portraying the hideous disparities between life in the Districts and the oblivious, self-indulgent luxury of life in the Capitol. And it cranks up the stakes between them by personifying it in a direct conflict between Katniss and the despicable President Snow.
It brings back some favorite characters (Haymitch, Effie, Caesar, President Snow) and introduces some promising new ones (notably Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Plutarch and Sam Claflin’s Finnick). Most important, it avoids making the “games” half of the story seem like a repeat of the first movie, by abandoning the first movie’s emphasis on violence porn, and by changing the structure of the conflict.
I found it absorbing to watch from start to finish, yet it still left me feeling a bit dissatisfied. I wasn’t sure why, until I came across Linda Holmes’ article on NPR, discussing the non-typical romantic roles played by the 3 young leads.
“You could argue that Katniss’ conflict between Peeta and Gale is effectively a choice between a traditional Movie Girlfriend and a traditional Movie Boyfriend,” says Holmes. “…Her larger mission — her war against the Capitol — often drifts out of focus behind her smaller, more immediate mission: saving Peeta.”
The moment I read this, I understood where Catching Fire falls short. Read More…