For many children, teenagers, and even adults, this weekend will be all about The Hunger Game’s second movie, Catching Fire. The immensely popular book series, authored by Suzanne Collins, is releasing its second movie of the three-book series.
The Hunger Games tell the story of post-apocalyptic North America. The authoritarian state of Panem throws an annual competition of survival, and Katniss Everdeen, the heroine of the story, is elected to compete in this savage form of entertainment. Katniss stole the hearts of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, so the obvious next step was for a major Hollywood production company was (Lionsgate) to buy the movie rights.
This article in the New York Times, written by Manohla Dargis, gives a fascinating look into why The Hunger Games has become so successful. The reasons for the success of the series are twofold: First, Katniss is a very unique character that appeals to a universal audience because of her wit, skill, and “underdog” vibe. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the series combines elements of pop culture history that are very popular. Greek myths, the television hit show “Survivor”, and many sports movies in which the underdog succeeds are all woven into the fabric of the story.
I thought this was a very interesting way to look at not only the series, but the entertainment we have in today’s day in age. Is the best way to come up with the most successful forms of art just to draw on previous successes and see what’s popular? Maybe it’s coincidental that The Hunger Games resembles so many popular themes that have been influential in pop culture.
I personally hope and believe that while the series may share common traits with other movies or television shows, the author did not intend to incorporate those external features and bring them into her work.
The other thing that this article got me thinking about was the whole book to movie concept in Hollywood. I feel that nine times out of ten, the book is “better” than the movie. What I mean by better is that the characters are more developed, obviously no important scenes are edited out, and the attention to detail is far superior.
While we did not see a movie of any of the texts we have covered throughout the semester, I did find that the productions we attended, while certainly entertaining, were not as engrossing as the books. My main illustration would be from The Nose. what an absurdly funny and bizarre story that was! I thought to give that story any type of physical boundaries would be selling the creativity and imagination of the author (Gogol for those who forgot) short.
I would love to hear your opinions on the topics brought up from this article. Do you think that artists are simply drawing from the past, creating their own new pieces, or a combination of the two? How do you feel about the book to big screen phenomena that has become so mainstream? Finally, should certain writing be left untouched, or is the physical production of a piece always a good idea?
Works Cited
Dargis, Manohla. The New York Times . “Striking Where Myth Meets Moment”. 21 November 2013. WEB. 21 November 2013.
In answer to your question, I think unless artists specify that they draw inspiration from other artists, most artistic work is original or tries to be original. Of course, it’s hard to have a truly unique theme or story to tell anymore. What I think matters more is the way an artist will engage that theme. So, for a writer, a higher quality of writing about a mundane story is a better option compared to a lower quality of writing on an uncommon idea. There are plenty of different ways a character can be represented, the way a perspective from the story is told, or the timeline can be unraveled. The emphasis today is focused on a unique and fresh perspective. However, once any writing attains that certain fame, it comes under a more critical light. The perfect example is Stephanie Meyer’s “Twilight.” As one of the first novels to launch the current fad of supernatural fiction, Meyer’s fan base seemed to grow in thousands overnight. But, in parallel, Meyer’s writing was analyzed to be underdeveloped and weak.
I do think artists draw from the past but also from their present. Artist do tend to find inspiration from other artists that have come before them because they really enjoy their style of messages. Unless you are a forger of art though, when you try and imitate anthers style you can sometimes find your own. It makes art very relatable to incorporate past ideas and mix it with present themes. I really enjoy when books become movies, if the movie keeps to the same message and emotional quality as the book. I say it is an artistic interpretation to make a images from text and display it physically. You can say a play of a famous text is like a movie just not fought on film. The physical production of a piece is always alright when done respectfully to the original piece and properly. Here is an article with an interview with the author of the Hunger Games.
http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/qa-hunger-games-author-suzanne-collins
I don’t think that artists are drawing from the past intentionally; I just think that because so many topics and plot lines have been done throughout the history of cinema and novels, it’s hard to create something completely original. Themes are bound to overlap and concepts may not be entirely new. But I think that’s okay and as long as an artist keeps coming up with ideas that will engage such a large audience, they’re doing nothing wrong. So essentially to answer your question, I think artists are combining past works and new pieces.
The book to screen phenomena is also something that I think is very profitable for the industry. Viewers are already familiar with the work and it’s interesting for many people to see what a movie director and talented actors can do with it. That’s why I think they have become so popular and mainstream, as you said.
To answer your third question, I think some writing should be left untouched. Although I think making a movie based on a book is always an experiment that will result in a product that’s unknown until it’s finished and it’s too late to realize what a shitty translation from book to movie that has just been made. Another interesting concept is a remake of a movie into another movie, such as Spike Lee’s “Oldboy”. The article about this adaptation of an older movie is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/27/movies/spike-lees-oldboy-starring-josh-brolin.html?ref=movies&_r=0.
Nayab.akbari@gmail.com
I think that it’s safe to say that contemporary artists: writers, painters, photographers and even graphic designers among others, use themes and symbols combining elements from the past and present in their work. I think it’s naive to believe that every aspect of artwork is original. Generally speaking, communication uses associations that we’re familiar with. It’s an abstract concept but what I’m basically saying is that the artist wouldn’t be able to communicate with us effectively if we could not associate some aspect of their work from something we’ve seen before. Whether it’s colors, shapes, lines, or symbols, our mind tries to find something familiar in the work. Furthermore, in regard to themes used in the Hunger Games, I think writers and movie producers alike are figuring out that some stuff “works” and some stuff doesn’t. People are not so different after all you see. I think our behavior and response for the most part can be predictable. It reminds me of graffiti discovered in the once lost city of Pompeii. They had dirty jokes and similar ideas of humor that we do now. Therefore I think many element of entertainment transcends across culture and time. http://io9.com/5929627/the-graffiti-of-pompeii-was-downright-raunchy-and-absolutely-hilarious