Feminism in The Hunger Games

                     
                       In 2011, Suzanne Collin’s The Hunger Games become quickly worldwide Young Adult literature best seller. The story revolves around Katniss Everdeen, a sixteen-year-old girl that takes her younger sister’s place to fight in a survival-of-the-fittest tournament in a post-apocalyptic world. She puts herself in danger in order to protect her family, sacrifices for her district and tricks the capitol (the game leaders) through the means of her wit and intelligence. Eventually, she survives the game that forces twenty-four children to fight to their death, along with Peeta, the romantic interest who is described as far weaker than her.

 

                       Someone I immediately thought of when reading the book was Hermione Granger’s character in the Harry Potter series. What is refreshing from Collin’s is that the series main protagonist is female, and stands on her own. Though both characters share similar characteristics of intelligence and loyalty, Katniss’ character defers significantly by the fact that she is strong physically and smarter than even the strongest male characters in the books, in the arena.

   

                        Furthermore, Katniss is a strong contrast of many other female literatary characters, namely Bella Swan from the Twilight Saga. Swan is the epitome of the modern-day damsel in distress, whereas Katniss doesn’t rely on a strong male character to save the day. The trilogy has now turned into a major motion picture, and little has been changed, least of all Katniss’ strong characteristic and her portrayal of the feminine ideal. In a sociological perspective, Katniss can be seen as the feminist character that is fighting Hollywood’s age-old idea of the hegemonic masculine character and ideals constructed of gender roles that have always been in place. Throughout the book, Katniss saves Peeta on more than one occasion and challenges what it means to be a strong female character, or what it means to be a strong main character, that isn’t defined by her gender. Sociologically, the “powered” woman has now transitioned in books and film from the masculine patterns of patriarchy and into individual women coming to terms with their lives. With Katniss, this means a stronger ideal role model for girls and an icon for feminist readers for both the book and the silver screen. “For women, the need and desire to nurture each other is not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power is rediscovered,” said Audre Lorde, writer and activist, in an essay.

 

Photographs courtesy of Lionsgate Entertainment.

Nicholas Sparks - Why so famous?

How do film directors and producers ensure that their films don’t flunk, and end up being best sellers? I recently learned about certain risk management techniques that all these billion dollar production companies use to make sure that all the time and effort put into producing their movies don’t go to waste. They contain tactics like: - sticking to traditional genres and other conventions. - Hiring prominent writers, producers, or directors with a record of success. - Producing cultural products with built-in audiences, for example like: sequels, prequels, remakes, and spinoffs. Etc. There are many other risk management techniques that ensure the success of a film.

That got me thinking about books, and how most of these risk management techniques can be applied to books as well as films, and the first thing that popped into my mind was: Nicholas Sparks.

Why is Nicholas Sparks so famous? Why are his books all best sellers? Don’t people get sick of the same story over and over again? How is he not afraid of once writing a book that’s never going to be read? And the answer to all these questions lied in the risk management techniques.

Nicholas Sparks’ books contain many risk management techniques, and the most prominent ones are: sticking to the traditional genres and conventions. Who doesn’t love a heart-warming romance novel? Famous writer. Everyone knows who Nicholas Sparks is, and what he represents. Built-in audience. Even though his books aren’t sequels of one another, they all have the same basic story line.

All these tactics work because they give the people what they want. Sometimes all the people need is a typical boy meets girl story, with conflicts and ups and downs, and finally it all works out at the end. This is what the audience is looking for, and that is proven by the fact that all of his books are known and loved all over the world. The notebook, A walk to remember, Dear John, The last song, Safe Haven; all of these books are best sellers.







Most of them have been turned into films; highly successful films for that matter. Why? Because they contain what the consumer market wants. They have the same typical story line, a genre that is loved by millions of people, famous directors like Lasse Hallstorm, Adam Shankman and Nick cassavetes, and even the same cover picture; a recipe for great success.

Sadly, all these tactics really work, because at this moment, I really want to watch the newest movie, Safe Haven, based on Nicholas Sparks’ novel. It gives the viewer what they want, a safe, stable, enjoyable love story. At some point (even though none of us care to admit it) we want to watch a corny, mushy, love story where everything works out at the end, and the world is a big bowl of rainbow ice cream, with unicorns flying around. We want the typical cover picture of *hands on each other’s face - falling madly in love - everything is going to work out - living happily ever after*. We might criticize it being such a typical unrealistic love story, while rolling our eyes and leaving the movie theatre, but really, we knew that going in, why did we buy the tickets in the first place? It's our guilty pleasure.

A walk to remember trailer

Dear John trailer

The notebook trailer

Safe haven trailer

The last song trailer

Life of Pi

I remember reading Life of Pi in grade 9 and being absolutely mesmerized by Yann Martel’s novel. The story starts of with the main character, Pi, saying that his story will "make you believe in God." I shared the vastly agreed on opinion that the book was “unfilm-able” when I heard it was being adapted to the screen. seeing the movie this past week—possibly making me the last person to do so taking into regard my hesitation of another “the movie didn’t do the book justice review” (i.e. Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate events—sigh)—I was pleasantly surprised and utterly blown away.

Apart from the movie being a cinematic masterpiece and Ang Lee’s greatest work yet, and the main star of the movie only having gone to the audition in trade for a subway sandwich, the stunning story in the book is adapted so well that it carries the whole movie. Usually, IMAX movies have something lacking, and more often than not are terribly overdone so the audience doesn’t notice all the loopholes in the dialogue, storyline or casting (i.e. Snow White and the Huntsman). (The following is spoiler-ish.) Even after watching the amazing story of Pi’s survival at sea with Richard Parker (the tiger), the zebra, the orangutan and the most annoying hyena ever—who had me yelling at the screen. Of course, the main twist comes at the very end, where you reevaluate everything you've come to learn about the story and sympathize with Pi even more.

The main idea stemming from human sympathy, survival, grief, Pi’s sudden adolescence and that the choices we make and the inevitable realization that we have to live with them and grow. Here comes the kick. When Pi asks the man he's been telling the story to chose between the story of the humans (which includes human cannibalism) or the one with the animals, the man says he liked the one with the animals. The reality of the story is called into question, bringing in the idea of an agent of socialization. In which Pi's world is changed dramatically through an event or group, as well as includes audience (in both book and movie) in being included and choosing to believe which story they liked more. I, of course, along with the two Japanese officials, preferred the one with the Richard Parker (the tiger).

  

photos courtesy of 20th Century Fox.

Reading books: is it still a popular cultural activity?

Considering the fact that the interests of a person may differ from another person, some people enjoy watching movies and/or listening to music regularly, while some people enjoy reading books to enjoy and fulfill their free-time.

Although reading may be considered as an old-fashioned habit to many people (especially to youth) in this century, it’s still enjoyed and practiced by other people. But how do we know that reading is still considered as a popular cultural activity when knowing that the rate of “reading a book” in the world is decreasing massively over time? Let’s elaborate this by supporting it with real-life examples.

The first shining example is Oprah’s Book Club. But first of all, let me define what a book club is in my own words. A book club is an ongoing group activity that involves individuals of similar book choices together to read certain books, discuss them, share emotions and opinions, etc. Going back to Oprah’s Book Club example, who of us would usually read anything about any product—or even buy it—just because a well-known TV personality had once recommended it? Almost every fan of this personality does so. But how did all this happen? Let’s refer to Oprah’s Book Club example again. Oprah has always been entertaining us and attracting us with the variety of topics and stories she presents in her show. She interviews celebrities, talented kids, people with emotional stories of crime or suffering, etc. She made the public more attached to these kinds of stories. The result? The more fanbase she would have. This amazing love that she gains makes it easier for her to say or promote stuff for people to attach to or to do. Furthermore, by forming her own book club and recommending books, Oprah makes more and more people open books and actually read.

The second example is the clever idea of making movie sequels based on books. How is that clever? Almost everyone has watched and loved the first Harry Potter movie before reading the book. What was J.K Rowling’s next step? Her next step was writing the next books of the sequel before making the movies based on them. As some people got attached strongly to Harry Potter stories, of course they couldn’t wait for the next movies to come out to know the rest of the story. As a result, they had only one option: to buy and read the rest of Harry Potter novels to know how the story will come to at the end.