‘The Hunger Games’ Featured in EW’s Nominated for Nothing Series
Whilst we had all collectively dared to hope and dream that ‘The Hunger Games’ would be considered for this year’s Academy Awards, it didn’t come as a huge shock to discover there would be no Oscars glory for the film, particularly given the Academy’s long history of snubbing any film remotely related to a teenage audience.
EW has been running a series called Nominated for Nothing, which focuses on “films that were too small, too weird, or perhaps simply too awesome for the Academy Awards”, among these ‘The Hunger Games’.
Why it Wasn’t Nominated: Young adult novel adaptations have never fared well with Oscar. (This year, there are three* book adaptations in the Best Picture race: Les Misérables, Silver Linings Playbook, and Life of Pi.) The most often cited example of the Academy’s tendency to snub young-skewing fiction is the Harry Potter films, all of which failed to grab nominations in non-technical categories and never won an award in any category. Those staggering stats come despite breaking box office records and gaining heaps of critical praise over the course of an entire decade worth of films.
So even though Hunger Games has some very adult themes — government propaganda, death — its YA origins leave the movie unfortunately pegged merely as a film for teens, which, as we’ve pointed out previously in this NFN series, is an Oscar Kiss of Death. And considering the Potter snub precedent, it’s almost safe to assume that Games never had a chance.
But what about the acting categories? The Academy’s failure to recognize the movie’s talented cast is slightly more baffling considering Woody Harrelson, who played drunken mentor Haymitch, is a two-time Oscar nominee and star Lawrence has not only been nominated before (for her role in 2010′s Winter’s Bone) but is a nominee this year for Silver Linings Playbook. Perhaps that, too, comes back to the movie’s perceived younger-skewing material. If so, that’s sad.
Why History Will Remember It Better Than Amour: Simply put, because there are at least two (likely three) more highly-anticipated films to go in the series. And with the inaugural film’s monster box office start, this franchise is on track to be one of the highest grossing ever.
Propelling the series into success is a cult of Games-worshipers. Just like Potter, Twilight, Lord of the Rings and, of course, Star Wars, passionate fans — who both admire Katniss and envy her smörgåsbord of pining men — have turned a simple film into a phenomenon.
Moreover, it’s hard to ignore that the franchise is helmed by an actress whose professional esteem seems to swell with every passing year. By Hollywood standards, Lawrence is the Holy Grail — an actress who can both bring in critical acclaim and box office bucks (not to mention highly GIF-able). Oscar or not, Lawrence’s star power — like Hunger Games fever — shows no signs of dying down any time soon.
Well, we can always hope for next year! To read the rest of the Nominated for Nothing series, head over to EW.com
Other than the soundtrack and Lawrence’s performance I don’t believe its worthy of any nominations or awards
Gary Ross as a director proved to not only be stubborn while adapting the book to his own view and understanding, but extremely uninventive: I mean, even Maystay Pro could provide a stronger and more powerful message about kids killing each other with their intro for their 50th Hunger Games (Quarter Quell) short than Ross with his shaky cam idea and CGI splatters of blood.
And even on his attempts to be creative he often (not always) failed: Cato calling out on the Capitol? Are you for real? A high tech projector in District 12 at the Everdeen’s (a family who relies on their 16 year old daughter to survive) or how about the fire wings that nobody knew about until seeing the extra features from the home release?
This is entirely my opinion of the movie and its director, and I do not believe it to be a an absolute truth, before anyone jumps on my throath for this comment
And seriously, the girl from the Mainstay Pro short trying to revive his friend and crying ‘I wanna go home…’ still gives me goosebumps.
Why wouldn’t Cato have a moment of despair when he understands he’s going to die, something he was used to not thinking about for so long, and that his life has been crap, really? That was one of the best things about the movie and did a lot to remind the viewers that Careers are also kids scared of dying and are both antagonists and victims of the Capitol, rather than the enemy – which is more than the book ever did.
Ivana: I know we’ve clashed about the “Careers as victims” concept in the past. However, I do NOT think that the THG book itself ignores the idea that the Careers are “both antagonists and victims of the Capitol.” I can see a book purist arguing that the movie should simply have included Cato’s sincere grief over Clove’s death as a way to humanize him, instead of a soliloquy that I also saw as unrealistic. Not that it’s unrealistic for Cato to have that moment of truth, but that it’s unrealistic for him to suddenly go into a Shakespeare-like soliloquy about it.
But I also understand why GR would choose to de-emphasize the Cato-Clove connection, to avoid having the story become too romantic, especially because “Cato and Clove were a romantic couple” is never actually established in the book.
To me, Cato’s whole drawn-out, agonizing death scene, which SC made sure to let us know through the Peeta-Katniss dialogue/exposition was seen as prime entertainment for the Capitol, drove home the fact that even Cato, the bloodthirsty Career tribute, was in the end just an expendable piece in the Games. I don’t think SC meant for us to think Cato got his just desserts, and I really doubt the majority of fandom did; I think they felt sickened and disgusted, and DID see Cato as just as much a victim of the Capitol as the other tributes. (Though you may disagree, I just don’t think the average fan is THAT shallow.) However, I also understand that the PG-13 rating likely kept GR from dwelling on Cato’s death, and that he chose to insert this soliloquy instead.
And anyway, since Collins was involved with writing the script and presumably okayed all those decisions, if she didn’t even come up with them, maybe you should be blaming her for those additions you disliked. (I don’t, since I think the additional scenes were all great.)
I certainly don’t want to jump down your throat but I will give my reasons for liking Gary Ross’ direction:
1. He followed his vision. Exact adaptations of books are not only impossible within a two-hour framework but in the few cases they have been tried are very dull (for example the monstrous multi-hour Russian adaptation of War and Peace). By their very nature film adaptations of books are a kind of commentary on the book – the directors “take” on the subject. If a friend has an interesting “take” on a book I enjoy listening to them even if it is different than mine, and I feel the same way about a movie adaptation of the book. It is worth noting that Ms. Collins was consulted on the adaptation and apparently approved of Ross’ adaptation.
2. I loved the decision to use a 20th century rather than a futuristic feel to the costumes and sets. That not only gives the movie a unique look but emphasizes the social commentary (which I must admit is what attracted me to the books in the first place).
3. Ross has a talent for transitions and there are several examples in this movie that I could imagine using in a class on film technique.
4. Most importantly Ross knew how to use the talent of his actors. A great performance on screen is never simply the doing of the actor it requires an active collaboration between actor and director. Lawrence shines and part of that is due to the fact that Ross knew how to use her. Although I agree that none of the other performances were probably Oscar worthy there are a lot of very nice, better than average performances in this movie and Ross deserves some of the credit.
Having given my reasons for liking Ross’ direction I will agree that I’m not sure that it is worth of an Oscar nomination. I would rank it as a superior don’t know whether I would rank it as outstanding.
The projectors are proba provides by the Capitol. The Games are MANDATORY viewing.
gigantic TV screens at District 12′s square provided by the capitol and seen at the reaping and also seen at district 11
This. Your views on the flaws of the directing are points well argued (even if some may not agree–i myself am somewhere in the middle), but this in particular is too easily explained to be anything other than a nitpick.
The Capitol has decreed The Hunger Games as mandatory viewing. It is therefore perfectly plausible that these screens would be provided by The Capitol (what if they can’t afford a TV? what if they had one and it breaks?), and therefore it wouldn’t be that hard to believe that even poor families could have higher tech TV’s/screens/projectors for viewing The Hunger Games.
I agree that the TV issue is more of a nitpick, though I understand the critique about Mrs. Everdeen and Prim not seeming quite as anxious about Katniss in the movie as you’d expect. Also, remember that Mrs. Everdeen DID come from a fairly well-off family, and perhaps she brought the TV with her when she got married. Or it might have been a wedding gift from a wealthy friend — we know she was BFF with Maysilee, and I assume she was on friendly terms with the eventual Mrs. Undersee as well. While obviously this is speculation, I think the presence of the TV can be explained away quite easily.
I have to disagree with you Death2analog. Gary was smart enough to avoid all the mistakes that other directors in Hollywood would have made – glorifying violence. Plus, he successfully captured the essence of the story and each character perfectly (well, not sure about Gale and Cinna but that’s Liam’s and Lenny’s faults). And the shaky cam puts you in Katniss’s shoes. It’s meant to give the feeling of chaos and urgency that Katniss was feeling. The fire wings, I agree, were a fail, but the projectors were government-issued, obviously. His editting was also genius – watch the bonus feature! Sorry if I sound angry, but I’m sick of all the criticism of Gary when I thought he was pretty perfect.
I agree that Gary did a good job walking the tightrope between showing enough of the violence that we don’t lose sight of what’s going on, without glorifying it or inviting the audience to be entertained by it. While some of this, including the shaky-cam, may have been due to PG-13 rating constraints, I think he also realized that lingering on violent scenes too much would wind up turning it into entertainment fodder, which totally goes against the themes of the books.
I personally think that the shaky-cam technique was a little overused, such as in the Cato-Katniss-Peeta fight scene, in which it was very confusing as to what was really going on. (Almost no one could tell that Peeta DOES point to Cato’s hand right before Katniss shoots it, as he does in the book, although on rewatch, this is included.)
I agree that he did capture the essence of the story; I really see his take on THG as very minimalist, though he did use the ability to move beyond Katniss’s POV, to include nods to the brewing rebellion, and took us inside the game room, which I liked. I did think that Peeta’s character wound up watered down, but I don’t blame GR for that entirely, because (at least per Josh Hutcherson) the changes were okayed by Suzanne Collins as well.
As for Gale and Cinna, I really didn’t mind how they were shown. Gale’s amount of “screentime” really wasn’t that different from the book, we know Katniss thinks about him a lot, but you can’t really put that in a movie without cheesy voice-overs. Cinna seemed to be re-imagined more as a fatherly figure than a friend, and while I still liked him, it does seem many people didn’t feel as attached to him as they were to book!Cinna.
The most serious problem I personally had with GR’s vision is that he really didn’t show the “Hunger” aspect of the Hunger Games. I could see that the populace was obviously politically oppressed through a show of paramilitary force, but I suspect many movie-only fans would have little idea that they were starving as well. His version of the bread scene also didn’t convey exactly how desperate a situation this was for Katniss, and that she sees Peeta as having saved her life. (Which could have been accomplished by even one more line of cave dialogue.) I assume he planned to tackle these issues more in Catching Fire, though.
I thought of that, then I remembered the screens at the square and how Katniss mentions they had a very old TV set…
That scene in particular really pissed me off, cause this is Prim (fragile, dependant on Katniss for so long) and Mrs Everdeen a woman stranded in her thoughts and sadness, ready to see her daughter be slaughtered on Television and did we see sadness? despair?
No, they were leisurely watching the games… and who was directing them? :/
I respect GR for sticking to his vision and not making some action movie. Also, I loved the movie, however, as good as the movie was, it was a horrible adaptations. And that was GR’s fault.
1-The costumes:
Have you seen some of the sketches?? Some of the designers work was awesome…but GR approved the not so great ones. ALL of the Tributes’ Parade costumes were a let down. IDK why he didn’t go with the outfits from the book. D2 may have been the only one.
Katniss/Glimmer/Rue’s interview outfits??? WTF??? The went from being custom made gowns(Book) to dresses you can find in Kholes(Movie).
2-The games
The actual games was not even half as entertaining as in the books. The games didn’t seem hard for Katniss. He could have made the games so much more than he made it.
i wasn’t really expecting it to be nominated for anything for all the reasons mentioned above, but i would’ve loved to see a technical nomination somewhere– maybe for costume design (the fact that mirror mirror got a nom instead of THG still stings), or makeup/hair (i loved the hobbit, but let’s face it, it’s nothing we haven’t already seen in the LotR movies). sad, but expected, to see the film ignored.
as for the acting, i didn’t think anyone stood out enough to get a nod save for jennifer lawrence, and of course they wouldn’t nominate her for this film when silver linings playbook came out the same year. i’m still keeping my fingers crossed for mockingjay, though; katniss’s breakdown has so much potential for a truly moving performance, and if jen knocks it out of the park, that may break the curse of teen movies at the oscars.
Oh my god that is so true. Hopefully Jen will be our guide in Mockingjay to breaking this horrible curse for teen movies at the oscars. It would be outstanding if our trilogy was the first ever movie to take on upon and break this horrific curse. Fingers Crossed(:
I’m also hopeful that in Mockingjay pt2 Josh’s performance stands out big time! That is a lot of potential with hijacked Peeta and his struggle to become himself again even through self inflicted pain (I almost die just reading this part). Josh is awesome and he can nail it. Again, our hope lies with the writers doing a decent job with Peeta (let’s start praying!)
Honestly who cares?
If the Oscar nominating committee is unable to see past its self inflicted YA blinders to see something of value than their discernment seems to be wanting. Thus their opinion irrelevant.
Now, I’m certainly not advocating or demanding THG be nominated because I don’t watch enough popular movies to gauge its comparative cinematic value. However, I am also not a fan of these pretentious film awards where industry people pat each other on the back for their own greatness.
I think the best evaluating standard of something artistic is its impact on the culture and for good or naught The Hunger Games, Twilight (sigh….) and Harry Potter will have far more power in that realm than anything nominated for the Oscars.
will it be possible if Jennifer Lawrence wins the Oscar this year and since she is so loved by Hollywood that catching fire will get some nominations next year because she is in it ?
Or they will prefer to honor her for the Serena movie instead of the hunger games catching fire?
Since Harry Potter never won an Oscar, I believe winning an Oscar is just an insult. The Hunger Games was good, therefore it wasn’t nominated. Actually, as a Harry Potter fan, I’m a bit jealous that the Hunger Games wasn’t nominated at all.
I think THG was a good movie, even a “very good” movie, but it wasn’t “excellent”. Somewhat similarly to Jen Lawrence being nominated for Silver Linings Playbook, and that being considered a weightier performance than her THG one, I think that Les Miserables and Life of Pi coming out in late 2012, totally bumped THG off as a serious contender.
I think that Les Miz is similar to THG as a “pop culture phenomenon that also touches on deep social issues”, but gets more cred because it’s seen as “for adults, but relatable for older kids/teens” (vs how THG, as well as HP, is seen as “for kids/teens, but relatable for adults”.) It seems Academy fashion awards tend to favor “costume dramas” that re-create a historical time period, like Les Miz did. Even if it didn’t, I really didn’t see anything that groundbreaking or jawdropping in the THG fashion design. (Effie was somewhat intriguing, but I don’t think one interestingly costumed character is enough; the other Capitol citizens were only shown briefly.) While I understand why they chose to go in this direction, to make the story seem more plausible than if the clothes had been totally out of this world, that doesn’t make for Oscar cred.
Life of Pi is also similar to THG as a “YA novel adaptation with great special effects”, and LoP did use much more sophisticated effects than THG did. And while the book is actually not considered YA, it does feature a teenage protagonist, and the movie was PG rated and marketed as family-friendly; it’s actually got much more toned down in terms of violence and gore compared to the source book, than THG did.
So, I’m not that surprised by the lack of nominations. The two nominations I thought THG might get were possibly for the original song, or maybe the “makeup and hairstyling” category, but I guess much as “one swallow doesn’t make a summer”, one amazing beard does not make for an Oscar nomination.
I think that from the glimpses we’ve gotten of Catching Fire costumes, though, that a nomination is possible. As for big awards, I doubt the franchise will be considered for any until the Mockingjay films.
Truly, I loved the Hunger Games!!! A lot, but Jennifer doesn’t deserve an Oscar for that, I think she deserves one for Silver Linings. Her acting in that movie was AMAZING. So yeah…