Hunger games: True to story, but still hungered for more

To be honest, the extreme amount of hype surrounding the release of The Hunger Games kind of pissed me off. I got the impression that people (including the media) were trying to turn it into the next Twilight craze, and while I enjoyed the books I wanted absolutely no part of sure-to-exist creations "Team Peeta" or "Team Gale." And I was afraid all the frenzy surrounding the franchise would take away from my own experience. So I was a little reluctant to see the movie yesterday, but I also kept my expectations low.

Thankfully, I wasn't terribly disappointed. Of course, it's to be expected that any movie will not follow the book it's adapted from exactly, even if that book happens to be written like a TV script. (Author Suzanne Collins apparently was a television writer. Who knew?) But the movie did a pretty good job of sticking with the story and trying to include as much detail about the novel and character interactions as possible. I did find that the movie ran incredibly long, and they could've used some of the people they had on screen more effectively. But more on that later.

Anyway, that being said, there was quite a bit lost in translation. And quite frankly, given the book's writing style I had kind of thought that impossible. I didn't feel as invested in Katniss' story as I was while reading the books.

Let me go back for a minute: For those of you who haven't read The Hunger Games, (pretty much anyone over the age of 25, although with everything being Hunger Games-themed I'm sure that audience is dwindling) it's a young-adult trilogy of Katniss Everdeen, a girl living in a post-apocalyptic world called Panem, where residents of the outlying districts are forced to send two tributes, one boy and one girl, to a gladiator-type contest broadcast on national television called The Hunger Games, where they kill each other off until only one tribute remains. Oh, and the tributes must be between the ages of 12 and 18, so they're basically children. Katniss volunteers to be a tribute to save her sister, Prim, so she is sent off with her male counterpart, Peeta, to train and fight to the death in an arena. What Katniss doesn't realize is that her actions will set off a string of events that threaten to unravel the life she's always known.

Anyway, I liked the books. But that's it. I didn't think they were anything spectacular, and the writing style lacked the vigor and imagination I was hoping for. But the storyline was extremely compelling, and quite interesting. After all, how many novels are about children killing each other in arenas? The writing is from Katniss' point of view, so I had a great time imagining the arena and various characters, even if her inner monologues got tiring.

The movie did not live up to that imagination. There was more that could have been done with the characters of Cinna and Haymitch, and less with President Snow (played by Donald Sutherland, a choice I was originally not happy about but have since come to terms with.) Lenny Kravitz did a nice job as Cinna, but it was hard to really gauge his ability because he spent so little time on screen. And Woody Harrelson as Haymitch also did a good job, but again, he could've played a bigger role.

That being said, Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss and Josh Hutchinson as Peeta were excellent and got just the right amount of screen time. I particularly enjoyed Hutchinson as Peeta, and while I didn't have a specific description in mind when I was reading the books, I thought the movie adaptation was perfect.

Spoiler alert: This would be so much happier if all of the characters except the last three
on the right didn't die. Photo from Vanity Fair.

So, is this a family-friendly flick? The series is for pre-teens or teens, but I wouldn't really take my children to it. Not that it stopped anyone from leaving their 10-year-olds by themselves in the theatre. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way of the world now, and while I could go on and on about the moral decline of parenthood, I'll just say that I honestly don't think children under the age of 14 would be able to fully understand what's going on in the books and the movie(s). The undercurrents of war and politics can make for some raw emotions, and unless your junior is a boy/girl genius and/or has actually suffered the effects of war, it's hard to imagine him or her fully grasping the meaning of such a state.

Finally, my last issue with the movie was the literal headache it gave me. The camerawork seriously leaves something to be desired. I did not need to see so many different shots zooming in and out all over the place during the first minute of the movie. And the first-person camera effect (think Blair Witch Project) was completely distracting and made me nauseous. Thankfully, it was only used in one scene--perhaps the director, Gary Ross, realized it was in bad taste. The number of close shots was also overdone, perhaps in an attempt to literally draw the audience into the characters' various facial features (or flaws, if you look carefully enough and are feeling particularly judgmental) but it got very tiring after a while. So be warned.

Overall, I did enjoy the movie. I would recommend it to anyone who has read the books because it does a good job of staying true to them (I think it helps when the author is also a screenwriter for the movie), and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the series. I'd still say to read the books first to get a better idea of the world of Panem, but for someone who really wants to hop on the Hunger Games bandwagon, it's perfectly acceptable to see the movie and then read the books. Just don't do it around your children, unless you want to give them the stuff of nightmares.

The impossible just happened: Betty White is cooler than before

Just when I thought Betty White couldn't get any more awesome, she totally did.

Yaaay Betty White!

I just finished her book, "Betty White: Here We Go Again" and loved every page. Not just because it's Betty White (though that's pretty much a given) but because I genuinely enjoyed her writing style and learning about the history of television. You see, that's really what the book is about--her life, as seen through TV shows over the past 60 years. For a minor history geek, not to mention a Betty White fanatic, it's one of the best combos that could be dreamed up.

I've only seen Betty White in Golden Girls, but after reading her book, I want to go out and find every show she's ever been in. Unfortunately, her earliest shows were before the invention of tape (wow!) so no luck there. But there are plenty of other shows that, with a little luck, I could find. And believe me, after reading some of the sketches she did, I will be looking.

Anyway, go read the book if you find it! And I'm not just saying that as a Betty White fan. I love the six degrees of separation idea, and there's plenty of that in this book. TV shows are all eventually connected to each other through actors, producers, directors or networks. All the work that she's been in, from Life With Elizabeth to covering Thanksgiving parades for 20 years, (I didn't know that!) to the Mary Tyler Moore Show, to Golden Girls and beyond is discussed and without a hint of egoism or bragging. Sure, she's proud, but who wouldn't be if they managed to stay relevant in television for 60 years?

If you're looking for serious background on the history of TV I wouldn't really recommend it, since that's not really the point of the book. It just gives you her history and how she took her first steps in showbiz, the format of game shows and getting shows on networks has changed. Basically, it's just enough so that you understand what she's going through at the time, but for a complete TV un-know-it-all (ie, me) it was just the right amount.

And, if you're one of those people who likes pictures with their books, this can help you out, too! Lots of photos included, including a nice color section. It helps get a sense of who all the people from "the old days" are.

I thought I knew a little something about Betty White and her TV history, but this book showed more of the incredibly warm, bright, funny, engaging woman than I could've imagined. With her career taking off once more, here we go again, indeed. I can't wait to see what she will do next.

Erin Morganstern's "Night Circus" shows promise, but a maddeningly slow read

I recently finished "Night Circus," written by Erin Morganstern. And while I was immediately overcome with a desire to have a seizure when I saw the dizzying black and white stripes, I enjoyed this book, though I have to say I was getting more frustrated with it as the story went on.

Photo from http://.erinmorganstern.com

Before I get started, let me first describe what "Night Circus" is about--or supposed to be about. The story takes place over the course of many years, first starting in the mid-late 1800s, and winding its way into the 1900s. It tells the story of two people, Marco and Celia, who have been training since childhood for a challenge that eventually pits them against each other, though they don't know it. The stage for this challenge is the Night Circus, or Le Cirque des Rêves,a magical circus open only at night. Many lives are affected as Celia and Marco eventually fall in love, and the people of the circus as well as the circus itself hang in the balance as the challenge is played out. 


Not the greatest description, but considering how I felt about the book I think it's pretty accurate. What is NOT accurate, is Good Read's description, seen here:

But behind the scenes, a fierce competition is underway—a duel between two young magicians, Celia and Marco, who have been trained since childhood expressly for this purpose by their mercurial instructors. Unbeknownst to them, this is a game in which only one can be left standing, and the circus is but the stage for a remarkable battle of imagination and will. Despite themselves, however, Celia and Marco tumble headfirst into love—a deep, magical love that makes the lights flicker and the room grow warm whenever they so much as brush hands. 

Spoiler alert: The description makes it sound really enthralling and exciting, when in fact it isn't. 


I don't know about you, but I love a good story. As discussed in a previous post,  I really need a good story to get me through a book or movie. And "Night Circus" didn't deliver. The story line was extremely vague and slow, and the pace was even slower. I think in hopes of keeping the reader interested and to bide her time, the author inserted many, many, many passages of excellent description. And they were quite amazing. But when I wasn't vividly imagining the circus tents or smells, I was desperately trying TO imagine what was going on in the story. The "challenge" that Marco and Celia are forced to be in? There wasn't even the merest hint of what it was supposed to be about until 10 pages from the end. The rules were vague, and I as a reader was just as frustrated as the characters who weren't given any idea on what was supposed to be going on. The strings being pulled by Marco and Celia's masters (who, by the way, are HORRIBLE people, as this reviewer points out) are not so much strings as thin bits of thread--you can't even see that they're being pulled because there's nothing to pull.


As for the "remarkable battle of imagination and will" that was supposedly going on throughout the story, it's Marco and Celia building tents for each other in the circus. They collaborate on the project, so I was highly displeased with the choice of words the summary gave me. You can't collaborate with each other in a battle, otherwise it's not a battle. Granted, they're very nice tents, but it really took away from the suspense the book seemed to promise.


And as far as the love story is concerned, I wasn't as bothered by it as other reviewers. It's true that there isn't much development as there could (and probably should) have been, but I've read other books about lovers who can't be together due to various circumstances, evil masters, bad timing, etc. etc., and it's something I just don't mind as much as other aspects of the story like action or dialogue. Maybe I'm just used to it. Or, maybe I'm too cynical to care--after all, half the time the lovers end up separated or killed. 


But don't get too discouraged! Are you a fan of wondrous description? "Night Circus" definitely knows how to take a cue from that. And if you don't mind a meandering story, especially one about circuses, then I would recommend this book. I think it shows potential from the author and I would read something else by her on the hopes that she has upped her game and will provide a story with a little more substance while still combining her fantastic use of imagery.