I’m not usually one to get excited by prequels and sequels many years after the fact, but I’m actually intrigued by this one, for this is a universe I’m happy to revisit. I also go in with the knowledge that The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes is based on a fourth book written by Suzanne Collins, and maybe she had something interesting to say about the characters and consequences that she first created. The Hunger Games movies brought us Jennifer Lawrence, the biggest lead heroin performer from the ought’s YA boom to leap into the acting stratosphere – pair that with an extremely interesting premise, and this franchise has already proved weightier than most.
Set 64 years before Katniss Everdeen ever volunteered as tribute, a young Coriolanus Snow (Tom Blyth) is about to graduate school. He believes he’s about to receive a scholarship, as he managed the highest scores in the class, but a change of plans sees that the graduating year will have to lend their talents to the tenth annual Hunger Games – a contest whereby the Capitol host captive children from 12 other districts, before they fight to the death, as a form of annual punishment for a war that left the region with diminished resources. The problem is that over the past ten years, the Capitol’s collective joy for this barbaric practice has waned and people aren’t watching; it’s up to Snow and his classmates to produce ideas to make the Games exciting again. The mentor who can make their district tribute the most beloved, whether they win or die, will gain the scholarship, and Snow needs that money to support his once-wealthy bloodline, now seriously broke. Director Francis Lawrence, have at it.
Seeing a starving man hack off a leg out of hunger in the opening scene shows that this movie can ‘go hard in the paint’, which is good to know of a young-adult dystopian novel adaptation, and necessary for The Hunger Games. This movie does contain depictions of children forced into murder, which are even more harrowing than the previous ‘Hunger Games movies, since we are now on the side of the Capitol, the ruling class that allows this to happen. I felt quite strongly that this movie really had to have two prerogatives going in – it had to be about Coriolanus Snow, and it had to be about the Hunger Games. After giving this movie the benefit of the doubt for a while, The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes severely left me behind in its third Part – after the Hunger Games are over, the race has been won, and the movie makes a more melodramatic fare out of Snow’s time with the military. With the driving force of the Games behind us, the third act loses its energy, to the point where I might’ve been sitting in my cinema chair describing the movie’s extension as hogwash. I think it’s probably clear that there must’ve been a lot of rich content to sought through within the source material, but characters entering the movie at this point are rushed, although proving pivotal to the plot, and a movie’s goal when adapting a book is partly in being selective with what’s included. I think the movie could’ve gotten away with its divergent ending if the movie had’ve shown stronger focus in the first two acts, better framing its dramatic thread; and a simple way to achieve this would’ve been through the wicked Dr. Volumnia Gaul (Viola Davis) repeatedly asking Snow what The Hunger Games are for – having that be the lingering question that permeates the entire movie. With a runtime of 157 minutes, this movie’s trailer, which actually contains snippets of the final speeches from Casca Highbottom (Peter Dinklage) and Dr. Gaul almost does a better job of telling the story 😬 A third drive to the story that becomes clear but is never explicit, is that Dr. Gaul and Highbottom are competing for Snow’s future and his very soul – Highbottom wants him to fail and offers him a life in ruin if he does, while Dr. Gaul probably also knew Snow’s father and the truth around his involvement in the Hunger Games, so she wants Snow to unlock his true potential, where she can foster the cold callousness in him. This doesn’t come across in the stakes at play until the very end.
I thought Jason Schwartzman might’ve had the hardest assignment of 2023, matching up to Stanley Tucci’s fabulous showing as the future Hunger Games host; but he actually has it the easiest, as he’s meant to be puerile and a shadow of what comes later, since the position is yet to been perfected – and that certainly comes across. I went into this movie most excited to see Viola Davis as the dreadful clown-woman designing the children’s playground of death, and there are patches where she lived up to my expectations, but I feel she could’ve been better. Oh, I feel like she rushed through her lines, and she wasn’t cracked enough in the head to grab the most out of what I imagine her character could be – she should be a woman so consumed by her own thoughts that the students are initially left to wonder how a person as unhinged as her could be left in charge of such a vital operation, before Snow soon recognises her wit. Dr. Gaul’s costumes are remarkably vivid though, and she’s always striking to look at.
Similarly, but more strongly a damp spot on this movie, is Rachel Zegler. Yes, I know there’s been a lot of poison following Zegler these past few months, and whilst some of it self-inflicted, I can tell you that for how Ariana DeBose stood out so resoundingly in West Side Story, I always felt it made Zegler look consequentially weaker by comparison. This year, Zegler was in Shazam! Fury of the Gods and she was good for what the role demanded, but this part, in The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, really hinges on her being indisputably charismatic, and I wouldn’t give it a pass. Lord help Disney’s live action Snow White with all the fuss around it, if the performance from Zegler isn’t close to being ‘the fairest of them all’. As is the case here, Lucy Gray Baird (Rachel Zegler) is supposed to have a strong southern drawl, and it waivers in and out for at least the entire first half of the movie. Why does the movie even give her the accent? Perhaps it’s in the book, but it really isn’t necessary, and I would’ve scrapped it completely. Ultimately, Lucy Gray seems an idea of a character designed to be someone that captures Snow’s attention, but is never fully actualized – like, where does she get the strength to display her worldliness and compassion in the face of certain death at the hands of the piggish Capitol? I also suppose it’s not Zegler’s fault, but her face is always made-up; there’s not a blemish on her, and that’s hardly District 12, even for a stage singer in a band. Thankfully, Tom Blyth is our lead, and I think he proves himself capable of carrying us through a movie’s entire runtime 👍 A special mention to Mackenzie Lansing – her bully character is not so much different than Cato from The Hunger Games, but I like for her that she gets to put a giant ‘Hunger Games entry on her resume. Peter Dinklage is really quite good, if only he was in it more.
I also don’t completely understand the quick shift that turns Snow evil. Is it based on a notion that the District peoples cannot help themselves? Since Sejanus Plinth (Josh Andrés Rivera) cannot stay out of trouble, and Lucy Gray abandons Snow? It wouldn’t surprise me if in the book, Snow does kill Lucy, but the movie couldn’t do that just in case the rebel rousers in the crowd demanded a movie sequel – am I right; am I in the ballpark? Looking it up, it turns out, no, I’m not, as it’s also ambiguous in the book, even if less so as a perspective on the page. But it only makes sense to me if Snow kills Lucy Gray, completely covering his tracks, and as an explanation to how he’s able to get back into the Distract 12 militia camp, after clearly deserting for the day. Bringing back the body of a captured accomplice to the prison break conspiracy, and ending an investigation into a potential murderer who he alone had their trust, would be hard for his commanding officer to ignore, even if they didn’t believe it. It also would lean nicely into Dr. Gaul cackling that Snow had completed his assignment aboard, since she wanted Lucy Gray dead in that battle arena and only let Gray live because her snakes were thwarted. Yep, that’s what side of the debate I’m on; Lucy Gray is dead 😊 This movie’s ending also does that thing where it thinks it has to convey the fledging villain’s complete turn to the dark side – the shoddy Texas Chainsaw’ reimagining, Leatherface, did the same thing, and what, are we meant to believe that nothing else significant happened to Snow in the 60-odd-years to follow this movie, to compound his calloused mindset? Not only is this absurdly irrational, but it takes away the mystery a gap may leave. Having Snow come to the realisation that the Games are for pride in the Capitol – that they are to remind the Capitol that they are the victors – is enough for us to acknowledge that Snow is about to go down a dark road, while he also must consolidate the defeat and mental anguish that should come from killing his friends, before his teacher. It’s an inherent problem of a prequel, filling in gaps that aren’t really necessary, not answering other questions an audience might have, mistakenly creating plot holes in the process, or simply being unfulfilling in the face of the audience’s imagination. And where does it end? Do we need a prequel to the prequel, exploring Highbottom’s time with Snow’s father in high school now? 😄 It could be never-ending.
Truth be told, I have thought about the ending to this movie quite a bit since I finished watching it, and the story does contain a worthy bittersweet irony within its telling of young Mr. Coriolanus Snow. But as I hope to have articulated above, I don’t know how much of that comes out of what is presented by the movie, and how much of it is me making it stick together, as if I was Rosie in P.T. Flea’s circus (A Bug’s Life). I like the way the movie has it, with Snow having to enter the Hunger Games, and I like that Snow spent time in District 12, as it adds to his vendetta against Katniss Everdeen that always felt quite personal later on. This movie will probably lead me to seek out the book, and in that respect, the movie is not a complete waste of time; and not of the same ilk as those Fantastic Beasts’ movies or similar afterthoughts that really make you lament your admiration for a finished franchise that’s suckered you in for more. I’ll bump this movie up half a star because it contains a story I’ve kept thinking about, but the movie’s handle on it is lacking.
2.5
P.S. Why does Lucy Gray flip on Snow? Because she senses he may’ve killed someone else, even though they both already knew he has murdered multiple people out of self-preservation, and still has chosen to go with her into the woods. What if, instead, Snow was visibly grumpy on their trek to the lands outside the districts. Snow had already proposed the idea on their lake adventures, that eventually the pair could re-enter the Capitol together, or at least move to District 2. While Lucy Gray is adamant that she could never see herself allied with the Capitol, playing their game and selling her freedom, Snow misses the point, and assures Lucy that the Capitol would accept her, as she is a Hunger Games victor. Then, as Snow feels his hand forced, with no option but to run, Lucy senses that there is no way Snow will ever be okay with leaving, knowing the potential life and family he has left behind. So, when they find the guns, Lucy Gray sees that Snow has a ticket back in with the Capitol, and will eventually take it. That’s why she flees, not so much fearing the worst, but knowing she’s a lose end, and an end will come…
Leave a Reply