The Hunger Games film thread

[Xondoure]

Well, nobody actually lives in the districts, so yeah. But if I grew up in such a place and had those skills(likely, I lived in a rural, low income area...and seriously, those are the kind of places where people learn outdoors skills), then it makes sense.

I don't get the fixation on family as opposed to other groups.



So, we've got risk weighted against early entries. In short, this makes last year entries significantly less risky than early year entries. Definitely pretty broken as a system.

Yes but you're missing the part where these people need that food. If they don't have it they will die. So naturally it follows that people are forced to enter their names in at an early age, and will keep doing it because as you said the risk goes down every year. Insidious if you think about it.

[Reverent-One]

Well, nobody actually lives in the districts, so yeah. But if I grew up in such a place and had those skills(likely, I lived in a rural, low income area...and seriously, those are the kind of places where people learn outdoors skills), then it makes sense.

Except, of course, for the fact that you don't get the opportunity so easily in the districts. Getting caught can bring about severe punishments, which could mean you have little to no desire to do so, or even if you do, your parents might keep you from taking the risk. Not to mention how you might well be busy learning other skills, like Peeta, who grew up learning baking.

I don't get the fixation on family as opposed to other groups.

They're only the people who raised you and all. Why have any special feelings towards them?

Though from a cold, emotionless standpoint, if you have 2 or 3 family members that rely on you, that means leaving them to suffer is causing more harm than not volunteering for a single person.

So, we've got risk weighted against early entries. In short, this makes last year entries significantly less risky than early year entries. Definitely pretty broken as a system.

Not really, it's likely intentional, the more you use it, the more it costs you. That's kind of (read: entirely) the basic idea behind it.

[Lord Seth]

Looks like Aaron Seltzer and Jason Friedberg are at it again and are going to bring out a spoof of this film called The Starving Games.

The worst thing is that I'm sure someone could make a pretty funny parody of The Hunger Games, but the film those two produce isn't going to be that movie.

[Tyndmyr]

Except, of course, for the fact that you don't get the opportunity so easily in the districts. Getting caught can bring about severe punishments, which could mean you have little to no desire to do so, or even if you do, your parents might keep you from taking the risk. Not to mention how you might well be busy learning other skills, like Peeta, who grew up learning baking.

Yes, because all children and teens ALWAYS obey rules.

They're only the people who raised you and all. Why have any special feelings towards them?

Though from a cold, emotionless standpoint, if you have 2 or 3 family members that rely on you, that means leaving them to suffer is causing more harm than not volunteering for a single person.

This is not about a cold, emotionless standpoint. The point is that there will likely be bonds other than that of family, as is common in what seems to be a relatively small community.

In fact, going by the movie portrayal, it's almost weird that she isn't pretty familiar with Peeta already.

And you have what's obviously an accident prone area, and an increased mortality rate of at LEAST 2 people/year, families will be rather less stable than average. Lots of people won't HAVE families.

Not really, it's likely intentional, the more you use it, the more it costs you. That's kind of (read: entirely) the basic idea behind it.

...no, it doesn't. The more you use it, the less it costs you, if you time the usage right. For instance, if you have two children, one of which is older, and need a bit more food, you have the older child put his name in. Less overall risk, even leaving aside the obvious advantage older children have in the games themselvs.

[Reverent-One]

Yes, because all children and teens ALWAYS obey rules.

Enough fear and they might obey these specific ones, or getting caught and facing punishment for it.

This is not about a cold, emotionless standpoint. The point is that there will likely be bonds other than that of family, as is common in what seems to be a relatively small community.

In fact, going by the movie portrayal, it's almost weird that she isn't pretty familiar with Peeta already.

And you have what's obviously an accident prone area, and an increased mortality rate of at LEAST 2 people/year, families will be rather less stable than average. Lots of people won't HAVE families.

The children often do (perhaps because if they didn't they would not survive), beyond that is irrelevant to the topic. And while there are be bounds beyond family, that doesn't mean that people would be willing to cause problems for their family for one of those bonds, especially if their family consists of more than the one person they'd be volunteering for.

...no, it doesn't. The more you use it, the less it costs you, if you time the usage right. For instance, if you have two children, one of which is older, and need a bit more food, you have the older child put his name in. Less overall risk, even leaving aside the obvious advantage older children have in the games themselvs.

Which is still more risk than if they didn't use it at all. Still, using it for some amount while younger does cost more than using it the same amount while older, since the entries will stick around longer. But so what? If you need it when you're younger (like Katniss and Gale did), that fact does not help you at all.

[The Glyphstone]

Yes, because all children and teens ALWAYS obey rules.

When the punishments involve public beatings, whippings, or even being shot dead...that's a bigger incentive for said children and teens to obey the rules than, say, being grounded.

[Tyndmyr]

Enough fear and they might obey these specific ones, or getting caught and facing punishment for it.

Many will. Some won't. Pick any set of rules, anywhere, and plenty of people broke them, even if the punishment was death. This is especially true if following the rules might lead to death(by starvation, etc). People gladly take risks when survival is on the line.

The children often do (perhaps because if they didn't they would not survive), beyond that is irrelevant to the topic. And while there are be bounds beyond family, that doesn't mean that people would be willing to cause problems for their family for one of those bonds, especially if their family consists of more than the one person they'd be volunteering for.

Often. Not always. All you need for the system to break down is for a couple people a year to decide to volunteer. Or even most years.

Most people will have strong family ties. Some will not. And, if successful, volunteering leads to a life of wealth and fame. That's a pretty big pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for someone in danger of starvation.

Which is still more risk than if they didn't use it at all. Still, using it for some amount while younger does cost more than using it the same amount while older, since the entries will stick around longer. But so what? If you need it when you're younger (like Katniss and Gale did), that fact does not help you at all.

If you're in a family, you can expect such gaming...because if family bonds ARE important, then it's extremely reasonable to do so. If it's your last year, putting your name in is viable even if you don't need it...to ensure your family is better off and is less likely to need it on the younger kids, or less likely to run out of food when they have no kids of age.

[Reverent-One]

Many will. Some won't. Pick any set of rules, anywhere, and plenty of people broke them, even if the punishment was death. This is especially true if following the rules might lead to death(by starvation, etc). People gladly take risks when survival is on the line.

Which is why Katniss and Gale break the rules, and most do not.

Often. Not always. All you need for the system to break down is for a couple people a year to decide to volunteer. Or even most years.

Which obviously doesn't happen. Nor would the system break if they did, all it would mean is that families with children of the right age would have a few years that suck a bit less than usual. Such action would only make the people more dependent on the system, and thus the games. Doubt the capital would have a problem with that.

If you're in a family, you can expect such gaming...because if family bonds ARE important, then it's extremely reasonable to do so. If it's your last year, putting your name in is viable even if you don't need it...to ensure your family is better off and is less likely to need it on the younger kids, or less likely to run out of food when they have no kids of age.

Basically what you're saying is that the system is broken because it takes advantage of the most desperate since less desperate people aren't penalized as badly. While it's true they aren't (it is better for older children to get tessera if any need to, which is why Katniss and Gale don't let their younger siblings do it), given that we're talking about the capital here, costing the most desperate the most is likely intentional. They could also want older individuals to use the tessera more, since older kids generally make for better combatants and thus, a more entertaining game. So again, what's broken about it? You haven't broken the system by realizing the point where it screws you over the least if that point still fits within the system. No one's getting rich, they still get their names in the jar more times, so the system seems to be working as intended.

[pendell]

Okay, just got back from seeing the movie in the theater. Not bad, not bad at all.

I know it's a trilogy, but haven't read the books so I'm going to treat the movie as a unit, ignoring potential sequels.

Watching this, I saw it as essentially an update of the old Roman 'bread and circuses' in a most literal sense. We have an Emperor/President figure and a rich city being kept fed by the districts, which in ancient Rome were actually the provinces. Those familiar with either the New Testament writings or the normal history of Rome well know how The City was perceived by the provinces -- a decadent, corrupt harlot drunk on blood and murder, fornicating with all the world. Roman taxgatherers took grain to feed Rome cheaply on subsidized bread (witness the wealth and technology of the capital compared with the third world conditions in the districts), and they took men and beasts to fight to the death in the Colusseum, for the pleasure and entertainment of the mob which would otherwise start rioting and upset the delicate power structure set up by Augustus and his successors.

The use of Roman-style chariots for the gladiators -- excuse me, tributes -- to ride in, and names such as 'Flavius' and 'Octavia' further cement this metaphor.

With regards to the children fighting, I was reminded of Orson Scott Card's 'Ender's Game', where the best and the brightest are taken to fight in a war far away. That war is both beneficial to the society of Ender's Game, but it also has a secondary effect of removing the great military commanders from Earth and sending them far, far , away, thus further cementing the power and control of those in charge.


If the author wished to satirize the fact that young people go off to fight for old people, I wish to call some basic biology to the author's attention which explains *why* wars are fought by young people.

Young people, to put it bluntly, are at their physical peak. Young people are at the height of their physical and mental powers but also have very little money, power, or influence to show for that. Old people typically have lots of money and power, but are no longer able to physically protect it themselves.

This is why young people are almost always the ones pushing for change in any society. You look at any protest movement, any revolutionary movement, any war, it's almost always young people who are, at bottom, hungry for more than they have. In the civil rights movement, it wasn't old gray-hairs marching in the streets. Nor was it old gray-hairs fighting in WWII, nor storming the barricades in Revolutionary France, nor conquering South America for Spain. Cortes was in his early thirties, Napolean the same age, Alexander only 22.

Young people have the power to change the world and the motive -- their own poor position -- to do so.

Old people -- the rulers -- typically DO have all the power and money, and desire most of all that it pass directly to their heirs without pause, but have no way to directly compete with the young. The goal, then, in any society is to physically prevent the young and violent from simply taking what they want, while choosing the most powerful, clever, and ruthless of the up-and-coming young to be the guardians of the system. To take Conan the Barbarian and make him into Conan the King .

In the world of the movie, the hunger games fills this role. By taking the crop of young people every year, society eliminates potential rebels and revolutionaries who could quite reasonably ask 'why is it that they have everything in the capitol and we have nothing'?

In Ancient Greece, the tyrant Thrasybulus was asked for advice on ruling. He took the messenger into a wheat field and cut down the tallest stalks, demonstrating that the ruler must eliminate the foremost among his subjects so that there can be no rival leaders to challenge his rule. This occurred even in ancient Athens, where once a year one citizen would be Ostracized , banished from the city for ten years. Like the tyrants of ancient greece, the democracies also banished the best and most able of their people to prevent the status quo from being threatened.

And this is the primary function of the games -- a literal reaping, in the sense of Thrasybulus above.

And, just as it eliminates potential threats to the regime, so too it also chooses the best and most dangerous and infuses them with wealth, giving them a stake in the system. And so the system perpetuates itself into the next generation. While our heroine will no doubt prove an exception in later books, I'll wager that many hunger games survivors eventually take positions of power and responsibility and are the system's most ardent defenders, because it took they who had nothing and gave them fantastic wealth, which means that if the system ever falls not only do they go down but it also means that they killed all those people for NOTHING, nothing at all. It rips away the mask from their actions and they have to face the truth of what they are -- cold-blooded murderers who killed their fellow humans for their own gain.

As in OOTS Start of Darkness, there are a lot of people in this world who just don't have the ability to face that about themselves. So they continue down the path of rationalization , of self-delusion, buying ever more deeply into their own 'deals with the devil' and passing it on to the next generation until it becomes long-set Tradition.

As a bonus, the mechanism of sponsorship allows the rich and the powerful to tip the scales heavily in favor of their own progeny. Recall that I mentioned earlier that the wealthy and powerful desire to pass on their wealth, their position, and their power to their heirs intact , together with the social system that made them what they are and will make their heirs today. So it is not surprising that the children of the wealthy in the movie have all the advantages in terms of equipment and psychology. Many of them have gone to special academies, and they win almost every year. You'll notice that they seem to *love* the games, participating in them not to save the lives of their friends but for their own sake, for the wealth and honor that victory in the games gives.

And so the hunger games fulfills the primary function of society in the movie -- cementing the power of those who have position in society while suppressing threats to those with that power, while taking the best and brightest of the 'wolves' who would upset the order and making them sheepdogs, guardians of the order.

Were we to sit down the president of their society and critique him for the organized murder of poor people's children, his response might be something along the lines of 'There have been 74 Hunger Games, in which 23 contestants die. That's 1702 people in 74 years. By contrast, the battle of the Somme killed 40,000 people in a single day. And that was only one battle on one day in one war in a century known for its wars. Yes, we murder our young people by the dozen every year. And the previous world murdered young people by the thousands every day. I think our way is better.'

Then we ask him how he got a hyperlink into a spoken sentence. He replies technology is better, too.


So perhaps that is another analogy for the hunger games in fiction -- the Thunderdome .

Aunty's Thunderdome may even be the in-world predecessor to the Hunger Games, if Aunty became the ruler of the world. The previous world ended in a war that was 'damn near the death of us all'. But in Thunderdome, disputes occur in a ritualized setting , trial by combat. And the Thunderdome, like the Hunger Games, provides a spectacle to pacify the mob while simultaneously eliminating the physically powerful and violent who would otherwise challenge the system.


Of course, the Hunger Games will end, just as the Roman Empire ended. The original bread and circuses were an inherently unstable system which existed because of some very unique factors, such as Rome's control of the granaries of Egypt. When those factors disappeared, the society became unsupportable and disappeared, as no doubt the Hunger Games in the movie will disappear. Will the new world they build in its place be better? A world where young people will not murder each other on nationwide TV for the pleasure of the old? Will they build a new golden age, or will it be the Dark Ages after Rome?

I guess I'll have to wait and see.

I'm frankly surprised this is being marketed to children. I was 11 years old in 1982, and the books I read -- being young, male and violent -- encouraged me to go for a soldier, or to go for a test pilot, or an astronaut, or a policeman. Those were the openings available to the young and physically active in those days, constructive channels for the inherent love of adventure and excitement most young men of that age have. Why would young people want to watch the hunger games and *like* it? I can see this as fiction for adults, a critique of the problem of power throughout history, but if young people are watching this because they *want* to emulate their onscreen heroes -- to slaughter other children before TV cameras in order to gain wealth and prestige for themselves -- then I think there's been an error in the making of the books and the films. I think the author is trying to hold this up as an example to avoid, not an example to follow, and I agree.

As towards using it as an attack on 'television war', where people watch other people dying in real-time on TV -- well, I have a lot to say on that and none of it is board-appropriate. PM if interested.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tyndmyr]

If the author wished to satirize the fact that young people go off to fight for old people, I wish to call some basic biology to the author's attention which explains *why* wars are fought by young people.

Having not read anything about it beforehand, I did not pick up on it being a satire of that fact at all. If it was such, it was a very ineffective satire.

And yeah, there are very, very good reasons why young people go and fight, none of which were dealt with in the slightest. It is basically only sold as a punishment, which I feel is fairly weak as explanations go. Yours is much more plausible, and the movie would have been strengthened had some similar explanation happened during the exposition from the old master of games to the new.

[AtlanteanTroll]

Actually, it's suppose to be a critique on the war in Iraq according to Word of God. Or was at least inspired by it. I think that's all that can be said there without breaking the rules, but some easy Googling should confirm this.

[Tyndmyr]

Actually, it's suppose to be a critique on the war in Iraq according to Word of God. Or was at least inspired by it. I think that's all that can be said there without breaking the rules, but some easy Googling should confirm this.

Fair, and I have no problem with this, but it doesn't strike me as similar enough to justify it as an effective critique. There's really no great analogies in here...sure, you have young people fighting...but that's true of basically every fight.

I don't think it delivers that message at all.

[pendell]

Maybe so, but it's death of the author time. I choose to engage the film from what it says to *me*, which may not necessarily be what the author wanted me to take away from it.

If the author specifically wants to tie her novels to a critique of a single war, her work will have little to say to the world in ten years. If she wanted to instead critique the problem of war *in general* and the fact that young people go off to fight wars needed by old people -- well, that's an important philosophical point. It's something we've been discussing since Plato, at least.

Plato, incidentally, never doubted the need for armed force. His Republic is a nation guided by the great and the good, the philosopher-kings who rule by wisdom. These kings seek justice and peace and avoid war when possible. But they still have a standing army because not everyone has the same interest in justice. In fact, many of the rulers in Plato's day were military oligarchs, ruling with an iron fist. A philosopher-king could not expect to hold his own nation for any length of time against the Phillips and Alexanders if he did not have a protective class dedicated to learning and practicing the art of war.

And yes, in the Republic the caste of soldiers was separate from the caste of rulers. Plato, being a philosopher, well understood that the art of philosophy and the art of war are two separate things, although there is some overlap. Having some experience of generals ruling in the person of the Thirty Tyrants , Plato was quite anxious for philosophers to have THEIR turn.

Ya think about it, The Capital in the Novels IS Plato's Republic! It also has its multiple castes (the soldiers, the rulers), the compliant citizenry, the "great and the good" ruler who makes decision on wisdom and on intellect rather than on sentiment (note that the President has no use for underdogs), it's Noble Lies . The nation of Panem doesn't spring from nothing but is instead the logical outworking of western philosophy of civilization , of government.

No war springs from a vacuum. The real world isn't a bad space opera where the black-cloaked villain uses a mind-control ray to hypnotize innocent people into zombies who march gladly into battle. No, these wars are entered into willingly by all segments of society, and the young who are marching off to war are typically the most willing to fight because they are the ones who have most to gain. Whether it's funding for college or to escape unemployment or to find adventure or to prove themselves or to 'pay their debt to society' or 'liberate the oppressed' or 'save the people from the kings/capitalists/infidels/villain-of-the-month' or to belong to something bigger than themselves , it typically isn't difficult to find young and adventurous people willing to sign on for the 'grand and glorious adventure' of killing other humans. Isn't that what most fantasy RPGs are actually *about*, after all?

If the author insists on critiquing a single war in history from an extremely simplistic viewpoint, her work will have little to say to the world in a few years. If anything, it may wind up saying exactly the opposite of what she wants to say as people see the rewards of winning the games and the thrill of victory, and ignore her words in favor of the visuals of the movie.

As I said: What the audience takes away is often not what the author intended.

On the other hand, if she wants to engage more generally with the problem of war and how we got to where we are now, I think her work has the potential to be a worthy addition to the Grand Discourse.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ashen Lilies]

Watching this, I saw it as essentially an update of the old Roman 'bread and circuses' in a most literal sense.
Respectfully,

Brian P.

I find it amusing that you picked up on this immediately, because... well... Panem. (Collins is not known for her subtlety.)

Actually, it's suppose to be a critique on the war in Iraq according to Word of God. Or was at least inspired by it. I think that's all that can be said there without breaking the rules, but some easy Googling should confirm this.

I feel that this Word of God was meant to refer to the latter two books, which do indeed deal more directly with themes of war, or at least have certain elements that will be quite familiar to those who have been following current war-related events. The first book, and so the movie, seem quite unrelated.

[Dark Elf Bard]

Just saw it! Rue made me cry. I wish they had fleshed out the country of Panem a bit more, though...

[twinkletoes]

I'll wager that many hunger games survivors eventually take positions of power and responsibility and are the system's most ardent defenders, because it took they who had nothing and gave them fantastic wealth, which means that if the system ever falls not only do they go down but it also means that they killed all those people for NOTHING, nothing at all. It rips away the mask from their actions and they have to face the truth of what they are -- cold-blooded murderers who killed their fellow humans for their own gain.

Yeah, and Haymitch is a prime example of someone who went on to take a position of power and responsibility. Drinking all day and not taking most of the kids he has to mentor seriously, until Katniss and Peeta came along.
Also, in later books,

Spoiler

Show

we meet the victors who are morphling addicts, the victor who is a prostitute, and the victors who are mad. Power and responsibility, indeed.

[pendell]

Just saw it! Rue made me cry.

Why? She was a traitor. Her modus operandi was to win people's trust, then betray them to their death. The first time I saw her in training

Spoiler

Show

She stole someone's knife and got two people to fight over it, meaning they'd be gunning for each other in the contest and not for her

When I saw that, I instantly marked her as someone, if I were against all morality forced to participate in those games, I would eliminate first. She's ruthless, cunning, and wholly unafraid to do whatever is necessary to survive.

She's someone I'd want on my team. But if there can only be one winner, I'd darn well kill her first.

She pulled the same trick on our heroine

Spoiler

Show

She saved our heroine's life to use her as a weapon to destroy her enemy's cache of supplies. Once this was accomplished, she pretended to be hurt, drawing her into a trap from which another ally attempted to kill her with a spear. Purest Plot it killed Rue instead of the heroine.

So I've got no tears for her. I don't blame her, because she was only doing what she had to to survive, but that doesn't mean I mourn her, any more than I would mourn a poisonous snake. Yes, she's young and cute. That was her weapon.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Reverent-One]

She pulled the same trick on our heroine

Spoiler

Show

She saved our heroine's life to use her as a weapon to destroy her enemy's cache of supplies. Once this was accomplished, she pretended to be hurt, drawing her into a trap from which another ally attempted to kill her with a spear. Purest Plot it killed Rue instead of the heroine.

...What.

That's an unusual interpretation, and one without a whole lot of support as we don't really see anything to indicate that she's faking.

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, but baseless theories are the funnest ones - else why would the pony fandom spend so much time considering interpretations of the ponyverse as a warped oppressive dystopia? I think it shows an impressive level of cynicism to portray Rue as the most Rue-thless character in the story and an actual villain.

[Reverent-One]

I just find it rather depressing. Even more than Mockingjay.

[twinkletoes]

Why? She was a traitor. Her modus operandi was to win people's trust, then betray them to their death. The first time I saw her in training

Spoiler

Show

She stole someone's knife and got two people to fight over it, meaning they'd be gunning for each other in the contest and not for her

When I saw that, I instantly marked her as someone, if I were against all morality forced to participate in those games, I would eliminate first. She's ruthless, cunning, and wholly unafraid to do whatever is necessary to survive.

She's someone I'd want on my team. But if there can only be one winner, I'd darn well kill her first.

She pulled the same trick on our heroine

Spoiler

Show

She saved our heroine's life to use her as a weapon to destroy her enemy's cache of supplies. Once this was accomplished, she pretended to be hurt, drawing her into a trap from which another ally attempted to kill her with a spear. Purest Plot it killed Rue instead of the heroine.

So I've got no tears for her. I don't blame her, because she was only doing what she had to to survive, but that doesn't mean I mourn her, any more than I would mourn a poisonous snake. Yes, she's young and cute. That was her weapon.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I approve of this theory

[Megaduck]

...
Were we to sit down the president of their society and critique him for the organized murder of poor people's children, his response might be something along the lines of 'There have been 74 Hunger Games, in which 23 contestants die. That's 1702 people in 74 years. By contrast, the battle of the Somme killed 40,000 people in a single day. And that was only one battle on one day in one war in a century known for its wars. Yes, we murder our young people by the dozen every year. And the previous world murdered young people by the thousands every day. I think our way is better.'

Then we ask him how he got a hyperlink into a spoken sentence. He replies technology is better, too.

...

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Ok, I laughed at that point.

I also think the people that are trying to game the system are missing the point. The Hunger Games are not a means of economic control or put in place to ensure equality of anything, they're a means of brutal repression.

Looking for the best time to request a cornucopia and trying to 'win' that way is like thinking of the best time to snitch on your friend to get rewards of being an informant.

You're not breaking the system, you're playing along with it.

[pendell]

That's an unusual interpretation, and one without a whole lot of support as we don't really see anything to indicate that she's faking.

Spoiler

Show

The fact that she was screaming as loudly as she was -- as opposed to using their agreed-on birdsong -- was a pretty clear indication to me that her 'call for help' was a lure to draw her "friend" in by her heartstrings.

I think it shows an impressive level of cynicism to portray Rue as the most Rue-thless character in the story and an actual villain.

That or too much reading of R.A. Salvatore.

I never said she was a *villain*. That I reserve for the trackers who seemed to delight in murdering the other tributes. She may not have been a villain, but she was a tribute. One who had no physical strength, and survived by greater cunning.

What? They were strangers to each other. Rue had already demonstrated in the theft of the knife and the setting of two other tributes at each other's throats that she was capable of cynical manipulation.

And at game start and through the time Katniss knew Rue, there was only one winner possible.

Given this, is it likely that a young weakling unable to compete physically with the other tributes saved Katniss' life out of charity? Or to use her as a weapon against the other tributes ?

And given there can be only one winner, do you think Rue would have simply lain down and allowed Katniss to win? Or is it more likely Rue would have betrayed Katniss when her usefulness was over? No doubt by stabbing her in her sleep, since Katniss foolishly trusted her and Rue had no way to take Katniss in a stand up fight?

Given these facts, is Rue really the innocent wide-eyed child some here seem to believe she is? Or is she, in fact, a cunning and ruthless tribute who will do whatever it takes to win?

Believe what you will. I choose to believe the second.

If they cared and loved each other at the end, I suspect it's because neither really wanted to be where they were or doing what they were doing, but it needed to be done. So they felt -- pity? sorrow? -- for each other.

Great Scott, why is it cynical to think that a satire of reality shows should follow the rules of reality shows? And rule #1 of reality shows is: In any winner-take-all contest, no alliance survives to the end round.

ETA: The character's name is "Rue" which means "regret". Certainly both Rue and Katniss had regret for what they were doing, which is one reason I don't consider either of them villains. But regretting what you must do is not the same thing as not doing it. "Regret" is not "repentance".

I'm sure that had it come down to the final two and there was no rules changes Rue would have regretted what she finally did to the end of her days, but that wouldn't have stopped her doing it.

Cynical? Great Scott, EVERYTHING about the hunger games is cynical. The two crucial rules changes are the games managers manipulating the tributes. The team of hunters chooses one of their number to help hunt Katniss and openly plot to kill him after Katniss is disposed of. The use of fireballs to herd tributes. What happens to tributes stupid enough to light a fire and advertise their position.

The warm-hearted, weak, and stupid were all killed on the first day. I have no doubt that those who were left were survivors, and they were survivors precisely because they would do what needed doing without sentiment. Everyone was a demon by the end of day two. The difference between heroes and villains is that some regretted it. And some even found ways to push back against the system.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Reverent-One]

Spoiler

Show

The fact that she was screaming as loudly as she was -- as opposed to using their agreed-on birdsong -- was a pretty clear indication to me that her 'call for help' was a lure to draw her "friend" in by her heartstrings.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Not sure why we're still spoilering a 2 month old movie, but:

Spoiler

Show

Or it means she's scared and needs help. The birdsong was set up in case they were alright and merely delayed. If you need to track someone down, following an unknown number of birds in a variety of directions is a bit tougher than a single voice.

Granted, if you assume someone is lying, basically any action can be interperted to fit that. But Rue is meant to be an ally and friend of Katniss, not traitor.

[pendell]

Granted, if you assume someone is lying, basically any action can be interperted to fit that. But Rue is meant to be an ally and friend of Katniss, not traitor.

Then what was the point of the stolen knife scene, if not to establish that Rue wasn't the nicey-nice she appeared to be?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Reverent-One]

Then what was the point of the stolen knife scene, if not to establish that Rue wasn't the nicey-nice she appeared to be?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

To establish she's sneaky, climbs well, and doesn't like the Careers any more than Katniss does. The Careers are obvious "bad guys", being against them helps show Katniss that she's alright. Enemy of the enemy is my friend and all that.

[pendell]

To establish she's sneaky, climbs well, and doesn't like the Careers any more than Katniss does. The Careers are obvious "bad guys", being against them helps show Katniss that she's alright. Enemy of the enemy is my friend and all that.

In my experience "enemy of my enemy" is a poor basis for a lasting relationship and rarely survives the common enemy by much. That goes double in a winner-take-all scenario.

At any rate, this discussion here has prompted me to research, and so far as I can tell from online commentary Rue really was trapped by an enemy and really was murdered and not by accident. So I misjudged her on that account. But my estimation of her sneakiness and cunning remains unchanged, and she is not someone I would turn my back on once our common enemy was eliminated.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Reverent-One]

I don't disagree that down the road, they would have had to fight it out, just that at that time, they were on the same side and honestly did like each other.

On that note, I honestly am not sure how I would expect things to go down if Rue had survived that. Perhaps after the annoucement that both members from the same district could win, they would have said their goodbyes, split up to find their respective teammates, and hope someone else killed the other so that they didn't have to face each other again.

[pendell]

I don't disagree that down the road, they would have had to fight it out, just that at that time, they were on the same side and honestly did like each other.

On that note, I honestly am not sure how I would expect things to go down if Rue had survived that. Perhaps after the annoucement that both members from the same district could win, they would have said their goodbayes, split up to find their respective teammates, and hope someone else killed the other so that they didn't have to face each other again.

And how exactly is Rue going to "fight it out" with Katniss? Arrows at 20 paces? Maybe a wrestling match with a woman twice her size?

Rue cannot match Katniss in strength or in a head-to-head confrontation. She can, however, hide better than Katniss, stalk her, and is quite a bit more intelligent than she is. The logical conclusion of how Rue would pit her strengths against Kat's weaknesses is obvious.

In the best case, Katniss wakes up one morning to find a note saying that Katniss had a grace period, at the end of which time Rue would do her best to kill her. Rue can't afford to tell this to Katniss face-to-face because Katniss could break her neck in seconds. In the worst case, Katniss simply never wakes up.

I don't know how reliable this source is , but allow me to pick out what I consider choice snippets.

While all the tributes are training Rue observes them closely to see their strength and weaknesses. ... Peeta informs Katniss they have "a shadow", Rue peaks out of a corner in response Katniss and Peeta smile at her.

...

Her stalking of Katniss in the training center continued in the arena. It is implied that she had followed Katniss even before the tracker jacker incident.

Next snippet:

Rue fully understood the inhumane and brutal nature of the Hunger Games, and refused to sink down to the level of the others. Instead of attacking at the first sight of other tributes, she spied and gathered information that helped her and Katniss form a plan on how to wipe out the Careers. Katniss supplied a bit of emotional support to Rue, giving her the hope that maybe it wouldn't be all bad.

Bolding mine. Here I must disagree with the source that spying out your enemies strengths and weaknesses, rather than simply attacking them directly, offers any kind of moral superiority. That's simply greater cunning. The intent to attack was always there. Weak people naturally take more care in their attacks than those who have strength to spare.

Next snippet:

It is also her personality that set her apart from Prim. Prim could not stand to see anything get hurt and would have definitely not been able to harm anyone in the Games, but Rue was ready and willing to go forth with the plan, seeing it as an adventure (Prim sees adventures as an ordeal). Teaching Prim to hunt was a disaster, with her crying over the shot animal and wondering if there was time to rush it home and nurse it back to health, whereas Rue was prepared to do whatever to survive.

Bolding, again, mine.

"Prepared to do whatever is necessary" is a pretty good synonym for "ruthless", actually, so to my mind the name "Rue" is ironic rather than descriptive.

Take these different pieces, put them together, and what do you get?

I get the following:
1) Rue is the most intelligent and cunning of all the tributes.
2) Rue has no compunctions whatsoever about doing whatever is necessary to survive.
3) Rue is stalking the main character.
4) In a one-winner-takes-all contest.

Given these four facts, is this someone *you* would instantly take to your heart as a bosum buddy? Not I. As far as I'm concerned, she's the single most dangerous enemy in the game, to be eliminated at the first opportunity.

Yes, she's a kind and sweet girl who feeds her family and loves music. And none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that in the arena she's lethal. She may be 12 years old, but then again so was Ender.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Reverent-One]

And how exactly is Rue going to "fight it out" with Katniss? Arrows at 20 paces? Maybe a wrestling match with a woman twice her size?

I didn't mean in the literal sense, merely that they would have to act as competitors eventually.

In the best case, Katniss wakes up one morning to find a note saying that Katniss had a grace period, at the end of which time Rue would do her best to kill her.

This is very possible.

In the worst case, Katniss simply never wakes up.

This I don't think is very likely, partly because I don't think it fits Rue, and even more because I think Katniss is smart enough to not act like everything is hunky dory once they're down to the last handful of tributes.