Not your every day average Monday.
I finished my portfolio for my methods class and I'm quite happy with how it turned out. I think I look hire-able. Whether or not that is the case is not entirely up to me to decide.
Other than that exciting tidbit however, I went to see The Hunger Games. I felt the need to have a rounded Hunger Games experience. There were a few parts that surprised me. The main thing that surprised me wasn't even part of the movie. Suzanne Collins, author of The Hunger Games, was actually pretty involved with the movie. She co-wrote the screenplay, she was a producer and I think she did something else though I don't remember.
The reason I was so surprised (pleasantly) is that a great deal of the film, how can I put this, isn't explicitly stated in the book. In the back of your mind, you assume that it's happening, but you don't really think about it because of course, you're following Katniss around as she tries to survive The Games. I understand where these extra scenes are coming from. The book is a first person narrative that takes place largely in Katniss' head. The story develops as she thinks. To make a two hour movie out of her thoughts? Could be kind of long. I think coming at it from a more omniscient (kind of a pun) point of view helped situate viewers who were not familiar with the book. My dad still kept leaning over to ask questions, but he got the gist of it. I didn't explain nearly as much as I did when we first started watching Harry Potter movies. At the same time, I think adding the background, seeing the people of the Capitol actively participating, seeing them stage the games, did add to the movie. I think it helps to ground it in a reality that we understand, one that doesn't quite seem as awful as The Hunger Games really are. Because in the book, you don't see it as a game. It is survival, you don't see people intervening and playing God. In the movie, the conflict is more person to person. In the book you get the impression that anything could happen to these kids and no one would give a crap. In the book, there are people watching and in a twisted way, keeping them safe. In that way, I think the movie is more acceptable to popular audiences, to people who won't pick up the book and see what it's about.
Where my interest was really piqued (particularly after discovering Collins' involvement) was when I started making connections from The Hunger Games to The Mocking Jay. I started reading The Mocking Jay last night, the sequel to The Hunger Games. I would not be surprised to see a movie sequel. They've set up perfectly for it but not in an obnoxious, painfully obvious kind of way. It fits with the story they're telling. Which I think might have a great deal to do with having the original writer on staff.
I don't want to spoil anything, but I will admit to crying at one death, not something I do often. It wasn't a heaving, sobbing affair... but God! How could you not! And to those people who thought it was less effective given the chosen actor, you are fools! Fools I say!
Overall, a pretty faithful adaptation. It is sanitized to a degree. It doesn't feel like you're sitting there for nearly two and a half hours. Neither does it feel like you're constantly on edge. Oddly enough I thought casting Woody Harrelson as Haymitch was quite perfect. Sets were amazing. Stanley Tucci takes a minute to recognize. I think the message is even more blatant in the film version. So, definitely worth a watch, whether you're a fan or curious.