In my household, we have a tradition of engaging in cultural touchstone events several years after interest in that event has peaked. For instance, this summer, my ten-year-old daughter recently discovered the movie Inside-Out that was released in 2015. The past several weeks, she has watched the movie almost every single day.
I went on an anniversary retreat with my wife a few years ago. On our last night there, we both took time to do something we rarely did together; watch a movie. On the streaming service we used, I found The Hunger Games. Knowing that the movie was wildly successful, I chose it to watch.
Within the first ten minutes, my wife found the premise so disturbing that she turned on the hotel television and watched HGTV.
I loved the movie, thought it was so good that I checked out the book series from the local library and read each novel. As great as the first Hunger Games was, both in print and on the screen, I thought the novels and subsequent movies declined in quality from start to finish. The third book (fourth movie) to me was little more than a first-person video game put to print, racing around the capital of Panem, avoiding booby traps and shooting pseudo-zombies.
The deepest part of THG was the ending of the first book when Katniss and Peeta vanquish all their foes in the arena. According to the rules of the game, there can only be one winner who leaves the arena.
Neither one wishes to fight the other to the death. So, they decide that this edition of THG will have no winner. Taking a bowl of nightlock, they will eat the berries together and die therefore depriving the Capital a single winner.
The Head Gamemaker, Seneca Crane, shouts from above for them to both stop just as they are about to ingest the berries. He declares that they are both winners and the game is over.
I don’t know if Suzanne Collins, the author of the novel series, had anything in mind when she wrote this scene, other than it would speak volumes about sacrifice in an unwinnable situation.
Upon watching this scene play out, I was immediately struck by the similarity to a well-known biblical story from the Old Testament; the sacrifice of Isaac on Mount Moriah.
For those not familiar with the story, Abraham is a patriarch of the Old Testament. From him will come his son Isaac. From Isaac comes Jacob, otherwise known as Israel. From Jacob and his twelve sons, the entire nation of Israel is descended.
Abraham and his wife, Sarah, have no luck procreating. Through a miracle, Sarah bears a son to Abraham in their advanced age.
To test Abraham’s love for God, he asks Abraham to go to Mount Moriah, where Jerusalem now sits, and sacrifice his son there. Abraham obeys and goes to the mountain. He prepares the wood and altar. Abraham raises his knife to kill Isaac when God, seemingly at the last moment stops him.
“Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
Abraham looks and sees a wild ram caught by his horns in a thicket. Abraham sacrifices the ram in place of his son. This is the last moment Abraham ever hears from God as recorded in Scripture. (Entire story is found in Genesis Chapter 22.)
As I have described the ending of THG and Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac, the similarities should jump off the page. In each case, there is a sacrifice that must be made. In each case, a voice from on high stops the sacrifice being made at the last possible moment.
However, in the Biblical story, Abraham’s decision is one made of obedience and faith. He believes that his promised son will be rescued. And if not, that God will raise him from the dead. God’s test is made of Abraham’s obedience and when God sees Abraham’s obedience, he stops the act and provides the sacrifice. God in this case is shown as loving and merciful.
Contrast that with THG. The authority in the world is not loving, but corrupt and vengeful. The games, themselves, are a way for an all-powerful capital can retain its hold on the provinces lest they become rebellious. Behind the strength of the oppressor, is insecurity and paranoia.
Katniss and Peeta decide to deprive the capital a winner not as an act of love and trust, but of defiance to the authority. They would rather die than support the evil in charge.
When Crane stops them, it is of desperation. He can no longer control them. Their act would expose him as impotent. He changes the rules so both Peeta and Katniss may live.
In the ending, I see evidence of a “God is dead” nihilism. Authority is inherently bad. It wishes to destroy the lives of all people, keep everything under control; especially teenagers. The more it is exposed as being weak, the better for the greater good.
I still would recommend the first movie and book to anyone who wishes to invest time in the series. I think the ending was fascinating, whether that exact ending was intended by author/filmmakers or not.
Comments