Hey, no fair using my own app against me 
I totally get this:
But how can you distinguish this from Backstory?
Here are a list of stories with a Concern of Past:
Do you really see Hunger Games–the movie–up there with these?
Of the ones I’ve seen I’d definitely say it could fit, yes. But I’ve only seen two of those: The Sweet Hereafter and Frequency. (Field of Dreams I saw as a kid and barely remember.)
1 Like
My immediate thought was Snowpiercer. But it’s been a long time since I saw that.
But more and more I’m thinking the problem for the movie is what it took in or left out.
My first thought was (I could probably find better examples) was from just after the final rule change. In the book, Peeta says, “go ahead and kill me, one of us has to go home”. There’s a pretty long exchange between them in which Katniss basically says she can’t do that because she would have to live with doing that for the rest of her life–like being the one to kill the other would be a worse punishment than being killed. This screamed Consequence of Memory to me.
But I just looked up that scene in the movie and it’s completely different – totally rushed! And with none of that back and forth. In the movie she just hands him the berries.
Yes, this whole conversation reminds me of the Marvel conundrum from years back where conflicting Storyforms came into view because some people (me) didn’t have the context of the original material.
I’m sure the book is more explicit (it must be if everyone keeps reading it), but I struggle to see evidence of any of the Past consistently showing up as the focal point of the movie (as an inequity).
And I know it was mentioned before, but the Protagonist/Antagonist in this scenario is…?
2 Likes
I would say Snow is the Antagonist (he works to prevent the tradition of the Games being disrupted, and he gets everyone to reconsider trying when he changes the rules back!)
Katniss is the main Protagonist, she pursues disrupting tradition left and right (without even really thinking about it, she just does it – volunteering in Prim’s stead, making a funeral for Rue, etc.) and through her actions gets others to consider disrupting tradition as well. (Though it’s possible Peeta and Haymitch share that Consider characteristic at times – they certainly get Katniss to consider things towards the goal.)
Yeah, I see what you mean. Also it’s worth pointing out (again) that we did identity a significant break in structure between book and film – the Judgment. Maybe that one break was like a crack in the dam that allowed other Author/filmmaker perspectives to shift things (context switching). Pushing the movie more toward popular action-movie bottom-left, but leaving enough of the book’s message intact that those who have read the book still “get the message”.
The movie has 84% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it makes you wonder, how many of the critics had read the book? Maybe if none of them did, the rating would be more like 65%, or if they all did, it would be in the 90s… 
1 Like
My 2 cents: I feel like the source of the problems in the Hunger Games movie is “kidnapping kids to execute all but one of them.” If they stopped this activity, then there would be no inequity in this story. The backstory world would still be a dystopia with many problems, but there would be no inciting incident to this story.
I haven’t read the book, but the Hunger Games movie has a lot in common with The Running Man. But they mercifully tell the entire saga about the rebellion in one movie instead of 4. 
I know I’m a hypocrite because I probably argued the opposite version above, but the problem I have with this litmus test (in isolation) is that you could use it to argue that a lot of Universe stories are actually Physics (e.g. if the serial killers in True Detective and Silence of the Lambs would just stop killing people, there would be no story).
That said, I am getting that for people who’ve just watched the movie and haven’t read the book, it almost seems like the games are somehow separable from, or incidental to, the dystopia, which is maybe why the story seems “all over the place.” In the book, it’s pretty clear the author’s intent is to show how inextricable they are. The Hunger Games ritual must persist in order for the Panem dystopia to survive.
1 Like
You have to be careful with that test and what it means for some aspect of the story to stop. For instance, in SIlence, wouldn’t there still be a killer on the loose even if he stops killing? In Hunger Games, if the Games are brought to an end, is it really no longer a problem that they’ve gone on for 70+ years? That the Capitol views the citizens of Panem the way they do and treats them the way they have and do? I mean…I guess it can be hard to say with the film because, as Jim says, it’s a disaster. But point is, be careful with how much of the story you toss out with that one point.
2 Likes
I’ve been thinking about the last few posts, the litmus test, etc. I think maybe the problem with the movie is one of scope.
Is the problem in the story only to do with this year’s Games? Or does it encompass more than that, the institution of the Games themselves?
To me it’s very clear that it’s the latter. (In fact, before re-watching, I had argued for the former, but had my mind very clearly changed.) But it’s very possible that it’s so clear because I’ve read the book.
I can certainly see that if you can watch the movie and see it as just about surviving this year’s Games, then maybe the OS could be in Physics etc. When I re-watched (after not having seen it since it was in the theatre, long before I discovered Dramatica) I kept asking myself that question – could the Goal be simply to survive this year’s Games? And the answer was always an unequivocal no. This story is about changing the status quo, unsticking what is stuck in Panem.
But again, a lot of that could be subconsciously filled in by the novel – which, it bears pointing out, was critically lauded, and super popular. (The New York Times described it as “brilliantly plotted and perfectly paced” which probably has something to do with structure.)
Missing those pieces, perhaps you can see the movie as just about this year’s Games, even while parts of it are trying to accomplish something completely different. That’s the only reason I can think of it could be considered a “disaster” – it’s not perfect, but to me it certainly deserves the 84% tomato rating, if not higher.
1 Like
I would lean more towards an OS of universe (like, say Hotel Rwanda or Silence of the Lambs) if the focus of the plot was “these kids were kidnapped and are stuck over there so the goal is to escape or rescue them.” But no one tries to escape or break them out in any significant way, while those were the main concerns throughout Rwanda and Lambs. I never felt like the problem was so much that they are stuck but that they were preparing for the game in the first half and actually doing the game in the second half.
The training act felt very “learning.” The OS acts felt very much like the typical LODU sequence (learning, obtaining, doing, understanding).
I think the story drivers are decisions. In every case below, we see the deliberation and decision. They don’t go directly to actions.
- They randomly choose the sister of Katniss.
- Katniss decides to play up the fake relationship with Peeta.
- Katniss decides to ally with Rue.
- Crane decides to change the rules to allow same-district teams.
- Katniss and Peeta decide to eat the berries (after Crane decides to undo the team rule above).
I’m implying above that Katniss and Crane are the protagonist and antagonist of this story.
I think they also set up the larger story that is told throughout all the books/movies. Perhaps those story points are confusing the analysis.
Hmmm – they literally are stuck in a dystopian society that there is no escape from…
I think this goes back to what @mlucas said. If the Goal of the story is to win or survive the games, then maybe Physics makes sense. But if that’s the Goal (Obtaining?) then all of the OS characters should be Concerned with Obtaining in one form or another.
But they’re not. Katniss and Peeta don’t care if they win – they just want to go home to their families. In Peeta’s case, he doesn’t want the gamemakers to change who he is. As for the Capitol, they don’t care who wins. It was never about winning per se. It’s about putting on a show that forces people to remember their place in this society.
I hear what you’re saying about Hotel Rwanda and Silence … but again, it’s tricky to zero in on one story point like that. What is Wallace trying to escape from in Braveheart? What about The Fugitive or The Prestige or Platoon? These are all stories about something fundamentally out of whack in the Universe of the story.
1 Like
If it’s an OS with something out of whack in the universe, then how is that resolved (un-whacked?) at the end?
What “past” gist is closest to the inequity?
@HaroldLloyd we did cover all of that above. (I even came in with the same opinion, disagreeing with OS Universe and top-left Concerns, only to have my mind completely changed!)
See this post for @Lakis’s fantastic summary which includes plenty of illustrations for the Past Concern & Goal. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that all the story points line up so well – but I’m willing to concede that the movie may not be a perfect representation of the book’s storyform.
2 Likes
Maybe the closest analog is Jurassic Park. I vaguely remember the OS was supposed to be a situation / the past also. I bring it up because it also feels like an activities OS in many ways, but you could argue the root inequity is the past.
For example, I can understand how these “universe” gists connect: being stuck in a reality show, on a game show, in a zoo / the jungle (Jurassic Park), and being held captive.
And perhaps “the past” gists could be: doing something that has been done before (we’re recreating a small taste of the war where we beat you), trying to prevent a repeat of past tragedies, and traveling to prehistoric times (Jurassic Park).
I certainly see the MC, IC (especially), and RS concerns and issues you described in every act of the movie. Perhaps the book and movie aren’t that different after all.
1 Like
The closest gist I found in Subtext was "Being Punished For Past Transgressions”.
But I also think it’s worth remembering that a Concern of that Past has a Consequence of Memory, and often the Antagonist in a story appears to be “for” the Consequence. So in this case, the Capitol Antagonists are forcing the Districts to “memorialize” their own defeat via The Hunger Games.
I think in Stop stories, the Consequence is often already in place (?)
The thing with some of those examples is that they’re using Storypoints as storytelling — talking about structure, instead of reflecting it.
I think I’ll go over them today in class for those Hunger Games fans who want to show up 
Our discussion in the Writer’s Room REALLY made it clear how much reception can differ when you experienced the source material, versus not. Totally fascinating!! It’s almost like you subconsciously allow the book to become the subtext of the film, wherever things are missing or unclear.
Also interesting how the storyform for the analyzed Harry Potter film matches the books, as JK Rowling was very closely involved in the film productions. (And also how the lack of complete storyform for movie 1 matches book 1 – it’s like “no this one is supposed to be a tale!”.)
2 Likes
In line with your observations, I have noticed that with regard to a few scripts and films, when I have read the script, there can be the opportunity/trap of the same filling in of the “missing or unclear” by taking it from the script - where it is clear and/or not missing- and mentally inserting it into what was on the screen. One film that comes to mind where this was most apparent to me was the pilot show for the FX series “The Americans”. This is why I believe that, when it comes to the film on the screen, “author’s intent” really means the collaborative intent of writer and director (and maybe a few others…).
2 Likes
So I’m more confused now. I went from a skeptic to a believer to now I suppose I’m agnostic.
I finally had some time to watch the Subtext Writer’s Room regarding this thread.
I’ve come to these conclusions about the movie (and movie series):
- The movie has abrupt subtlety, “hoping” viewers to catch on, “knowing” readers will.
- The movie uses too much screen time to set up the series form at the above expense.
- The subtle context for the first movie is available only in the full series or from the book.
- The throughlines, over the set of stories are so crazily tightly woven analysis is hard.
- Thus, the movie, as Jim said, is actually a mess.*
Ultimately, I think these discussions have significantly helped me understand how much detail a writer can actually get into with descriptions and scenes in a novel versus a film, and what it may cause under scrutiny. So, thanks for this: It was extremely helpful.
*This is something I actually agree with, thinking back on my first attempted watch. Jim said the movie fell flat or felt boring or something like that, which encapsulated my original sentiments, until I watched the entire series. (Though, I suspect that is still messy, too…)
2 Likes