Hm, that’s a good point.
Katniss and Peeta’s Desire for each other overcomes the Problem of who has the Ability to win the games – that’s a pretty elegant answer. You have almost convinced me. Regarding “earning favor” – that’s something that they attempt to do pretty early on. How early on can the Solution start to come into play? Or is that just setting up the ending?
I am having a hard time letting go of Fate as the OS Issue 
Thanks to you both for your comments and for welcoming me. I really feel these discussions are a great way for everyone to learn. Loving the community so far.
I actually been thinking about this film quite a lot today – relooked over all the comments etc, and really felt at some point I would change my mind but I think it’s actually strengthen my resolve (oooh steadfast). I think I feel even more strongely that the overall story is activity.
I really don’t want to slow down this activity, so I’m perfectly happy with this comment to be moved to its own topic – but I thought I would state my case cos I think it brings up some interesting things to discuss.
Before I continue, I do believe the fugitive is a situation – I’m happy with that.
When I’m trying to work out the form of the hunger games part one I’m trying to see it as one film/book rather than a series. Getting into the mind set that this is a stand alone film/book, and no other film was made after. What is the form of this film – forget what comes after.
The first thing that came to mind was that the focus of this story is the hunger games themselves – yes the battle only take place in the third act, but everyone else is preparing for it (structurely very similar to any competition based film). The concern of every single objective character is who will win the hunger games. The participates want to win it, the mentor’s want their students to win it, the districts what one of their own to win it, the capitol want there to be a justified winner (no sitting around and waiting for others to die), the residents of the capitol want their favourite to win it (which is what the sponsorship is about in a way – helping out their favourite – like betting on the horses).
On the flip side of that, I can’t think of a single character who has a real active concern about the situation (oppressor/oppressed) to the point they are doing something about it. For example, the suggested goal “breaking the Capitol’s tradition”. Who is pursing that, how are they pursing it? Who’s helping in getting to that goal? Who’s hindering it? When I think about these answers I come up short.
Also, another issue I have with situation is that it suggests that everyone on the oppressed side sees the situation in the same way, that it is a problem for all. I don’t think that’s the case. The extent you see it as a problem all depends on what district you come from. People from district 1,2,3 probably don’t have so much issues with the games or the governments way of doing things, as the people from 12 and 13 do.
Also – the situation of the objective character has a massive effect on how they view the games. For the low district it’s all about surving. For the top tier districts its about winning. Wining the games, going back to your district as champion. As a warior. They wear it as a badge on honour. These are the ones that volunteer for the games. I’m sure if you are from district one and your father/mother was a winner there would be a real drive to follow their foot steps.
which is why I lean towards MC as situation. Because how the activity of the games looks and feels on depends on the situation of the main character. The character’s situation either means the activity is something to fear or embrace.
Our subjective view of the film is from someone who is from district 13 who doesn’t stand a chance of winning because of her situation, and comes from a distict where the games are to be feared, there is no winners (look at the difference between winners from district 1 and from district 13 – D1 are treated like rock stars, celebrities. D13, they become burns out because of survivor guilt.)
If they had used someone from district 1 as the main character the film would be completely different, the games would be viewed in a completed different way – however, the objective story would still stay the same (concern about who wins).
I see the story of an activity and showing how easy/difficult it can be depends on your situation (social class). Every obstacle Katniss comes across is made difficult because of her class and background, and her predujice view of the higher districts (very much like the prejudices between working class v upper class). She hasn’t the education (how to manipulate people to give yourself the best chance/”playing the games”) or the training (district one they train their whole lives for the games) to give herself a real shot.
When you forget about the other films and just concentrate on this film (as in, pretend like the other three don’t happen) it’s hard to see the overall story as a situation. If the situation is about the oppressed verus the oppressors, the situation does not change – it’s the same at the beginning than it was at end. Yes, something as definitely stirred – people are definitely beginning to question the situation, but just look at the second film for prove. They have another hunger games. Nothing has changed. In fact, with the second film the people have even more reason to be angry (people who have won the games have to take part again – going completely against what they are promised), yet they all go along with it.
I also think OS Activity & MC situation makes sense in regards to the RS and IC. RS as manipulation feels like the only logical choice. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is all about manipulation – if you see the relationship as a single entity it feels like playing a role. The relationship is completed and at full strength when it is able to represent the idealistic view of a relationship – star crossed lovers – Romeo and Juliet – I would rather die than be without you type bullshit. It’s not a real relationship, but for it’s usefulness in terms of the story goal it doesn’t have to be.
The IC feels like fixed mind to me with Peeta. I was trying to work out what inpact he had on Katniss and a realised that the answer might be in regards to situation. They both come from the same background, both have little to no chance of winning and have no idea of how to “play” the game. But they differ on degree of skill which I think makes all the difference. Katniss is a somewhat skilled fighter which gives her more of a chance of winning, if still only a little. it’s that slight hope that actually makes her weak. Peeta has actually no skill whatever, and he has accepted that he isn’t coming out alive – which actually gives him strength. He isn’t scared of dying which means his decisions are motivated about making a difference, making sure he doesn’t die in vain – as long as Katniss survives and he has some role in that it will all be worth while.
It’s actually at the end when Katniss gets rid of her fear of death that she is about to make a real impact on the world. Her need to have them both survive that she is willing to join him in death. If it works they both survive, if he doesn’t they both die and haven given a big fuck you to the capitol – “if I’m gonna die, I’m gonna die on my terms”
That’s my two cents.
No time to respond to all your points @Myster82 – I’ll circle back today, but in the meantime maybe @mlucas has some thoughts. Quickly though:
Yes – absolutely we need to limit ourselves. This is one of the things that can get very confusing with analyzing a series.
This isn’t actually how Universe stories work – OS characters will always see the Situation from different vantage points. Some will be invested in it, some will suffer from it, etc. The point is where the the source (or root) of the conflict is (and yes, this can be hard to parse out).
If nothing has changed, why is the Capitol so upset at the end of the book? Why does Katniss worry for the lives of her family and friends?
The first book addresses the 74th Hunger Games – that means the ritual has been playing out fine for 73 years. It doesn’t matter who wins, as long as there one and only one winner.
@Myster82, let’s consider the movie Pitch Perfect where the Goal is for the Barden Bellas to win the national acapella competition. So I think what you’re suggesting is that Hunger Games has a similar structure to that – the Goal is for Katniss to win the Hunger Games?
The problem with that is that, if Katniss had just gone in there and slaughtered everyone, I don’t think it would have been a Success. The objective Goal wouldn’t have been achieved. I think that story would be a Tragedy (Failure/Bad).
I don’t think Hunger Games was about winning at all. That’s what the Capitol wanted them to think. But the story was about overcoming the Capitol’s control, even in some small way. Changing the games, breaking with tradition. As we see in the sequels (and even in the fist movie with the riots in District 11) this small break from tradition can spark the fire of rebellion.
Very well put!
The Solution can be “sprinkled in” early for sure.
I know what you mean about Fate, it would make a pretty awesome Issue, but I really think the quad underneath Interdiction fits better? And Fate/Destiny are still in there for sure.
One thing about this storyform with Ability as the Problem, it would mean Hunger Games is very similar structure to Harry Potter but with the Domains switched. And I actually think that makes a lot of sense – these stories do have a very similar feel, with some differences (oppressive world vs. bad magic). It also might explain the popularity a little bit – same timeframe as the Harry Potter movies and books were so popular. Also:
Oh, I forgot that Harry Potter was upper left!
Very cool.
Part of the problem I have with TKAD as the element quad is that I sometimes feel like I could justify any arrangement of them (probably because they’re always everywhere?) And the illustrations for Chaos/Order aren’t always that far from Inequity/Equity (both make sense as problems in a dystopian society).
That said, I think your arrangement (i.e. OS Interdiction etc.) works pretty well. I’m willing to call it for now, unless others want to weigh in and/or we can convince Jim to give it a look. Unless we want to try to illustrate the Signposts?
I might try to illustrate some of the other important points that we haven’t touched on much (like Focus/Direction, and the whole IC and RS quads). Feel free to join in on that.
Signposts are always a good idea too. I think the OS Signposts look really good though, they almost illustrate themselves!
Oh wow, those are good. And better than Issue of Fate too – (Present/Past/Future/Progress).
Okay so IC Issue of State of Being is also great. Some gists:
Basically, Peeta lacks guile – his steadfast authenticity influences everyone around him, especially when he declares his love for Katniss – and means it.
Drive of Aware: Being sensitive, being perceptive, sensing what others feel … those all sound pretty good.
Hello! Reading the screenplay for the first film, it seems to me there’s a case to be made for an OS in Activity/Physics (probably Doing) with an MC in Situation (Progress). First, the conflict in the overall story stems from the activity of putting on the 74th Hunger Games - take away the games, the characters would all still live in a dystopian future but it would 100% not be the same story. Like Star Wars, you can find a situation at the zoomed-out macro level, but it’s the back-and-forth between the Rebels and the Empire where the conflict comes from.
Also, the script places a lot of emphasis on Skill vs. Experience from Act 1 onward (e.g. Katniss’s natural hunting skills, the illicitly trained competitors, “don’t show the competitors what you can do too early,” the alcoholic mentor’s approach based on years of experience etc). I also see a lot of potential for the Expectation - Determination problem/solution, but not 100% sure, but the expectations of those around the games seem to be a central point of conflict for all the characters involved.
Meanwhile, Katniss as MC places a lot of emphasis on Security early in the story (e.g. making sure the little sister is taken care of), she is depicted as keenly aware of threats in the environment. She is also forced by an untenable situation (threat to her sister’s life) to enter the games as a volunteer.
This leaves the IC perspective in Preconscious (Confidence/Worry) which I think is fitting if you look at the Influence perspective as the collection of mentors and trainers (Effie, Haymitch, Cinna) trying to build her confidence and representing the broader argument trying to shape Katniss to fit the games.
The relationship story then fits nicely into “being” - playing the role of fan favourite couple, where ability to win contrasts with a mismatch in desire (e.g. He wants more out of the relationship than she does…).
Awesome! Yeah those are all really great. Also consider how much he influences Katniss in terms of Aware – he makes her aware that there’s someone else she cares about besides her own family, aware of her feelings. He gets her to pay attention to what the audience / gamemakers think of her. (I think that last is also where some co-ICs come in.) All of this influence brings her closer to being motivated by Desire.
State of Being is also really great for that one quote/clip we keep going back to, where Peeta says he doesn’t want them to change who he really is – his true nature. That concept is huge for influencing Katniss.
Thanks for your thoughts @bbto. This is obviously a tricky one!
I honestly feel like the premise of the story is that Skill & Experience don’t matter much when the Games are rigged by the Capitol. The Careers have all the skill and experience in the world and they all die. The Gamemakers constantly interfere and the story is about finding a way to survive and change things from within their system, without losing your grip on who you are.
Also, the story feels heavy, it has weight to it, like Harry Potter, Arrival and other top-left Concern stories. It doesn’t feel like Star Wars or Into The Spideyverse or other top-right stories that I’m familiar with.
I think you could take away the Games and the root problem of the story would still be there. And I think you could replace the Games with some other sort of Reaping-based control of the Districts, which isn’t a battle, and still end up with the same story(form).
Hi @bbto!
Just to quickly add to to what @mlucas was saying:
I don’t think there is really any back-and-forth in The Hunger Games. Star Wars starts with the boarding of the rebel ship and the dissolution of the Senate–in other words, in the midst of the war. The Hunger Games is replaying a ritual that’s been going on for 73 years.
So again in Star Wars you have Obi Wan (and later Yoda in Empire) constantly reminding Luke to be calm, which is beautiful example of Preconscious (get control of your impulsive responses). I don’t see that here. Hamich being a drunk could be an example of Preconscious, but I don’t see that particular aspect of his character having much impact on Katniss’s resolve. Contrast this to the clip of Peeta I posted upthread, which feels very much like he’s influencing Katniss with Psychology/Conceptualizing/State of Being.
So, just thinking about the OS Focus of Equity, some really interesting gists pop up:
I think in a lot of cases the Capitol tries to focus on the positive aspects of these, pretending that things are fair, that the odds can be in your favour, that the Reaping is random and thus fair, etc. While the protagonists (Katniss et. al.) and the Distrincts see the negative aspects as problems (things aren’t fair, the Capitol has all the wealth and power; the Gamemakers don’t always create a fair playing field, tributes like Rue are unfairly young etc.).
Tributes seeking favor and trying to get a better score than others (11 for Katniss, 7 for Rue) are good examples of the Direction of Inequity. Actually, the Careers teaming up and ganging up on others, also fits a Direction of Inequity really well. It’s like “Katniss is too close to our level” (Focus: Equity) so let’s gang up on her (Direction: Inequity). Leading to Katniss and Rue seeing how unfair that is, and responding by tipping the balance in their favour (that’s an Inequity gist, and it’s funny how Katniss literally tips the tracker-jacker nest out of the tree).
Even the Hunger Games themselves are Equity -> Inequity. “In order to seek stability in Panem we randomly and fairly select two people from each district to take on a disproportionate sacrifice”
Oh I saw this from 2012 release 
:
Great picture!
Those are all great examples @mlucas which made me think of others. Throughout, everyone is responding to things by seeking an advantage – getting sponsors to send in parachutes of helpful things, etc.
Right, so it’s supposed to be fair (Equity) but it’s also set up so you can put your name in more than once to get more food but this will give you a greater chance of getting chosen (Inequity).
And then there’s very idea that the tributes are supposed to play by the rules in the arena – but in the end, Katniss and Peeta break the rules (though maybe that’s bleeding into OS Solution).
Jumping quickly to the RS:
Memory we mentioned: it is their memories of each other that serve as the foundation of their relationship.
Suspicion: By virtue of being in Hunger Games together, they should automatically be suspicious of each other. But also, their “star crossed lovers” bit is something that sits under an implied cloud of suspicion – they’d better not give anyone any reason to doubt its sincerity.
Projection: Fine, they’re in love now, but extend that to the future and … only one of them can survive the Hunger Games, right? Other Projection Gists:
Awesome! Love all those examples! This is really coming together
And just quickly (I think I’m about to go watch #2 Catching Fire), I was thinking about the RS and thinking how it ends somewhat unresolved. I think the Solution is applied at times, but I think they’re still unsure of things between them, and they suspect (Suspicion again) that their relationship can’t remain the same in District 12, that the closeness they found won’t last.
It’s definitely unresolved in the book:
“I don’t know. The closer we get to District Twelve, the more confused I get,” I say.
“Well, let me know when you figure it out,” he says, and the pain in his voice is palpable.
FWIW skimming the last chapter has me even more convinced that the Judgement in the book is bad – it’s all about how they have to rewatch the deaths of the other tributes in a video recap, how they have to be extremely careful in how they present themselves, while underneath they’re obviously traumatized.
That makes total sense. It’s interesting – I actually didn’t watch Catching Fire tonight. My daughter decided she didn’t want to because it has a “bad ending” (we’ve all seen it before). I think movie studios know that it’s a bit harder to sell non triumphant movies! And I bet it was doubly important for them with the first movie of a series.
Okay whoa, I just thought of something regarding the RS. Maybe it’s because I just watched Knives Out last night, and I remembered Jim’s article with the hilarious Projection illustration being the MC’s projectile vomiting… But our Hunger Games RS has Projection as the RS Problem, right? And…
Peeta threw her the bread!
How’s that for projection? Haha. I know it’s kind of silly, but it actually was an important thing in their relationship, how Peeta had treated her at the start, and how he always regretted not handing it to her. In the article @jhull says that Projection is to “assert what will probably happen based on what you know”, and I think that’s the major source of conflict in this relationship. They project from that initial meeting that they can’t ever become friends, leading to all sorts of suspicion.
Love it! Though (and this was for Knives Out too) I’m feeling a little dense in understanding how that kind of projection is related to projecting into the future. (There’s also psychological projection – projecting your issues onto someone else – does any of that count as a Dramatica gist?)
Anyway yes, I think Projection is very strong for their relationship.
For Focus and Direction we have Equity/Inequity again, which also works – they start the games on a level playing field but soon Peeta is committed to giving her an advantage over him. But that could also be part of the IC throughline.
I think it would count. There is a “projecting onto others” gist already. It would be like, if you have an issue with criticism, you would predict how someone else will likely react to criticism, based on how you know you react.
I think it’s more of a silly thing that doesn’t really fit the element unless real Projection is wrapped around it, like at the end of Knives Out. But who knows, maybe it’s also a visual analogy, a clue to the mind that this weird and interesting element is in play.
With Peeta throwing the bread, it might have been based on predicting that if he handed it to her, he would likely get in trouble, and/or she would likely come back begging for more. (Was any of that in the book?) In any case, the distance that projection creates in their relationship is difficult to overcome.
Yes, that was pretty important in the book. I don’t remember if he threw it to her.
What’s left then? MC Focus/Direction of Knowledge/Thought?