'Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1' Renews Heated Political Debate

hollywoodreporter.com ^ | 6:12 PM PST 11/21/2014 | by Paul Bond

[BenLurkin]

.... Breitbart.com, for example, John Nolte largely ignores politics in his review of Mockingjay - Part 1, until ending with: “For some reason this feels like the exact right time for a movie about a revolution against a lying, lawless president.”

Likewise, Christian Toto at his conservative site, Hollywood In Toto, largely foregoes politics, though only after opening his review with: “The first two films could be seen as either big government on dictatorial steroids or an Occupy-style lament about the evils of inequality. The franchise's third film … doesn’t change that formula despite the addition of liberal screenwriter Danny Strong.”

... Sarah Seltzer, who laments at Flavorwire: “I assumed The Hunger Games was a rallying cry for like-minded progressives and radicals. This was thanks to its pretty upfront indictment of state-inflicted violence and, in particular, of hunger caused by gross economic inequality. 'Occupy Panem!' I thought. 'Redistribute the Wealth!' But then I learned that the Tea Party dug its message, too, and saw the Capitol as a perfect metaphor for the Obama administration.”

She seems particularly disturbed that, between the release of the first and second Hunger Games films, a group called The Tea Party Patriots held a Hunger Games-themed youth event and even made a short film based on the franchise, where young rebels do battle with statists who try to control the populace through handouts and regulations.

...

And then there’s Andrew O’Hehir, who tried dissecting the politics of the The Hunger Games: Catching Fire a year ago and does likewise with Mockingjay - Part 1.

“There are many reasons to describe The Hunger Games as a work of calculated genius, but one reason is that its parable of Empire and Resistance feels relevant without being specific, and appeals equally to anarchists and Tea Partyers,”

[MomwithHope]

I read the books twice which is saying a lot as I never read fiction. But the books were good and I have watched the first 2 movies a few times. It didn’t surprise me that this third movie was getting panned. I’m not sure splitting it up was such a good idea, turning 3 books into 4 movies. We just came home from seeing it. It was great, loved it and so did our adult daughter. We have both read the books. Hubby did not care for it, thought it was boring and he has not read the books. I think it is a great vehicle for showing some of the dangers of big government and some revolutionaries are reluctant until their loved ones are threatened.