In 1944 a British author struggled to get a publisher for his newly penned manuscript. The story was ostensibly about pigs, humans, equines, and other animals. To adult readers it was clear that the author's intent was to satirize corruption, Stalinism, and totalitarianism. George Orwell did get Animal Farm published both in the United Kingdom (1945), the United States (1946), and later its success resonated with readers worldwide.
But despite the popularity of Animal Farm, it is hard to imagine a bourgeoning of tween fandom garnered by The Hunger Games. Orwell's Horn and Hoof Flag could never touch the fame or recognition of Collin's Mockingjay symbol. The death of Orwell's character Boxer may have produced a fraction of the teenage tears shed for Collins's Roe or Prim. The idea of an Animal Farm "store" with "the latest apparel, jewelry, and games" seems not only absurd, but also a poor business idea. But most importantly, Animal Farm did not enter the market as a book for young adults.
 |
| Horn and Hoof Flag |
 |
| Mockingjay |
One possible reason is obvious: Animal Farm was published in 1945 and The Hunger Games reached American stores in 2008. The 2012 Lionsgate film made of The Hunger Games used an advertising campaign of modern technologies that reached the young fans directly. As Brooks Barnes wrote in the New York Times, the campaign reaped the benefits of the kids' "near-constant use of Facebook and Twitter, a YouTube channel, a Tumblr blog, iPhone games and live Yahoo streaming from the premiere."
And yet few young adults will fully grasp the philosophical and political nuances of The Hunger Games. That perhaps is the problem with marketing dystopian literature to children in the form of a movie and molding it into a multi-million dollar franchise. It is a problem of selling literature and movies to consumers who are intellectually unprepared to grasp their fruitful ideas.
 |
| At every promo event for Hunger Games, Elizabeth Banks showed that getting ugly for the role was just acting. |
 |
| “Stupid people are dangerous.” ~ Susan Collins |
The gratuitous sex and abundant comic-book violence in Spartacus distracts the viewer from the wealth of political ideas and philosophical themes in the show. Stylistically and visually, the show resembles Zack Snyder's 300 (2007) more than it resembles Stanley Kubrick's 1960 interpretation of Spartacus. But when it comes to ideas, Starz Spartacus is closer to Kubrick's Spartacus than it is to Snyder's 300. Many of Kubrick's ideas are preserved in Spartacus: Blood and Sand, Spartacus: Gods of the Arena, and Spartacus: Vengeance. Only this time the ideas are beautifully packaged in heightened visual drama, best digital technology, and clever screenplay writing.
So what does Spartacus, The Hunger Games, and Animal Farm have in common? There are some themes and ideas that will not be politically correct to be proclaimed in public. Those ideas are conveyed in Spartacus but they are disguised with sex and violence. People who are ignorant will not even notice what the creators are trying to do with the show.
This is very similar in The Hunger Games. The ideas in the novel are out of the mainstream and outside what is acceptable political discourse in our society. So it is marketed to children and sold as a children book. The children will never understand what the book is really about. But adults who are not ignorant will read the books and watch a show like Spartacus and be exposed to new "secret" ideas outside of the mainstream.
For example, I mentioned the Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus. Stanley Kubrick had socialist ideologies and he idealized Che Guevera. So Spartacus was kind of the symbol there of a revolutionary that can be compared to Che Guevera. The Starz version of Spartacus stays true to Kubrick's version. When the sex and violence are shown in Spartacus, it is often protrayed in a negative light or juxtaposted with the behavior of the slaves/rebels. The negative portrayal is to depict the moral corruption and desensitization of the ancient Roman society. At the same time, the viewer becomes like the Roman citizens thirsting for a show of blood.
The ignorant viewers will get distracted by the sex and violence in Spartacus and miss the point of the show completely. George Orwell used an allegory to get his ideas across rather than just writing a philosophical treatise condemning Stalinism and totalitarianism. In 2012, it is even more unacceptable to say certain things than during Orwell's time. The evidence for this is that the authors and writers disguise their ideas by distracting viewers with either sex and violence (in the case of Spartacus) or by marketing the book to children (in the case of The Hunger Games). That can perhaps explain the adult mania over The Hunger Games. Finally there is an author that does not practice self-censorship.
On the other hand, the creators of Spartacus may just be thinking strategically. In order to keep the show in production, it has to appeal to the masses, and have millions of viewers. HBO may have learned this the hard way, when Rome had to wrap up in only two seasons, because of the prohibitive costs of production. Sex and violence still sells.
Are decoys and allegories better than self-censorship? At some point, the book is not just judged by its cover. The book is valued for its cover alone to the extent that the reader misses the point of the words that fill the book's pages. But maybe that is the writer's point.
This is very similar in The Hunger Games. The ideas in the novel are out of the mainstream and outside what is acceptable political discourse in our society. So it is marketed to children and sold as a children book. The children will never understand what the book is really about. But adults who are not ignorant will read the books and watch a show like Spartacus and be exposed to new "secret" ideas outside of the mainstream.
For example, I mentioned the Stanley Kubrick's Spartacus. Stanley Kubrick had socialist ideologies and he idealized Che Guevera. So Spartacus was kind of the symbol there of a revolutionary that can be compared to Che Guevera. The Starz version of Spartacus stays true to Kubrick's version. When the sex and violence are shown in Spartacus, it is often protrayed in a negative light or juxtaposted with the behavior of the slaves/rebels. The negative portrayal is to depict the moral corruption and desensitization of the ancient Roman society. At the same time, the viewer becomes like the Roman citizens thirsting for a show of blood.
 |
| "Kill them all." With theories of justice. |
The ignorant viewers will get distracted by the sex and violence in Spartacus and miss the point of the show completely. George Orwell used an allegory to get his ideas across rather than just writing a philosophical treatise condemning Stalinism and totalitarianism. In 2012, it is even more unacceptable to say certain things than during Orwell's time. The evidence for this is that the authors and writers disguise their ideas by distracting viewers with either sex and violence (in the case of Spartacus) or by marketing the book to children (in the case of The Hunger Games). That can perhaps explain the adult mania over The Hunger Games. Finally there is an author that does not practice self-censorship.
On the other hand, the creators of Spartacus may just be thinking strategically. In order to keep the show in production, it has to appeal to the masses, and have millions of viewers. HBO may have learned this the hard way, when Rome had to wrap up in only two seasons, because of the prohibitive costs of production. Sex and violence still sells.
Are decoys and allegories better than self-censorship? At some point, the book is not just judged by its cover. The book is valued for its cover alone to the extent that the reader misses the point of the words that fill the book's pages. But maybe that is the writer's point.
I really enjoyed this post. It was fun to read. I too watched the first two seasons of Spartacus but I have not been able to keep watching it this season as it has just gotten too much sexploitation and too little story telling. I understand that sex sells but to me it seems like in this case the story is just an excuse and what the real purpose is to show softcore porn on TV.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed watching The Hunger Games, I have not read the book but one thing that I would liek to point out is that the best method of getting a point across is to deliver it in a way so that you don't even notice that someone is trying to influence you. I liked it for its entertainment value and I would have actually preferred seeing a little more of the rebellion of the other districts in the movie but it was successful in setting the tone and to build the empathy that is required to make an argument so effective. The way you end up sympathizing with the character who lives in a dystopian society does so much more than telling an account of horrific hegemony in a dystopian society. What is wrong for catering to the young adult crowd?