Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

5 Reasons Why Childish Liberals Love The Hunger Games

Katniss Everdeen: Hope and Change and naiveté.

by
John Boot

Bio

November 22, 2013 - 10:00 am
Page 1 of 5  Next ->   View as Single Page

hunger-games-catching-fire-trailer-burning-dress-outfit

Why does the movie The Hunger Games: Catching Fire excite today’s kids so much? Maybe because it plays to their childish views, which in many cases are interwoven with the central thinking of liberalism. Here are five reasons why childish liberals love The Hunger Games.

1) By spoofing yet glamorizing the media, it pretends you can have your cake and eat it too.

The Hunger Games thinks it’s a vicious satire of media-obsessed culture, particularly reality TV shows such as Survivor, which the movies literalize by imagining kids from around the country being brought to the decadent Capitol City to fight each other to the death for the amusement of TV watchers. But that satire has to be lost on the audience, which is attracted to the films for such spectacles as heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) riding a chariot into an arena filled with thousands of screaming fans in an amazing dress that lights on fire for extra wow. Media-saturated kids walk out of the film picturing themselves being treated as superstars for no reason except being randomly selected in a lottery.

What does all this have to do with politics? Liberals who, for instance, keep proposing minimum wage increases or tariffs to keep out foreign competition are forever blasting things that in reality they love and couldn’t live without, like cheap laborers to redo their fancy kitchens or mow their lawns.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Saw the first movie, reading the books now. From my point of view, it is an [I am sure unintended by the author] description of where we are going. An immoral ruling class in the Capitol City enslaving and subjugating the rest of the country.

Subotai Bahadur
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
John, I think you're overthinking this.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Interesting, I didn't see it that way. I thought the Hunger Games was about a tyrannical govt that stamped out liberty and enriched the Capital at the expense of the districts. There is a mandated distribution of wealth in the story: from the people to the govt and the well-connected. It draws a sharp contrast between a top down centrally planned economy, which enriches the few and a free economy where prosperity is more widespread and wealth is created rather than stamped out. The people are easily controlled because they are kept poor, stripped of the fruits of their labor by the Capital district and demoralized.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (47)
All Comments   (47)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The films look and sound like utter crap. And I hate that overripe, baby-doll, tranquilized, Natalie Portman vibe Jennifer Lawrence has.

I never saw Avatar and my life went on. Something tells me I'll survive not seeing these.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
In reading this column I see that I agree with Mr. Boot's observations about the liberals in general and think he's right about how such liberals would view the Hunger Games movies. Still, as probably the most conservative person imaginable, I enjoyed both movies and am looking forward to the rest of the series. They're effective fantasy, nothing more. Maybe I got over the tendency to overinterpret things; working in the real world and dealing with everyday domestic annoyances will do that to you eventually.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
Many US cities, with the possible exception of Washington DC, are on a downward spiral. Led by Detroit with Camden, Cleveland, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Flint, Chicago and many, many other cities right behind they are a bankrupt shell of what they once were. The heavy hand of government and green regulation has transformed these cities, once marvels of wealth creation from widespread manufacturing and entrepreneurial energy, to black holes of dependence and wealth destruction. They will not be in charge of anything as they disintegrate and their population flees.
46 weeks ago
46 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think you overestimate their childishness and underestimate cunning and viciousness.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Liberals love fiction. So much so, they choose to believe fiction, against all evidence to the contrary.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I personally did not get this impression at all. I loved the books, really didn't think much of the first movie, as usual per adaptations. I saw the Capitol as Washington, D.C.; absolutely tyrannical, power mad, and immoral. Or like the Bolsheviks after taking over Russia and forming the Soviet Union. As for liberals thinking this is a story about the evil capitalist conservatives-- delusional as usual, imo. Liberals always try and commandeer the qualities of good, decent, moral people and project their true selves onto conservatives.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I STILL don't get it: why doesn't one of the chicks with the arrows just assassinate the head bad guy?

Also, why doesn't the all-powerful Wheelchair Guy in the X-Men just cure his own paralysis?


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well, Kathy...

You could always pick up the three books and find out for yourself.

I think you'll get your answer.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
What I remember most from the first Hunger Games is the grotesque look of the rich and powerful in Capital City. One might think the hair, make-up and costumes were over-the-top, but not if you watch our own residents of D.C. on a daily basis. In comparison, the outward appearance of the fictional power people represented perfectly the qualities that the actual people try so hard to disguise.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I saw the first movie but not the second. That movie shouted of the dangers of big government right off. It was too obvious for anyone even half conservative (Libertarians?) that dislike large government - or shrouded from view if you're a big government socialist a--hole. I think that fact - as apparent as it is to me - went entirely over the heads of any liberal watching it. Maybe they secretly blamed the terrible lives of those poor people on Bush if they actually gave it any thought.

The general conditions for that fictional citizenry was worse than those in '1984' in many ways. But the 1984 characters seemed almost devoid of any ability to love - something those in The Hunger Games seemed to have in spades - but little else. And way too much government.


1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I really liked "V". It was some while before the media informed me that the government was supposed to be conservative rather than liberal. I guess if you make the story vague enough, or if the audience is dull-witted enough, one movie can appeal to all sides.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Almost every movie that has a greedy, out of touch, evil government or government official I think is about liberals until I realize that the ones making the movie are trying to portray conservatives as such. Sorry, doesn't match my life experience.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Conservatism and big government are diametrically opposed entities - it isn't possible. Since it was the MSM that 'informed' you then I can see where the mistake was made.

Never believe or trust the MSM. Do like I do - I never listen to them. And I hardly ever trust Fox News.



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When I say media I mean IMDb or wikipedia or something like that. And then when I saw the Occupy movement, a part of me was spirited that Guy Fawkes was remembered (a few of us celebrate Guy Fawkes night where I live) but then I realized they were anarchists, not reformers: violent, petty, selfish, abusive thugs rather than republicans (small r) or gentlemen.

(In V, the government leaders were all fascists, but still most people wrongly put fascism on the extreme right rather that the far left, as it actually is.)

But if you make the evil antagonist vague enough, it acts like a Rorschach blot on which everyone can hang their own interpretations.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Bush II would disagree with you. I don't remember any conservatives at the time protesting Medicare drug benefits, steel tariffs, Department of Homeland Security, stimulus checks, etc.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Your memory is not commodious. Many conservatives opposed Medicare Part D. Bush himself insisted the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security was unnecessary but the Lefto-fascists of Congress insisted on it.

Try again.
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All