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

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.

hunger

2) It thinks hope is a strategy.

In the second movie, Katniss becomes a hero to the downtrodden people, who admire her pluck and form adoring crowds, eventually starting to press her into reluctant service as their savior. Hey, she’s Barack Obama with a bow and arrow!

Liberals get starry-eyed and messiah-bedazzled by political leaders, whereas conservatives take a more practical view of what political figures can and cannot accomplish.

Cinna_&_Katniss

3) It’s condescending to blacks.

White liberals consider themselves stalwart supporters of blacks, but when it comes to policies that harm blacks (like broken inner-city schools and a flood of immigrants that depresses the value of unskilled and working-class Americans), they hastily change the subject to something that does nothing for blacks but does gratify whites’ own sense of moral superiority and goodness: They conduct a witch hunt for racism in every nook of the American psyche.

Similarly, in the Hunger Games movies, blacks aren’t true equals with their own interests. They’re disposable background figures, more like sweet angelic pets or mascots who exist to be friendly helpers, even to the point of sacrificing themselves, so that the white heroes may prosper. That’s why some bloggers deride characters like Rue, Cinna and Thresh as stereotypical “Magical Negroes.”

The-hunger-games-katniss-rue-death-flowers

hunger-games-sign

4) It promotes fatuous Occupy rhetoric.

The Appalachia-like District 12 is full of noble poor people who despise those decadent one-percenters in the Rome-like Capitol City who literally have the underprivileged killed for sport.

This is a clever update of the Marxist idea that “behind every fortune is a great crime” or that if someone is getting rich, he must have robbed or exploited a poor person. In reality, rich people create fortunes by making the world better, brighter or more efficient, and poor people benefit hugely from the innovative genius of billionaires like Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison.

Even The Hollywood Reporter noticed that,

Occupy-Wall-Street liberals are loving the way the film portrays an extraordinary gap between the rich and poor as simply an innate evil. It’s a black-and-white view in which there’s no allowance that the rich might have earned their wealth — they’re portrayed simply as lazy and overly indulged oppressors. The poor are shown as the industrious ones.

1322755736421_16525

5) The central motif is a cop-out.

Amplifying the no-tradeoffs fantasies of liberals who think that, for instance, millions of uninsured people can be covered with no additional cost being borne by anybody else, or that limitless welfare can’t possibly depress people’s ability to scale the economic ladder to the middle class, Katniss almost never has to do anything really nasty — even though she’s a contestant in a fight to the death.

In Catching Fire, though we meet several of the other contestants in the Hunger Games TV event, Katniss doesn’t have to kill any of them except the evil ones. Instead, they simply die off, sacrifice themselves or kill each other.

o-CATCHING-FIRE-POSTER-570

John Boot is the pen name of a conservative writer operating under deep cover in the liberal media.

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
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
John, I think you're overthinking this.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
30 weeks ago
30 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.
30 weeks ago
30 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.
30 weeks ago
30 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think you overestimate their childishness and underestimate cunning and viciousness.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Liberals love fiction. So much so, they choose to believe fiction, against all evidence to the contrary.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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?


35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.


35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.



35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks 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.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 3 Next View All